The Law of Unintended Consequences

[David Josephs]

Question: Is there any unaltered photographic evidence which shows the limo when it was "fifty feet or less" from the TSBD building?

Thanks again my friend,

--Tommy

Towner?

only when the limo is directly in front of the corner curb, where Truly says they almost ran up on the curb...

is the limo within 50-60 feet...

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

David,

Short answer: OF COURSE members of the Dallas Police Department and of the Dallas Sheriff's Department were involved! If you were to watch my recent public presentations on this subject, such as "What happened to JFK--and why it matters today!", which I presented at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, you would know that I identify those entities as having been involved and give my best guess as to two of the shooters: Harry Weatherford, a Deputy Sheriff, from the top of the County Records Building (whom I believe fired/implanted the bullet that hit JFK 5.5" below the collar to the right of the spinal column); and Roscoe White, a Dallas Police Officer who was also a contract agent for the CIA, who fired a shot from the grassy knoll that appears to have missed, even though it was an easy shot, but where I believe he "pulled it" because it was going to harm Jackie. They were also involved in framing Oswald and in faking the "backyard photos". The fallacy you commit is called "the straw man" by exaggerating my position in order to make it easier to attack.

OF COURSE key members of the Secret Service were involved, including William Greer and Roy Kellerman. Emory Roberts is another obvious participant in the assassination, where Vince Palamara has a nice chapter on Greer, Roberts, and Boring in MURDER--where Boring was not boring. My reasons for believing that the motorcycle escort officers were (in my opinion) almost certainly not involved have already been presented, but I am certainly open to further discussion. You may remember that LBJ ducked as the motorcade turned from Houston onto Elm. I like a lot of your work, David, but I do believe that your positions on these two issues--that all the shots were fired from in front and that the motorcycle escort officers were also complicit--are wrong. Greer and Kellerman both knew the shot was going to pass through the windshield, but had surely trained to not react to it. There were so many shooters at so many locations--six, if I am correct--that it would have been extremely risky for those motorcycle officers to have knowingly put themselves in harm's way.

The very idea that all the shots were fired from in front would have made creating the impression that they came from the 6th floor "sniper's lair" virtually impossible to sustain. Look at the witness reports, the overwhelming major of which supported multiple shots from above and behind the limo--where I am convinced that three shots were fired with a Mannlicher-Carcano from the DalTex: one that missed an injured James Tague; one that missed and hit the chrome strip; and one that hit JFK in the back of the head. If you would like to have a debate about this sometime, I am certainly game, because your theory cannot explain any of those effects--nor the wound in JFK's back nor the wound in Connally's back nor the witness reports. You are so far off base about your theory that all the shots came from in front that I reassert, IT IS SIMPLY ABSURD. And if Costella wants to join you in that fantasy, so be it. The evidence and logic are on my side, not yours. So if you want to save face on this forum and in this thread, then kindly explain away at least the following seven points:

(1) the holes in his shirt and jacket;

(2) the wound on his back and all that;

(3) the injury sustained by James Tague;

(4) the wound to John Connally's back;

(5) the wound to the back of JFK's head;

(6) the indentation in the chrome strip;

(7) witnesses reports of shots from behind.

None of us can wait to hear from you, David. And why in the world you would suggest that I buy into the "magic bullet" is simply beyond me. Do you have so much trouble dealing with my arguments that you have to fabricate evidence? Is that something you learned from our common adversaries? I have substantial evidence to support each of the shots and each of the wounds that I describe. Since my reconstruction of the shot sequence builds on the work of Richard Sprague, COMPUTERS AND AUTOMATION (May 1970), which at that early date already superseded the far simpler theory of Josiah Thompson--which, like yours, entails fewer shots but cannot accommodate the evidence--I find it more than disappointing that you would take the cheap shots like these--claiming that I have mixed real shots with imaginary without proof or that I endorse C-399--which discredits your integrity, since I have never maintained anything like that. If you want to demonstrate that you can argue for your position without misrepresenting mine, then do that. I have laid out my reasoning in many places, including most recently, "What happened to JFK--and why it matters today", which has been archived by noliesradio.org.

Jim

QUOTING JIM FETZER: "David knows a great deal about the assassination and the film, but sometimes his ability to reason dumbfounds me. If he no longer believes that all the shots were fired from in front, he should tell us, because that position is absurd. He now declares that there cannot be a motorcade assassination without the escort officers being involved. That is equally absurd. Who would have knowingly ridden into an ambush so close to the limo and run the risk of having, not just JFK's head blown off, but their own? They protested the reduction of the escort to four. They objected to being instructed not to ride forward of the rear wheels. They reported the limo stop and other aspects of the shooting that undermine and contradict the official account. Their own testimony by itself demonstrates that the film is a fake."

DSL RESPONSE:

Thanks for the compliment, but you reveal a major amount of naivete if you believe that this crime could take place without the involvement of (a) certain high level officials of the Dallas Police Department and (b ) certain members of the motorcycle escort. Have you forgotten why the Dallas Police Department radio dispatcher immediately focused on the TSBD as the source of the shots? That it was three officers from the motorcycle contingent who, within 3-6 minutes of the shooting, made repeated broadcasts describing the TSBD as the source, with the last of the three actually pinpointing the exact window? Do you think that was all a coincidence? (See Chapter 14, Best Evidence, for the details of the transmissions, exact times, etc.)

Responding now to your specific comments:

(1) Yes, I believe --as set forth in BEST EVIDENCE--that the shots which struck JFK were fired ONLY from the front. Notice my language: ". . the shots which struck JFK. . " In short, I stand by Chapter 14 of my book, "Trajectory Reversal: Blueprint for Deception.' I am not going to re-argue the point here, but I will have more to say on this in the future. No one observed or reported any rear entries in Dallas on JFK's body, and that's because they were not there. You consistently ignore this critical fact. I do not. (I am ignoring 30 yr plus changed recollection of Nurse Bowron. Under oath in 1964, she denied any rear entry; and I have further corroboration from others that I interviewed.) You persist in viewing (and defining) conspiracy as "cross-fire". That is patently ridiculous, and even amateurish. Further, you seem to believe that two clothing holes are superior to the evidence that the wound on the body was not there. That is another mistake. I'm also surprised that (by implication, anyway) you give any credence to bullet 399 (WCE 399) which clearly was a planted bullet, and intended to "match" the shallow wound which was created "low" on JFK's back. Surely you are aware that that is exactly the way the original FBI Summary Report (12/9/63) was written--and that stems, of course, from the manner in which this farce was "acted out" in the Bethesda autopsy room on the night of Kennedy's murder. (See Chapter 4, B.E., for details of how Humes "discovers" the wound, hours into the autopsy; Kellerman calls SS Chief Rowley, who tells him about the bullet found on the stretcher, etc.) Do you seriously accept all that at face value??

(2) You cite the fact that motorcycle officers would never ride escort if they knew there would be a shooting. I think that is (again) a seriously incorrect supposition. What is far more important--and this is a point you ignore--is that exactly such considerations would in fact apply to the driver of the limo and the supervising agent in the front seat, the two key Secret Service agents involved in this affair. Shots fired "from the rear" --if any missed--would definitely endanger them. But such considerations would not apply if they knew, in advance, that there was little--if any--chance of them being mistakenly struck (because the shots would not be coming from the rear).

(3) As noted at this post: Are you unaware that, in the first 4 minutes, it is the radio transmissions of cops from the cycle escort that call attention to, and pinpoint, the sniper's nest? (If so, please do re-read that section of my Chapter 14). Three of them make transmissions specifying the building, the floor, and--in the third case--the actual window. (Have you forgotten that?)

(4) Another observation: The reason(s) your "diagrams of the shooting" are so criss-crossed with lines, and have shooters firing from all sorts of rooftops and all sorts of directions is that you have combined the false with the real. The result is far from having a "lean and mean" shooting scenario, you have one festooned with spurious shots, and shooters. What is genuine and real is what was observed at Parkland Hospital--nothing more: one shot to the throat (which was, in effect, a "miss") and one, perhaps two, shots to the head. If this is properly analyzed (and this is all set forth in BEST EVIDENCE) that's all there was.

I'm sorry if my orthodoxy on this point troubles you, professor--but that is the proper and logical way to analyze the conflicting data in this situation. If the body is impeached as evidence (and it certainly is, if you agree that it was intercepted and wounds were altered) then you ought to stop "combining" Parkland and Bethesda observations. Bethesda tells us how the body looked at Bethesda--that's all it does. It does not tell us how the shooting took place in Dallas.

Your insistence in combining the two sources constitutes a serious methodological error.

Creating these diagrams in which you depict multiple shooters firing from all sorts of rooftops and multiple directions just confuses the situation, and completely misses the point. (It reminds me of a nuclear scientist who, for some reason, adds several additional electrons to the model of the hydrogen atom, simply because--for some reason--it appeals to his fancy. Sorry, but that won't work).

It is not "absurd" to believe that President Kennedy was struck only from the front. That is completely in accord with the President's body as it was observed at Parkland Hospital in Dallas--and that includes the fact that the body was washed and sponged down by nurses who I interviewed and who don't report any wounds on the back of the body.

The body as it actually looked at Parkland not only reveals how the shooting took place; a comparison between the body at Parkland and the body at Bethesda reveals the nature of (indeed the blue print for, or the algorithm of) the strategic deception that was employed in Dealey Plaza, and which hides the truth in this case.

DSL

1/13/12; 2:40 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

BELOW HERE. . the original post of Prof. Fetzer (with a few additional "DSL" interjections).

I don't want to get into a prolonged exchange with David Lifton. He is right that there are elements here that anyone could dispute, which he is disputing. Fine. Surely he understands that, if the FBI was contacting the newspapers in Dallas and New York to insert the sentence that, "The doctors did not know if the wounds were caused by one bullet or two", as we learned from Connie Kritzberg and can find in The New York Times, so a lot of time and effort was being spent on sowing seeds of ambiguity and confusion. The question should not be whether there are bit and pieces that could be disputed but whether there is anything here that tends to confirm other elements of these events that has significance for major issues, like the limo stop and Chaney's motoring forward. There are, as I accent.

David knows a great deal about the assassination and the film, but sometimes his ability to reason dumbfounds me. If he no longer believes that all the shots were fired from in front, he should tell us, because that position is absurd.

He now declares that there cannot be a motorcade assassination without the escort officers being involved. That is equally absurd. Who would have knowingly ridden into an ambush so close to the limo and run the risk of having, not just JFK's head blown off, but their own? They protested the reduction of the escort to four. ((DSL Interjection: And you take these after-the-fact protestations seriously??)) They objected to being instructed not to ride forward of the rear wheels. ((DSL Comment: Again, you take that seriously??)) They reported the limo stop and other aspects of the shooting that undermine and contradict the official account. ((DSL: So what?? They clearly were unaware that films would be altered.)) Their own testimony by itself demonstrates that the film is a fake.

There is more, such as the personal relationships between Jean and Mary and some of the escort officers who rode with the limo. It is obvious that they were unaware that the assassination was going to take place,

DSL INTERJECTION. . . : Oh pleez. . are you going to invoke what one of them told a girl friend as probative to their state of knowledge prior to this murder?))

but, as you can read in Jean's book, were concerned afterward that their lives might be in jeopardy if they spoke out about it. They gave their initial interviews when it would have been all but impossible to control them, where their naivete is apparent.

DSL interjection: Now just a minute: Are you unaware of Haygood's behavior, and his smart-ass comments, in a 1986 conversation with JFK researcher Todd Vaughan: "It’s a bunch of goddamn Yankees come down there to get their goddamn sorry bunch of damn Texans there straightened out, because we killed their President." And what about the cycle cop who, already riding in the motorcade, wisecracked to Marvin Lee Aday (later known as "Meatloaf"): ", 'Well, yep, you know what? If somebody was going to shoot him, they would certainly do it here in Dallas.'" Sorry, Professor. . methinks you have suddenly adopted a most innocent and peculiarly naive attitude when it comes to the Dallas Police Department." END INTERJECTION

I think that David has strong feelings about me that affect his reasoning and warp it into making arguments that are not compelling or well-founded only because he wants to undermine my posts. That is trivial and silly, but he has done it before and will do it again. He has much to offer, but sometimes squanders it, as he does here. More's the pity!

DSL INTERJECTION: No, Jim. . nothing personal. I realize you're a card catalogue of valuable data... and a storehouse of energy. Its just that your analysis in this instance is thoroughly incorrect. END INTERJECTION

Thanks, Chris, for your reply. You understand that my posted close-up came from the LIFE transparencies and these were made in the LIFE photolab directly from the originl. The more I look at these, the more it seems to me that I got the focus a tad wrong.

Question: Did you post a story from the Houston Chronicle for 11/22/63 giving the results of a press interview with Officer James Chaney?

JT

Josiah,

Thank you for explaining the origin of your material.

Yes, I did post the article.

It was from the Houston Chronicle dated 11-24-1963.

The link if needed:

http://24.152.179.96:8400/D1E14/Chaney.png

chris

[snipped--to save space. See previous post for text of the Chaney interview]

FIRST SHOT

WAS A MISS,

OFFICER SAYS

http://24.152.179.96...1E14/Chaney.png

Edited January 14, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

At several points in this thread it has been suggested that the Zapruder film would be inadmissible in court, and that the (often decades old) recollections of the witnesses should be considered the best evidence. I've read a number of articles and books over the years that convince me this is simply not true.

A quick internet search revealed the following article...

From the 12-1-05 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

Any party seeking to introduce a film-based photograph into evidence must demonstrate its relevancy (i.e., add to the likelihood that an event did or did not occur) and authenticity (i.e., a knowledgeable person must verify the image's accuracy). (6) For example, a detective photographs a drug deal. The picture depicts two individuals exchanging a package. The prosecutor wants to enter the photo into evidence at the criminal trial of the individual who received the drugs. The picture is relevant because it shows the person present at the scene where the deal occurred and in receipt of the package. To authenticate the photograph, the prosecutor can place on the stand the detective who took the picture or any officer who witnessed the transaction and elicit that the image actually represents the person, package, place, and time. After establishing the photograph's relevancy and authenticity, the prosecutor can move to admit it into evidence.

Note that ANY witness can testify that the photograph or film depicts the assassination, and get it entered into evidence. It's silly to pretend that none of the witnesses to Kennedy's shooting would do that. Think Mary Moorman. Or William Newman. While they have said there are bits in the film they don't remember, they have never suggested that the film was fake, and did not show the actual assassination.

There's also this to consider. While some here are claiming that the statements of the Dealey Plaza witnesses trumps the Zapruder film, they fail to acknowledge that NONE of these witnesses saw an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head, and that they, instead, OVERWHELMINGLY, claimed the skull exploded along the right side of Kennedy's head, on his face even.

Here's a few:

William Newman, who was less than 30 feet to the side of Kennedy when the fatal bullet struck, was interviewed live on television station WFAA. This was 45 minutes before the announcement of Kennedy’s death. Newman told Jay Watson: “And then as the car got directly in front of us, well, a gun shot apparently from behind us hit the President in the side, the side of the temple.”

At 1:17, about a half hour later, Watson interviewed Gayle Newman, who'd been standing right beside her husband and had had an equally close look at the President's wound. She reported: "And then another one—it was just awful fast. And President Kennedy reached up and grabbed--it looked like he grabbed--his ear and blood just started gushing out." (As she said this she motioned to her right temple with both of her hands. In 1969, while testifying at the trial of Clay Shaw, Mrs, Newman would make the implications of this even more clear, and specify that Kennedy "was shot in the head right at his ear or right above his ear…")

Less than forty minutes after the announcement of Kennedy's death, eyewitness Abraham Zapruder took his turn before the cameras on WFAA, and confirmed the observations of the Newmans. Describing the shooting, Zapruder told Jay Watson: “Then I heard another shot or two, I couldn't say it was one or two, and I saw his head practically open up, all blood and everything (at this time, and as shown on the slide above, Zapruder grabbed his right temple), and I kept on shooting. That's about all, I'm just sick, I can't…”

Well, then what about Zapruder's assistant, Marilyn Sitzman? The notes of a Dallas-Times Herald reporter on the day of the assassination reflect that he spoke to Sitzman just after the shots and that she claimed "Shot hit pres. Right in the temple."

And that's not all. Motorcycle officer James Chaney, riding just a few yards off Kennedy's right shoulder, was interviewed on KLIF around the same time Newman was interviewed on TV. He said "On the first shot we thought it was a motorcycle backfire. I looked to my left and so did President Kennedy, looking back over his left shoulder, and when the second shot struck him in the face then we knew someone was shooting at the President." Once again, no explosion from the back of the head is reported.

And shouldn't the motorcycle officer riding directly to his right, Douglas Jackson, also have noted an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head, should one have occurred? Jackson's notes, written on the night of the assassination and published in 1979, relate: "I looked back toward Mr. Kennedy and saw him hit in the head; he appeared to have been hit just above the right ear. The top of his head flew off away from me."

Well then, what about the officers riding on the other side, unable to see the right side of the President's face? If there had been an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head, entrance or exit, they would not have been distracted by an entrance or exit by Kennedy's ear. So what did they see?

While the motorcycle officer on the far left of the limo, B.J. Martin, said he did not see the impact of the head shot, the officer to his right, Bobby Hargis, riding off Mrs. Kennedy's left shoulder, was not so lucky. In an 11-24-63 eyewitness account published in the New York Sunday News, he wrote: "As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of the head, spinning it around. I was splattered by blood." In 1968, in an interview with Jim Garrison's investigators, Hargis would later confirm: "If he'd got hit in the rear, I'd have been able to see it. All I saw was just a splash come out on the other side."

The Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses overwhelmingly support that NO shot exploded from the back of Kennedy's head. Take from it what you like.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Josiah Thompson]

My comments are in bold-face and underlined.

Tink,

"Crossed in the mail", 21st century style. I've just finished my post saying that I think the back of the head is a distraction.

I couldn't agree with you more. Another one like "full frame left penetration" that is now deader than door nail.

I also know that when you go after an issue with as much gusto as "Moorman in the Street", that you know with high confidence that the extant photographic evidence has nothing to hide.

I can't disagree with you here.

I also know (after 11 or so years of it) that when your tone softens, and you invite me to join in with scholarly research with you, that you know what I'll find, and you're very happy with what that outcome will be.

Once again, how could I disagree with you here.

But I do enjoy getting down to the truth, so let me propose a compromise: I'll give you my opinion of the back of the head, on any material you're able to send to my side of the planet (electronically, by mail, carrier pigeon, or otherwise), if any such material has the FULL FRAME at that resolution.

I take it what you are saying here is that you need a full-frame not a close-up to examine. Secondly, I imagine you also need a frame that has not been touched by any compression program.

That's not really what I want -- I'd prefer ALL parts of ALL frames of ALL copies at as high fidelity and resolution as possible -- but, as I said, this proposal is a compromise.

Okay. I'll see what I can do.

John

Really fascinating! I gotta say, you sure do tell it as it is.

The "missing bullet" copy of Z 317 is apparently quite downstream of other copies. When I look at the Lifton copy of Z 317, it certainly reminds me of what I saw in the MPI transparencies recently and what I remember from the old LIFE transparencies. It also is not far from my own close-up of 317 that I'm coming to recognize is a tad out of focus.

So let's ask the best question we can. David apparently has a high resolution scan of Z 317. If he agreed to cooperate, what tests would you think might be run on the scan to determine whether any artwork, any patch, had been imposed on it? Perhaps we don't have to wait on either the Hollywood Seven or the 6th Floor Museum to resolve this question. Perhaps we could do it ourselves. Why don't we forget for awhile which tribe we're supposed to belong to and operate as genuine scholars trying to resolve a question that has come up? I'd like to work with you, John, on getting this resolved. What do you think should be done?

JT

Edited January 14, 2012 by Josiah Thompson

[Josiah Thompson]

Of course, Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., you are unhappy with the developments of the last few days.

We have been claiming against you that the appearance of the socalled "patch" in 317 is caused by the successive buildup of contrast as one moves downstream through copies. You have tried to upgrade the Wilkinson scan first by emphasizing the scan number in DPI. But you know the old adage: "Garbage in, garbage out!" Next you try to magically upgrade the Wilkinson image from 4th or 5th generation to 3rd on the basis of hearsay from Mr. Block. But all of this is quite beside the point given what has happened in the last few days.

David Lifton has kindly produced an image of frame 317 that was made from a 35 mm copy in turn made from the original. He has explained in detail the pedigree of his copy just as I earlier explained the pedigree of my copy. When you look at Lifton's copy it becomes clear to the naked eye that the socalled "patch effect" is missing just as the same "patch effect" is missing from the frame I posted. Why do you suppose this is? I'll give you a clue. Both Lifton's and my copy are considerably upstream from the Wilkinson copy or the copy used in the "missing bullet." To complete a really bad day for you, Dr. Costella arrives on the scene and delivers a body blow. He tested Lifton's posted copy and the shadow on the back of the head is no deeper than other shadows, in fact, it seems quite unremarkable.

Oh yes. There is that other fact. The Moorman photo taken at Z 315 and from the left rear of JFK matches what we see in the Zapruder film. It shows no damage to the back of the head. So not only does there appear to be no irregularity about frame 317 but there seems to have been no reason to have fiddled with it anyway.

Being irritated with John Costella and showing your pique won't really change any of this.

JT

No, John, you should know better than to think that I would want you to "take sides". That is not in me. I

am taken aback that, in this frame from Lifton's treasure trove, there is so little of value. I must conclude

that some versions of the film make certain forms of fakery more conspicuous. I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT

THIS BLOW-OUT WAS CRUDELY PAINTED OVER IN BLACK. I don't know why this frame doesn't show it.

And I must admit that your remarks about the passengers being thrown forward commits a blunder. It is

occurring at a time when THE LIMOUSINE IS SUPPOSED TO BE ACCELERATING. What is the probability

that ONE of the passengers would be THROWN FORWARD when they should be being PULLED BACK?

And in this case there are SEVERAL. I don't know why, mate, but I fault you because you are wrong.

In fact, unless I have missed something, I don't see where you have even acknowledge that the blow out

has been patched, when that is OBVIOUS. So I have several difficulties with you in this exchange, none

of which have to do with any presumptions about "taking sides". My inference is that we have reached

the limits of your competence and that the Hollywood experts, Pat and the Director, simply know more.

And scientific reasoning is based upon observation, measurement, and experiment--but all considered

within the framework known as "inference to the best explanation". Given your agreement with me on

(1), (2), and (3), it should already be apparent that the blow-out was patched. The oddity, as I see it, is

that the Lifton frame does not make it show up better and that you seem reluctant to admit the obvious.

So if your position is that you were simply reflecting on the relative lack of strong contrast in Lifton's

frame, then I reiterate my question: why should a feature that LEAPED OUT TO THE FILM EXPERTS

be so muted in the case of Lifton's frame? Something is wrong here, where I see no indication that you

are providing any explanation. That rather bothers me, but perhaps the others can explain it for me.

Jim,

You're missing the point. I accepted the amateurishness of the art work when I read the 1000-word footnote about it in Lifton's Best Evidence, back when you sent me a copy back in 2002. I've never stopped accepting it.

In today's jargon, it was a "blink" reaction from Lifton, and film experts who have seen it.

I accept it the same as I accept the "blink" reaction of David Healy, and other film experts, when they see the limo gliding down Elm Street like a gondola down a street in Venice. Such reactions from seasoned experts are valuable. (See the "Blink" book for their power -- and limitations.)

But the next step is to find scientific proof that something is wrong. And that's where this whole back of the head debate has gone wrong.

In the case of the limo floating down Elm, we have other "wrong-looking" evidence, like the front four occupants all lurching forward to a non-existent (in the extant film) braking event. (Let alone all the witnesses who saw something different!) But again, this is not scientific evidence. (Well, not physical scientific evidence -- apologies for my arrogance as a physicist of equating scientific proof with physical proof.) It's physically possible for people to lurch forward at the same time.

So I think you keep mistaking my acceptance of the overall "feel of the case" with my higher demands for something to be declared a scientific proof.

Now, if the back of the head were blacker than the surrounds of the frame (or possibly the same blackness, and blacker than anything else in the film, but not necessarily in this case), then that would have been physical proof. Just like David Mantik's proof of the impossible density of bone in the autopsy X-rays through optical densitometry -- that is a physical proof, and (unless he is subsequently shown to have made an error) is irrefutable.

I'm a little surprised, after all of our collaboration, and your knowledge of the history and philosophy of science, that you still doubt my motives any time that my opinion of the scientific evidence diverges from your own. Maybe I'm more Aspergery than the average bear; maybe it's difficult for some to see me agreeing with Tink or Lamson, even slightly. Apologies if I don't "take sides" as religiously as some.

John

John,

I added a paragraph you missed, no doubt because you were writing:

And I am puzzled why a feature of the film that POPPED OUT to the

Hollywood film restoration experts, to Patrick Block and the Director

of what today is regarded as probably the finest special and visual

effects film studio in the world would appear relatively bland in this

frame for which David Lifton has described the origin. WHY IS THAT?

Now Craig has corrected me (Kodachrome, not Ektachrome) and he

might have explained this, since it may have required Lifton to make

an additional pass. But it seems to me that, if Lifton is right about

its origin, this frame should be sharper and better defined than the

frames being studied by Sydney's group, when it is instead inferior.

If you can account for this anomaly, I would appreciate it. We also

disagree about the vividness and amateurishness of the PAINTING

IN of the patch. I don't know why, mate, but the Hollywood gang,

Pat and the Director are surely right about this. Something about

the Lifton frame suppresses it. This was amateurish art work.

Jim

[David Lifton]

David,

Short answer: OF COURSE members of the Dallas Police Department and of the Dallas Sheriff's Department were involved! If you were to watch my recent public presentations on this subject, such as "What happened to JFK--and why it matters today!", which I presented at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, you would know that I identify those entities as having been involved and give my best guess as to two of the shooters: Harry Weatherford, a Deputy Sheriff, from the top of the County Records Building (whom I believe fired/implanted the bullet that hit JFK 5.5" below the collar to the right of the spinal column); and Roscoe White, a Dallas Police Officer who was also a contract agent for the CIA, who fired a shot from the grassy knoll that appears to have missed, even though it was an easy shot, but where I believe he "pulled it" because it was going to harm Jackie. They were also involved in framing Oswald and in faking the "backyard photos". The fallacy you commit is called "the straw man" by exaggerating my position in order to make it easier to attack.

OF COURSE key members of the Secret Service were involved, including William Greer and Roy Kellerman. Emory Roberts is another obvious participant in the assassination, where Vince Palamara has a nice chapter on Greer, Roberts, and Boring in MURDER--where Boring was not boring. My reasons for believing that the motorcycle escort officers were (in my opinion) almost certainly not involved have already been presented, but I am certainly open to further discussion. You may remember that LBJ ducked as the motorcade turned from Houston onto Elm. I like a lot of your work, David, but I do believe that your positions on these two issues--that all the shots were fired from in front and that the motorcycle escort officers were also complicit--are wrong. Greer and Kellerman both knew the shot was going to pass through the windshield, but had surely trained to not react to it. There were so many shooters at so many locations--six, if I am correct--that it would have been extremely risky for those motorcycle officers to have knowingly put themselves in harm's way.

The very idea that all the shots were fired from in front would have made creating the impression that they came from the 6th floor "sniper's lair" virtually impossible to sustain. Look at the witness reports, the overwhelming major of which supported multiple shots from above and behind the limo--where I am convinced that three shots were fired with a Mannlicher-Carcano from the DalTex: one that missed an injured James Tague; one that missed and hit the chrome strip; and one that hit JFK in the back of the head. If you would like to have a debate about this sometime, I am certainly game, because your theory cannot explain any of those effects--nor the wound in JFK's back nor the wound in Connally's back nor the witness reports. You are so far off base about your theory that all the shots came from in front that I reassert, IT IS SIMPLY ABSURD. And if Costella wants to join you in that fantasy, so be it. The evidence and logic are on my side, not yours. So if you want to save face on this forum and in this thread, then kindly explain away at least the following seven points:

(1) the holes in his shirt and jacket;

(2) the wound on his back and all that;

(3) the injury sustained by James Tague;

(4) the wound to John Connally's back;

(5) the wound to the back of JFK's head;

(6) the indentation in the chrome strip;

(7) witnesses reports of shots from behind.

None of us can wait to hear from you, David. And why in the world you would suggest that I buy into the "magic bullet" is simply beyond me. Do you have so much trouble dealing with my arguments that you have to fabricate evidence? Is that something you learned from our common adversaries? I have substantial evidence to support each of the shots and each of the wounds that I describe. Since my reconstruction of the shot sequence builds on the work of Richard Sprague, COMPUTERS AND AUTOMATION (May 1970), which at that early date already superseded the far simpler theory of Josiah Thompson--which, like yours, entails fewer shots but cannot accommodate the evidence--I find it more than disappointing that you would take the cheap shots like these--claiming that I have mixed real shots with imaginary without proof or that I endorse C-399--which discredits your integrity, since I have never maintained anything like that. If you want to demonstrate that you can argue for your position without misrepresenting mine, then do that. I have laid out my reasoning in many places, including most recently, "What happened to JFK--and why it matters today", which has been archived by noliesradio.org.

Jim

[snipped, to save space]

[snipped--to save space. See previous post for text of the Chaney interview]

Here, in reverse order, are my comments on the objections you have raised. This response is not intended to be definitive. I am in the midst of a "work in progress" and can't respond in greater detail at this juncture. But regardless of the particulars, it all comes down to the primacy of the body as evidence.

(7) witnesses reports of shots from behind.

DSL Response:

So what? Just because a sniper’s nest was found at the SE corner sixth floor window does not mean that shots were actually fired from there. And this same principle extends to sounds heard, sniper's supposedly seen, etc. There are multiple explanations for why there are “witnesses reports of shots from behind”. If a strategic deception was utilized in connection with the assassination, citing such reports means little. The only way to know the number and direction of the shots that struck Kennedy is to know what wounds were actually on his body immediately after the shots were fired.

(6) The indentation in the chrom strip.

I realize this is a potentially significant issue, and I believe that there are two possible explanations for “the indentation in the chrome strip.” One is the Secret Service reports that indicate the damage was there, prior to Dallas, and was observed from work on the car, either in NYC (at the Empire Garage, as I recall) The other is that if there was windshield switching, then any damage to the chrome strip was incident to such activity. Chrome strip damage only becomes important if it can be reliably established (a) it wasn't there prior to Dallas and (b ) was observed prior to any possible windshield switching.

(5) The wound in the back of JFK’s head:

I am genuinely surprised, professor, that you can recite chapter and verse of all the Parkland Hospital witnesses who saw an exit wound at the back of JFK’s head, as proof it was there, but seem to ignore that some dozen doctors were specifically asked, by Arlen Specter, whether they observed an entry wound on the back of the head (or a “small hole” beneath the large hole) and every single one of them answered “no”. (Well, Dr. Clark said something like "maybe it was hidden in blood and hair") Yet you persist in offering something supposedly on the body at Bethesda, which was not observed at Dallas, as evidence of its authenticity--i.e., that it "must have been there" --when it was not observed. Why do you do that? (And please don't respond by saying its on the Bethesda X-ray, when you yourself agree the X-rays have been faked, particularly in the area at the back of the head.) Furthermore, and now turning to anatomic detail, in BEST EVIDENCE, I lay out the case that, based on the Bethesda evidence, there was no “bullet hole” at all, but rather a “portion” of the circumference of something interpreted to be a bullet wound. (See Chapter 22, B.E., and the subsection titled "The Incomplete Bone Hole" starting on page 533 of the hardcover edition, or the Carrol and Graf edition. That particular issue occupies an entire sub-section.)

(4 ) the wound to John Connally's back

I’ll have much more to say on this matter in the future. I cannot respond at this time. That’s why I was careful to state that I did not believe that Kennedy was struck from behind. Of course, if Connally was struck from the front, then he lied under oath. I assume you are aware that the first person to treat Connally—Nurse Doris Nelson—wrote in her report that Connally had “received” a bullet in the chest. (That's in her report, dated 11/22/63--see the Price Exhibits in the 26 volumes). Furthermore: Doris Nelson personally reconfirmed the validity of that report to me, in an in-person tape recorded interview in December, 1982, about six months before she died (of cancer). On that occasion, she not only reconfirmed her report, but reconfirmed to me that Connally was shot in the chest from the front, and that she observed no entry wound on the back of his body. (Was I surprised that she would be so forthright? You bet I was!)

In addition, I should remind you--and this you may not know--that the so-called entry wound in the back of Governor Connally (according to Dr. Robert Shaw) did not penetrate further than the latissimus dorsi muscle (the very outermost layer of muscle, just beneath the skin). In other words, Connally's rear entry wound was (like Kennedy's back wound) a shallow wound.

Of course, with regard to the integrity of the Connally medical data, let me add still additional data. I shouldn't have to remind you--as I presume you're familiar with this information--but I'll restate it here for the benefit of those who may be reading this for the first time:

(a) As spelled out in a formal letter from the FBI to the Warren Commission, signed by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, Connally's clothes (this shirt and jacket) were dry cleaned and pressed before being submitted to the FBI Laboratory. This is not just a minor irregularity--it is bizarre and scandalous, and just as bad, when it comes to the forensic examination of clothing, as a 17 minute gap is on an audio tape. One doesn't send critical evidence like that to the dry cleaners, before it goes to the FBI Laboratory, unless one is incredibly stupid (and/or reckless) or is involved in obstruction of justice.

(b ) The wound in the front of Connally's chest, as measured by Dr. Robert Shaw, was 5 cm. in diameter; but the corresponding "bullet exit hole" in the front of Connall's jacket, was reported by the FBI as "3/8" of an inch, and "circular." Lets restate this in centimeters: the supposed Connally exit wound, on his body, was 5 cm across, but the supposed exit wound in the clothing (specifically, his jacket) was less than a centimeter (specifically, 3/8" = .9525 centimeters) and "circular". So the Connally exit wound on the body was 500% larger than the corresponding defect in Connally's jacket.

(c ) As for any exit hole on the front of the shirt, the FBI Lab reported no measurements at all, presumably because that defect in that garment had been destroyed--but that is my assumption (and perhaps someone has further data in this area. If so, do email me). The fact is: no questions were addressed to this, under oath, as far as I know.

(d) Finally, I know or a fact that Governor Connally told someone privately that his testimony about the shooting was false, and he would never tell the truth about what actually happened, because it wouldn't be go for the country.

So what we have then, professor Fetzer, is a Governor who testified one way, but the chief nurse who said the opposite--and the clothing was sent to the dry cleaners before the FBI Laboratory.

So now I ask you, professor: how many episodes of Law and Order must we watch to realize that something is, shall we say, "fishy" about this situation?

(3 ) the injury sustained by James Tague

The curb chip—which, as I’m sure you would agree—was covertly patched up, does not prove that the shot was fired from behind. It depends exactly when that shot was fired, and where the limo was located. I will have more to say about this in the future. At this juncture, I would agree that this has to be explained—and I can’t present a full and complete explanation in this post. But rest assured I will have more to say on this matter.

(2) The wounds in his back and all that.

". . .and all that. . . "? What is “and all that” supposed to mean?

Surely you are aware that Commander Humes called Doctor Perry either at midnight on 11/22/63 or the next day, and asked Perry—according to Perry’s own testimony—whether (and I quote) “we had made any wounds in the back”. And surely you are aware that the FBI agents (at Bethesda) witnessed one of the doctor putting his finger in the wound, and it barely went in. Finally, the wound—-as reported by Humes—did not have an abrasion collar, the sine qua non for a bullet entry wound. So no, I do not believe that is a legitimate bullet entry wound, but rather one placed there to be a matching “receptacle” for the bullet placed on a stretcher in Dallas. Moreover, does it not pique your curiosity, Professor, that this wound was not “discovered” until several hours into the autopsy (during the “latter stages” according to the Sibert and O’Neill report?) Again I ask: how many episodes of Law and Order must we watch to understand that there is something mighty peculiar about this wound, and the circumstances of its "discovery"?

(1) The holes in the jacket and the shirt.

I believe these holes were man made, and created to (roughly) “match” the wound on the body. And that’s why the “dot” on the Boswell diagram made at autopsy roughly matches these clothing holes. The give-away that this is all contrived is the FBI report of the interview of Roy Kellerman by Sibert and O’Neill, either on the night of the Bethesda autopsy, or at the White House just a few days later. In that FBI report, Kellerman states that Kennedy reached around with his right hand to a point on the back of his body, when he was hit. JFK then supposedly exclaimed: "My God, I am hit" and/or "Get me to a hospital!" This is all nonsense, of course--Kennedy made no such movement with his right arm, after the shots were fired (nor did he say any such thing)--but shows the extent to which a key Secret Service agent was willing to present false information re Kennedy’s last movements in life, and what he supposedly said, in the last moments he was alive, in order to create a phony story of how JFK actually died.

One other thing: I never said—ever—that you supported the SBT. Nor do I believe any such thing. What I believe I did say, or meant to imply, anyway, was that you seem to ignore the suspicious circumstances that took place in the Bethesda autopsy room which supposedly legitimatize the finding of this bullet. Specifically, I am referring to what occurred when, hours into the autopsy, the “back” wound was suddenly “found” and then, within a minute or so, Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman was involved in a telephone call to Secret Service Chief Rowley, a call that basically communicated this message to Humes: “You have a wound without a bullet? Well, see here now, the FBI Laboratory has just informed us that they have a bullet without a wound”—and so, in that manner, bullet 399 was “matched up” with the shallow wound on Kennedy’s back (or shoulder). This is all discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 of BEST EVIDENCE and, imho, constitutes further evidence that the Bethesda autopsy, in some respects, was akin to a stage-managed fraud.

I know you do not accept the Single Bullet Theory. Neither do I. My question was (and is): do you accept the legitimacy of how this "wound" was discovered, and how--via one or more timely phone calls--it was then "matched" to the belated discovery of the wound in the back? If so, that surprises me. You have no trouble in placing snipers on rooftops all over Dealey Plaza; but here, at the Bethesda morgue, the most peculiar events unfold, and you don't bat an eyelash.

DSL

1/14/12; 12:40 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Edited January 15, 2012 by David Lifton

[Josiah Thompson]

I agree. This is a terrific find! But not for the reasons you give.

This thread began with the posting of an excerpt from the Chaney interview from the early 1970s. This interview showed that Chaney had not initially gunned his cycle and raced forward to inform Chief Curry what happened. On the contrary, Chaney recalled almost stopping his cycle and holding there for a bit as he recalled seeing Bobby Hargis dump his cycle by the south curb and run across the street in front of him into the knoll area. Your gloss on this was that since Chaney had seen the Zapruder film he was tailoring his report to the film and essentially making up seeing Hargis cross the street in front of him. Since his questioner was trying to get Chaney to say something to undermine the Zapruder's films authenticity, this seems like a stretch. But the Houston Chroniclen report from Chaney on November 22nd or 23rd makes it even more of a stretch. Let's say that Chaney did exactly as you've been saying he did. Chaney saw Kennedy hit in the head and raced ahead to tell Chief Curry what had happened. If Chaney did this, then how did he see "a policeman ran between two cars with his pistol drawn, heading toward the building." The article makes clear that Chaney "sped toward the lead car" after seeing the policeman with gun drawn. If Chaney had done what you have said he did, then his back would have been to all this. What Chaney said in his 1970s interview and what he says in this report is consistent with what all the films show and inconsistent with the scenario you constructed. But you are right. This is a terrific find!

JT

Pat,

This is a terrific find! Tink has previously graciously conceded that Forrest Sorrel's testimony about Chaney's motoring forward is inconsistent with his position that that had taken place AFTER the limo had passed the Triple Underpass. Here you have Chaney not only reporting motoring forward but also stating that the president "slumped" into Jackie's lap. There is nothing about "back-and-to-the-left" motion. PLUS he confirms that the limo STOPPED. So I think this is a very valuable contribution. Thanks for posting it. There are a couple of oddities, such as the remark about, "It was like you hit him in the face with a tomato", which might refer to the skull flap blowing open. That his brains were blown out to the left/rear is not clear from what he has to say, but from his perspective--unlike that of Officer Hargis, who was riding to the left/rear and was hit with the debris--seeing it was probably obfuscated by Jack and Jackie. I would like to believe there is no more room for doubt about Chaney's motoring forward, which should also appear in the film, but that would be extremely naive on my part. John Costella was the first to notice, where I published about it in "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery", OpEdNews (5 February 2008).

Jim

Thanks, Chris, for your reply. You understand that my posted close-up came from the LIFE transparencies and these were made in the LIFE photolab directly from the originl. The more I look at these, the more it seems to me that I got the focus a tad wrong.

Question: Did you post a story from the Houston Chronicle for 11/22/63 giving the results of a press interview with Officer James Chaney?

JT

Tink, Chris posted the article for me (Thanks again, Chris!) and I immediately typed it up and added it into my database of witness statements. In recent days, I have come to realize that Chaney had spoken to KLIF radio well before he spoke to WFAA, apparently within minutes of the shooting. I have added his statements to KLIF as well.

Here's my updated list of James Chaney's earliest statements.

James Chaney rode to the right and rear of the President. Although he was the closest witness behind the President at the time of the shooting and had a private conversation with Jack Ruby the next day, Chaney was never questioned by the Warren Commission. (11-22-63 interview on KLIF radio, reportedly around 12:45 PM, as transcribed by Harold Weisberg from the KLIF album The Fateful Hours) "On the first shot we thought it was a motorcycle backfire. I looked to my left and so did President Kennedy, looking back over his left shoulder, and when the second shot struck him in the face then we knew someone was shooting at the President... He slumped forward in the car. He fell forward in the seat there." (Note: some sources have it that Chaney mentioned “a third shot that was fired that (he) did not see hit the President” and that he did see “Governor Connally’s shirt erupt in blood..” in one of his first interviews, but I can not find a primary source for these quotes.) (11-22-63 interview with Bill Lord on WFAA television, apparently in the early evening) “I was riding on the right rear fender... We had proceeded west on Elm Street at approximately 15-20 miles per hour. We heard the first shot. I thought it was a motorcycle backfiring and uh I looked back over to my left and also President Kennedy looked back over his left shoulder. Then, the, uh, second shot came, well, then I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the face by the second bullet. He slumped forward into Mrs. Kennedy’s lap, and uh, it was apparent to me that we were being fired upon. I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. And then he instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hospital and he had Parkland Hospital stand by. I went on up ahead of the, to notify the officers that were leading the escort that he had been hit and we're gonna have to move out." (When asked if he saw the person who fired on the President) "No sir, it was back over my right shoulder.” (11-24-63 article in the Houston Chronicle, posted online by Chris Davidson) "A motorcycle policeman just six feet from President Kennedy when he was hit said the assassin's first shot missed entirely. The second of the three shots felled Kennedy, said patrolman James M. Chaney. He was six feet to the right and front of the President's car, moving about 15 miles an hour while rounding a curve. The shot, said Chaney, came from the sixth floor of a warehouse building about 50 feet or less behind the President's car. From the sixth floor to the President, the bullet traveled about 110 feet, Chaney estimated. Chaney was an infantryman in Europe during World War II, with experience in sharpshooting. 'When the first shot was fired, I thought it was a backfire,' Chaney said. Everyone looked around. The President was looking back over his left shoulder. A second or two after the first shot, the second shot hit him. 'It was like you hit him in the face with a tomato. Blood went all over the car. There was screaming and yelling. A secret service man yelled 'Let's get out of here!'' Chaney said the motorcade stopped momentarily after the shots rang out. A policeman ran between two cars with his pistol drawn, heading toward the building. 'I sped to the lead car carrying Chief (Jesse) Curry and Forrest Sorrels, chief of the secret service division of the Treasury Department in the Dallas area. I told them the President had been hit and it appeared bad,' Chaney said. 'A piece of his skull was lying on the floor of the car,' Chaney said."

[David Lifton]

At several points in this thread it has been suggested that the Zapruder film would be inadmissible in court, and that the (often decades old) recollections of the witnesses should be considered the best evidence. I've read a number of articles and books over the years that convince me this is simply not true.

A quick internet search revealed the following article...

From the 12-1-05 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

Any party seeking to introduce a film-based photograph into evidence must demonstrate its relevancy (i.e., add to the likelihood that an event did or did not occur) and authenticity (i.e., a knowledgeable person must verify the image's accuracy). (6) For example, a detective photographs a drug deal. The picture depicts two individuals exchanging a package. The prosecutor wants to enter the photo into evidence at the criminal trial of the individual who received the drugs. The picture is relevant because it shows the person present at the scene where the deal occurred and in receipt of the package. To authenticate the photograph, the prosecutor can place on the stand the detective who took the picture or any officer who witnessed the transaction and elicit that the image actually represents the person, package, place, and time. After establishing the photograph's relevancy and authenticity, the prosecutor can move to admit it into evidence.

Note that ANY witness can testify that the photograph or film depicts the assassination, and get it entered into evidence. It's silly to pretend that none of the witnesses to Kennedy's shooting would do that. Think Mary Moorman. Or William Newman. While they have said there are bits in the film they don't remember, they have never suggested that the film was fake, and did not show the actual assassination.

There's also this to consider. While some here are claiming that the statements of the Dealey Plaza witnesses trumps the Zapruder film, they fail to acknowledge that NONE of these witnesses saw an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head, and that they, instead, OVERWHELMINGLY, claimed the skull exploded along the right side of Kennedy's head, on his face even.

Here's a few:

William Newman, who was less than 30 feet to the side of Kennedy when the fatal bullet struck, was interviewed live on television station WFAA. This was 45 minutes before the announcement of Kennedy’s death. Newman told Jay Watson: “And then as the car got directly in front of us, well, a gun shot apparently from behind us hit the President in the side, the side of the temple.”

At 1:17, about a half hour later, Watson interviewed Gayle Newman, who'd been standing right beside her husband and had had an equally close look at the President's wound. She reported: "And then another one—it was just awful fast. And President Kennedy reached up and grabbed--it looked like he grabbed--his ear and blood just started gushing out." (As she said this she motioned to her right temple with both of her hands. In 1969, while testifying at the trial of Clay Shaw, Mrs, Newman would make the implications of this even more clear, and specify that Kennedy "was shot in the head right at his ear or right above his ear…")

Less than forty minutes after the announcement of Kennedy's death, eyewitness Abraham Zapruder took his turn before the cameras on WFAA, and confirmed the observations of the Newmans. Describing the shooting, Zapruder told Jay Watson: “Then I heard another shot or two, I couldn't say it was one or two, and I saw his head practically open up, all blood and everything (at this time, and as shown on the slide above, Zapruder grabbed his right temple), and I kept on shooting. That's about all, I'm just sick, I can't…”

Well, then what about Zapruder's assistant, Marilyn Sitzman? The notes of a Dallas-Times Herald reporter on the day of the assassination reflect that he spoke to Sitzman just after the shots and that she claimed "Shot hit pres. Right in the temple."

And that's not all. Motorcycle officer James Chaney, riding just a few yards off Kennedy's right shoulder, was interviewed on KLIF around the same time Newman was interviewed on TV. He said "On the first shot we thought it was a motorcycle backfire. I looked to my left and so did President Kennedy, looking back over his left shoulder, and when the second shot struck him in the face then we knew someone was shooting at the President." Once again, no explosion from the back of the head is reported.

And shouldn't the motorcycle officer riding directly to his right, Douglas Jackson, also have noted an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head, should one have occurred? Jackson's notes, written on the night of the assassination and published in 1979, relate: "I looked back toward Mr. Kennedy and saw him hit in the head; he appeared to have been hit just above the right ear. The top of his head flew off away from me."

Well then, what about the officers riding on the other side, unable to see the right side of the President's face? If there had been an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head, entrance or exit, they would not have been distracted by an entrance or exit by Kennedy's ear. So what did they see?

While the motorcycle officer on the far left of the limo, B.J. Martin, said he did not see the impact of the head shot, the officer to his right, Bobby Hargis, riding off Mrs. Kennedy's left shoulder, was not so lucky. In an 11-24-63 eyewitness account published in the New York Sunday News, he wrote: "As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of the head, spinning it around. I was splattered by blood." In 1968, in an interview with Jim Garrison's investigators, Hargis would later confirm: "If he'd got hit in the rear, I'd have been able to see it. All I saw was just a splash come out on the other side."

The Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses overwhelmingly support that NO shot exploded from the back of Kennedy's head. Take from it what you like.

I think the Dealey Plaza witnesses constitute good evidence that Kennedy was struck (from the front) in the side of his head. What you are omitting, of course, is a most important Dealey Plaza witness: Secret Service Clint Hill.

He, too, is a Dealey Plaza witness--is he not?

Based on what he observed, when he climbed aboard the limousine (in Dealey Plaza, right?), he stated --in his SS report, and then in his testimony--that the back of Kennedy's head was missing, and that it was lying in the rear seat of the car.

Why go to the trouble of listing all these witnesses, who clearly saw something explode as a bullet slammed into the right hand side of JFK's head, and ignore the most important Dealey Plaza witness of all--Clint Hill, who reported that the rear of JFK's head was shot off?

DSL

1/14/12 12:55 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, let's see. You have access to the highest quality slides at The 6th

Floor Museum, yet you post this kind of obviously grossly inferior rubbish:

Chris Davidson has been doing much better by comparison with your efforts:

Here is a comparison among a few.:

1.From the "Lost Bullet" program.

2.From MPI, this was from the enlarged version. One of many shown.

To the left in the red square is the version supplied by John Costella, I believe it to be from MPI also. John please correct me if I am wrong.

3.This is #2 with about 30 seconds of work in Photoshop.

In post #466, I asked you a few questions about your absurd suggestion in post #369 that David Mantik was "making up" what he saw on the MPI slides when he visited The 6th Floor Museum and which Doug Horne reported in his blog, which I have cited in earlier posts. But you have not responded to them. Well, since you want to mix it up, here's your opportunity:

(1) If you think David "just made this up", then do you think the same about Patrick Block?

(2) If you think David "just made this up", then do you think the same about the Director he cites?

(3) If you think David "just made this up", then do you think the same about Sydney Wilkinson's group?

(4) If you think David "just made this up", then will you say the same about everyone who sees a black patch?

(5) Do you really claim that you see NO difference between Z-314 (and earlier frames) in comparison with frame 317?

(6) Do you really believe that the five individuals who have seen a different and probably authentic Z-film also "made that up"?

(7) If the HD scan from the Archives (third generation) shows a black patch but the MPI images do not, then what is that going to mean?

You are the original "me or your lying eyes" guy on this forum, Tink. You won't budge no matter how much evidence contradicts you. You praised Gary's chapter until I pointed out that it implies that the film is a fake. You endorsed Witt as the Umbrella man until I discovered that he was a limo stop witness and therefore also impeaches the film.

It was NARA, not I, who declared the Wilkinson film 3rd generation, which makes it and not the MPI slides the best available resource we have for its study. You have never even replied to my inquiries about the reports those slides had "gone missing". If we now discover they are discrepant with the 3rd generation copy, no one is going to miss the point.

It's pretty silly of you to think that I have had "a bad week", when I have been thriving. Again, as in the past, you are the one who has been having "a bad week". John's still a "good guy" in my book, but if your strongest ally is now Pat Speer, where you are both maintaining there was no blow-out to the back of JFK's head, I can only say, "You have made my day!"

Of course, Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., you are unhappy with the developments of the last few days.

We have been claiming against you that the appearance of the socalled "patch" in 317 is caused by the successive buildup of contrast as one moves downstream through copies. You have tried to upgrade the Wilkinson scan first by emphasizing the scan number in DPI. But you know the old adage: "Garbage in, garbage out!" Next you try to magically upgrade the Wilkinson image from 4th or 5th generation to 3rd on the basis of hearsay from Mr. Block. But all of this is quite beside the point given what has happened in the last few days.

David Lifton has kindly produced an image of frame 317 that was made from a 35 mm copy in turn made from the original. He has explained in detail the pedigree of his copy just as I earlier explained the pedigree of my copy. When you look at Lifton's copy it becomes clear to the naked eye that the socalled "patch effect" is missing just as the same "patch effect" is missing from the frame I posted. Why do you suppose this is? I'll give you a clue. Both Lifton's and my copy are considerably upstream from the Wilkinson copy or the copy used in the "missing bullet." To complete a really bad day for you, Dr. Costella arrives on the scene and delivers a body blow. He tested Lifton's posted copy and the shadow on the back of the head is no deeper than other shadows, in fact, it seems quite unremarkable.

Oh yes. There is that other fact. The Moorman photo taken at Z 315 and from the left rear of JFK matches what we see in the Zapruder film. It shows no damage to the back of the head. So not only does there appear to be no irregularity about frame 317 but there seems to have been no reason to have fiddled with it anyway.

Being irritated with John Costella and showing your pique won't really change any of this.

JT

No, John, you should know better than to think that I would want you to "take sides". That is not in me. I am taken aback that, in this frame from Lifton's treasure trove, there is so little of value. I must conclude that some versions of the film make certain forms of fakery more conspicuous. I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THIS BLOW-OUT WAS CRUDELY PAINTED OVER IN BLACK. I don't know why this frame doesn't show it.

And I must admit that your remarks about the passengers being thrown forward commits a blunder. It is

occurring at a time when THE LIMOUSINE IS SUPPOSED TO BE ACCELERATING. What is the probability

that ONE of the passengers would be THROWN FORWARD when they should be being PULLED BACK?

And in this case there are SEVERAL. I don't know why, mate, but I fault you because you are wrong.

In fact, unless I have missed something, I don't see where you have even acknowledge that the blow out

has been patched, when that is OBVIOUS. So I have several difficulties with you in this exchange, none

of which have to do with any presumptions about "taking sides". My inference is that we have reached

the limits of your competence and that the Hollywood experts, Pat and the Director, simply know more.

And scientific reasoning is based upon observation, measurement, and experiment--but all considered

within the framework known as "inference to the best explanation". Given your agreement with me on

(1), (2), and (3), it should already be apparent that the blow-out was patched. The oddity, as I see it, is that the Lifton frame does not make it show up better and that you seem reluctant to admit the obvious.

So if your position is that you were simply reflecting on the relative lack of strong contrast in Lifton's frame, then I reiterate my question: why should a feature that LEAPED OUT TO THE FILM EXPERTS

be so muted in the case of Lifton's frame? Something is wrong here, where I see no indication that you

are providing any explanation. That rather bothers me, but perhaps the others can explain it for me.

Jim,

You're missing the point. I accepted the amateurishness of the art work when I read the 1000-word footnote about it in Lifton's Best Evidence, back when you sent me a copy back in 2002. I've never stopped accepting it.

In today's jargon, it was a "blink" reaction from Lifton, and film experts who have seen it.

I accept it the same as I accept the "blink" reaction of David Healy, and other film experts, when they see the limo gliding down Elm Street like a gondola down a street in Venice. Such reactions from seasoned experts are valuable. (See the "Blink" book for their power -- and limitations.)

But the next step is to find scientific proof that something is wrong. And that's where this whole back of the head debate has gone wrong.

In the case of the limo floating down Elm, we have other "wrong-looking" evidence, like the front four occupants all lurching forward to a non-existent (in the extant film) braking event. (Let alone all the witnesses who saw something different!) But again, this is not scientific evidence. (Well, not physical scientific evidence -- apologies for my arrogance as a physicist of equating scientific proof with physical proof.) It's physically possible for people to lurch forward at the same time.

So I think you keep mistaking my acceptance of the overall "feel of the case" with my higher demands for something to be declared a scientific proof.

Now, if the back of the head were blacker than the surrounds of the frame (or possibly the same blackness, and blacker than anything else in the film, but not necessarily in this case), then that would have been physical proof. Just like David Mantik's proof of the impossible density of bone in the autopsy X-rays through optical densitometry -- that is a physical proof, and (unless he is subsequently shown to have made an error) is irrefutable.

I'm a little surprised, after all of our collaboration, and your knowledge of the history and philosophy of science, that you still doubt my motives any time that my opinion of the scientific evidence diverges from your own. Maybe I'm more Aspergery than the average bear; maybe it's difficult for some to see me agreeing with Tink or Lamson, even slightly. Apologies if I don't "take sides" as religiously as some.

John

John,

I added a paragraph you missed, no doubt because you were writing:

And I am puzzled why a feature of the film that POPPED OUT to the

Hollywood film restoration experts, to Patrick Block and the Director

of what today is regarded as probably the finest special and visual

effects film studio in the world would appear relatively bland in this

frame for which David Lifton has described the origin. WHY IS THAT?

Now Craig has corrected me (Kodachrome, not Ektachrome) and he

might have explained this, since it may have required Lifton to make

an additional pass. But it seems to me that, if Lifton is right about

its origin, this frame should be sharper and better defined than the

frames being studied by Sydney's group, when it is instead inferior.

If you can account for this anomaly, I would appreciate it. We also

disagree about the vividness and amateurishness of the PAINTING

IN of the patch. I don't know why, mate, but the Hollywood gang,

Pat and the Director are surely right about this. Something about

the Lifton frame suppresses it. This was amateurish art work.

Jim

[David Lifton]

QUOTING JOSIAH THOMPSON'S POST:

Chaney recalled almost stopping his cycle and holding there for a bit as he recalled seeing Bobby Hargis dump his cycle by the south curb and run across the street in front of him into the knoll area. UNQUOTE

Addressing the statement that Chaney "recalled seeing Bobby Hargis dump his cycle by the south curb and run across the street in front of him. . "

Please note that Hargis did not "dump his cycle by the south curb"--at least, not according to the film evidence we now have. Rather, Hargis left his cycle standing upright in the center of the street; then he went over to the lamppost, stood there briefly (as shown in Bell film frames) staring up at the area behind the concrete wall and fence; then Hargis came back to his cycle which was still standing upright, in the center of the street (Hargis' return to his cycle is shown in Bond Slide #4, showing him about to remount); and then Hargis sped off, westwards, towards the underpass (as shown in the Bothun photo, published in the next day's newspaper).

To emphasize this point: if Hargis in fact "dump[ed] his cycle by the south curb" (which is what Chaney reports) then that event has been excised from the bystander films (e.g., Bell)--and I have reason to believe that is so. (And such an event, if it happened, would be just as important as the car stop, imho).

But let's set that matter aside and return to Hargis, and what he did next, based on the (surviving) photo evidence. . . :

Having sped west and gone beyond the underpass, Hargis then returned to Dealey Plaza and, if memory serves, was the first of the three cycle cops to get on the radio (within three minutes of the assassination) and say that he "had a witness" who said the shots came from the TSBD. (Hargis 12:34 transmission can be found in the Sawyer Exhibits, the DPD "early" version of the DPD radio transmissions, and as I recall, I have heard this myself on Mary Ferrell's version of the DPD tape.)

This transmission, and those of the other cycle cops, is discussed in Chapter 14 of B.E.

My main point: either Chaney provided an incorrect account of what Hargis did (or, if he is correct, then civilian photos (e.g., the Bell film) have been edited, to delete what he described); and, notably, Hargis doesn't volunteer anything of the sort, either. As far as I know, the only cycle officer whose cycle may have tipped over, was that of Haygood, but I'm not sure that his cycle ever actually tipped over.

My main point is that what Chaney describes (re Hargis) does not appear on the Bell film. Hargis' cycle (per the civilian films) never tips over, nor did he "dump" it anywhere. He simply dismounted, steadied it, and put the kickstand down.

Of course, anyone looking at the Bell Film frames has to wonder what Hargis was doing next, standing adjacent to the light pole, and looking directly up at the area behind the concrete wall on the grassy knoll.

DSL

1/14/11 1 PM

Los Angeles, CA

I agree. This is a terrific find! But not for the reasons you give.

This thread began with the posting of an excerpt from the Chaney interview from the early 1970s. This interview showed that Chaney had not initially gunned his cycle and raced forward to inform Chief Curry what happened. On the contrary, Chaney recalled almost stopping his cycle and holding there for a bit as he recalled seeing Bobby Hargis dump his cycle by the south curb and run across the street in front of him into the knoll area. Your gloss on this was that since Chaney had seen the Zapruder film he was tailoring his report to the film and essentially making up seeing Hargis cross the street in front of him. Since his questioner was trying to get Chaney to say something to undermine the Zapruder's films authenticity, this seems like a stretch. But the Houston Chroniclen report from Chaney on November 22nd or 23rd makes it even more of a stretch. Let's say that Chaney did exactly as you've been saying he did. Chaney saw Kennedy hit in the head and raced ahead to tell Chief Curry what had happened. If Chaney did this, then how did he see "a policeman ran between two cars with his pistol drawn, heading toward the building." The article makes clear that Chaney "sped toward the lead car" after seeing the policeman with gun drawn. If Chaney had done what you have said he did, then his back would have been to all this. What Chaney said in his 1970s interview and what he says in this report is consistent with what all the films show and inconsistent with the scenario you constructed. But you are right. This is a terrific find!

JT

[snipped]

[snipped]

Edited January 14, 2012 by David Lifton

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Not so fast, David. In ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), David Mantik and I published from McCormick on Evidence, 3rd Edition (1984), not that photos or films are inadmissible in court but that they require witnesses to substantiate their accuracy and correctness IN ORDER TO BE ADMISSIBLE (pages 210, 265, and 267). Obviously, the witnesses take precedence over the photographs and films rather than the other way around, as certain parties here have repetitiously implied.

As a response to Pat Speer, by the way--and also, it now appears, to Josiah Thompson--I agree with you across the board about the evidence of a shot to his head that entered in the vicinity of the right temple. And of course about Clint Hill. I would like to think you have read "JFK: Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?", which has appeared in multiple venues, including my blog, on Veterans Today, and in THE DEALEY PLAZA ECHO. Have you read it? I worry that you only read your own stuff.

I ask because it is probably the most extensive study of Clint Hill's consistent written reports and spoken testimony about the actions he took in Dealey Plaza that day, which includes a link to the video taken during a book signing for THE KENNEDY DETAIL in which he explains in detail everything he did, which not only confirms the head wound but impeaches the film, which some do not seem to understand. The film and photographic evidence must be assessed in the context of the medical, the ballistic, and the witness evidence, which you I know appreciate but which others seem to think can be taken for granted.

At several points in this thread it has been suggested that the Zapruder film would be inadmissible in court, and that the (often decades old) recollections of the witnesses should be considered the best evidence. I've read a number of articles and books over the years that convince me this is simply not true.

A quick internet search revealed the following article...

From the 12-1-05 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

Any party seeking to introduce a film-based photograph into evidence must demonstrate its relevancy (i.e., add to the likelihood that an event did or did not occur) and authenticity (i.e., a knowledgeable person must verify the image's accuracy). (6) For example, a detective photographs a drug deal. The picture depicts two individuals exchanging a package. The prosecutor wants to enter the photo into evidence at the criminal trial of the individual who received the drugs. The picture is relevant because it shows the person present at the scene where the deal occurred and in receipt of the package. To authenticate the photograph, the prosecutor can place on the stand the detective who took the picture or any officer who witnessed the transaction and elicit that the image actually represents the person, package, place, and time. After establishing the photograph's relevancy and authenticity, the prosecutor can move to admit it into evidence.

Note that ANY witness can testify that the photograph or film depicts the assassination, and get it entered into evidence. It's silly to pretend that none of the witnesses to Kennedy's shooting would do that. Think Mary Moorman. Or William Newman. While they have said there are bits in the film they don't remember, they have never suggested that the film was fake, and did not show the actual assassination.

There's also this to consider. While some here are claiming that the statements of the Dealey Plaza witnesses trumps the Zapruder film, they fail to acknowledge that NONE of these witnesses saw an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head, and that they, instead, OVERWHELMINGLY, claimed the skull exploded along the right side of Kennedy's head, on his face even.

Here's a few:

William Newman, who was less than 30 feet to the side of Kennedy when the fatal bullet struck, was interviewed live on television station WFAA. This was 45 minutes before the announcement of Kennedy’s death. Newman told Jay Watson: “And then as the car got directly in front of us, well, a gun shot apparently from behind us hit the President in the side, the side of the temple.”

At 1:17, about a half hour later, Watson interviewed Gayle Newman, who'd been standing right beside her husband and had had an equally close look at the President's wound. She reported: "And then another one—it was just awful fast. And President Kennedy reached up and grabbed--it looked like he grabbed--his ear and blood just started gushing out." (As she said this she motioned to her right temple with both of her hands. In 1969, while testifying at the trial of Clay Shaw, Mrs, Newman would make the implications of this even more clear, and specify that Kennedy "was shot in the head right at his ear or right above his ear…")

Less than forty minutes after the announcement of Kennedy's death, eyewitness Abraham Zapruder took his turn before the cameras on WFAA, and confirmed the observations of the Newmans. Describing the shooting, Zapruder told Jay Watson: “Then I heard another shot or two, I couldn't say it was one or two, and I saw his head practically open up, all blood and everything (at this time, and as shown on the slide above, Zapruder grabbed his right temple), and I kept on shooting. That's about all, I'm just sick, I can't…”

Well, then what about Zapruder's assistant, Marilyn Sitzman? The notes of a Dallas-Times Herald reporter on the day of the assassination reflect that he spoke to Sitzman just after the shots and that she claimed "Shot hit pres. Right in the temple."

And that's not all. Motorcycle officer James Chaney, riding just a few yards off Kennedy's right shoulder, was interviewed on KLIF around the same time Newman was interviewed on TV. He said "On the first shot we thought it was a motorcycle backfire. I looked to my left and so did President Kennedy, looking back over his left shoulder, and when the second shot struck him in the face then we knew someone was shooting at the President." Once again, no explosion from the back of the head is reported.

And shouldn't the motorcycle officer riding directly to his right, Douglas Jackson, also have noted an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head, should one have occurred? Jackson's notes, written on the night of the assassination and published in 1979, relate: "I looked back toward Mr. Kennedy and saw him hit in the head; he appeared to have been hit just above the right ear. The top of his head flew off away from me."

Well then, what about the officers riding on the other side, unable to see the right side of the President's face? If there had been an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head, entrance or exit, they would not have been distracted by an entrance or exit by Kennedy's ear. So what did they see?

While the motorcycle officer on the far left of the limo, B.J. Martin, said he did not see the impact of the head shot, the officer to his right, Bobby Hargis, riding off Mrs. Kennedy's left shoulder, was not so lucky. In an 11-24-63 eyewitness account published in the New York Sunday News, he wrote: "As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of the head, spinning it around. I was splattered by blood." In 1968, in an interview with Jim Garrison's investigators, Hargis would later confirm: "If he'd got hit in the rear, I'd have been able to see it. All I saw was just a splash come out on the other side."

The Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses overwhelmingly support that NO shot exploded from the back of Kennedy's head. Take from it what you like.

I think the Dealey Plaza witnesses constitute good evidence that Kennedy was struck (from the front) in the side of his head. What you are omitting, of course, is a most important Dealey Plaza witness: Secret Service Clint Hill.

He, too, is a Dealey Plaza witness--is he not?

Based on what he observed, when he climbed aboard the limousine (in Dealey Plaza, right?), he stated --in his SS report, and then in his testimony--that the back of Kennedy's head was missing, and that it was lying in the rear seat of the car.

Why go to the trouble of listing all these witnesses, who clearly saw something explode as a bullet slammed into the right hand side of JFK's head, and ignore the most important Dealey Plaza witness of all--Clint Hill, who reported that the rear of JFK's head was shot off?

DSL

1/14/12 12:55 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Edited January 14, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

David, since you were kind enough to respond to my seven questions, I will respond to your seven answers with my replies in italics.

. . .

You are so far off base about your theory that all the shots came from in front that I reassert, IT IS SIMPLY ABSURD. And if Costella wants to join you in that fantasy, so be it. The evidence and logic are on my side, not yours. So if you want to save face on this forum and in this thread, then kindly explain away at least the following seven points:

(1) the holes in his shirt and jacket;

(2) the wound on his back and all that;

(3) the injury sustained by James Tague;

(4) the wound to John Connally's back;

(5) the wound to the back of JFK's head;

(6) the indentation in the chrome strip;

(7) witnesses reports of shots from behind.

. . .

Jim

[snipped--to save space. See previous post for text of the Chaney interview]

Here, in reverse order, are my comments on the objections you have raised. This response is not intended to be definitive. I am in the midst of a "work in progress" and can't respond in greater detail at this juncture. But regardless of the particulars, it all comes down to the primacy of the body as evidence.

(7) witnesses reports of shots from behind.

DSL Response:

So what? Just because a sniper’s nest was found at the SE corner sixth floor window does not mean that shots were actually fired from there. And this same principle extends to sounds heard, sniper's supposedly seen, etc. There are multiple explanations for why there are “witnesses reports of shots from behind”. If a strategic deception was utilized in connection with the assassination, citing such reports means little. The only way to know the number and direction of the shots that struck Kennedy is to know what wounds were actually on his body immediately after the shots were fired.

JHF Reply: Give us a break, David. You are placing a lot of emphasis on the witnesses with regard to the shots and all that. THEY ARE ALSO WITNESSES REGARDING THE LOCATION OF THE SHOTS AS THEY PERCEIVED THEM. Stuart Galanor, COVER-UP (1998), has a list of 216 witnesses on pages 171-176. You need to go through and count how many reported they had come from the Depository, how many from the knoll, and how many from elsewhere--because THEY WERE ALL CORRECT! Shots DID come from the Depository (though not from the alleged "assassin's lair"), where even the HSCA did not discriminate between that location and the DalTex. I discussed this explicitly with Donald Thomas when he spoke at Lancer and I was the co-chair. When you place so much emphasis on witnesses in other respects, how can you discount them here?

(6) The indentation in the chrome strip.

I realize this is a potentially significant issue, and I believe that there are two possible explanations for “the indentation in the chrome strip.” One is the Secret Service reports that indicate the damage was there, prior to Dallas, and was observed from work on the car, either in NYC (at the Empire Garage, as I recall) The other is that if there was windshield switching, then any damage to the chrome strip was incident to such activity. Chrome strip damage only becomes important if it can be reliably established (a) it wasn't there prior to Dallas and (b ) was observed prior to any possible windshield switching.

JHF Reply: This was the presidential limousine. It was maintained to the highest standards. No blemish of that kind would have been allowed to remain without repair. The Secret Service, like the FBI, would be adept at creating false records to cover up any evidence that the car could provide, as was done by sending it back to Ford and having it completely rebuilt. Mike Pincher and Roy Schaeffer have observed that a flare of light appears to emanate from the windshield at that location in frames 330-332. I recommend that you read pages 228-229 of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998) and reconsider your opinion. A photograph of the damage to the chrome strip is published there on page 353. I am certain that photos of the limousine taken before the assassination will confirm that it was not already there.

In fact, a much smaller photo of the damage to the chrome strip can be found in SIX SECONDS (1966), page 113, where it appears along with a photo of the substitute windshield. As an aside, I was struck by the incongruity of the cover of Tink's book, which describes its contents as "a micro-study of the Kennedy assassination proving that three gunmen murdered the President", and the final paragraph of the text on page 246, which states, "What does this collection of new evidence prove? It does not prove that the assassination was a conspiracy and that two men were together on the sixth floor of the Depository at the time the shots were fired." But of course a conspiracy only requires collusion between two or more individuals to bring about an illegal act, where his own theory of three shooters satisfies that.

(5) The wound in the back of JFK’s head:

I am genuinely surprised, professor, that you can recite chapter and verse of all the Parkland Hospital witnesses who saw an exit wound at the back of JFK’s head, as proof it was there, but seem to ignore that some dozen doctors were specifically asked, by Arlen Specter, whether they observed an entry wound on the back of the head (or a “small hole” beneath the large hole) and every single one of them answered “no”. (Well, Dr. Clark said something like "maybe it was hidden in blood and hair") Yet you persist in offering something supposedly on the body at Bethesda, which was not observed at Dallas, as evidence of its authenticity--i.e., that it "must have been there" --when it was not observed. Why do you do that? (And please don't respond by saying its on the Bethesda X-ray, when you yourself agree the X-rays have been faked.) Furthermore, and now turning to anatomic detai, in BEST EVIDENCE, I lay out the case that, based on the Bethesda evidence, there was no “bullet hole” at all, but rather a “portion” of the circumference of something interpreted to be a bullet wound. (See Chapter 22, B.E.)

JHF reply: Well, David, I am genuinely surprised that you haven't given this much thought and that you appear to be unaware of David Mantik's confirmation of an entry wound at the back of the head in his extraordinary synthesis of the medical evidence in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), pages 219-297. This is confirmation of my conjecture that you only read your own stuff. This is the most brilliant study of the medical evidence ever composed by the mind of man--and you haven't even read it! I am stunned. It is the case that the evidence for this wound is extremely subtle and that the Parkland physicians were in no position to discern it; but that does not mean that the Bethesda physicians were wrong about the existence of a wound at the back of the head, which of course is the very wound that would be elevated by four (4) inches by the HSCA medical panel in one of the great sleights-of-hand in American forensic history. When I asked Cyril how they dealt with the discrepancies between the Parkland physicians and the Bethesda autopsy report, by the way, he told me that he would "have to consult his notes". Indeed!

(4) the wound to John Connally's back

I’ll have much more to say on this matter in the future. I cannot respond at this time. That’s why I was careful to state that I did not believe that Kennedy was struck from behind. Of course, if Connally was struck from the front, then he lied under oath. I assume you are aware that the first person to treat Connally—Nurse Doris Nelson—wrote in her report that Connally had “received” a buollet in the chest. (That's in her report, dated 11/22/63--see the Price Exhibits in the 26 volumes). And, in any event, she personally reconfirmed the validity of that report, in a tape recorded interview in December, 1982, about six months before she died (of cancer). On that occasion, she reconfirmed to me that Connally was shot in the chest from the front, and that she observed no entry wound on the back of his body.

JHF Reply: Well, you know, "Big John" stated that he had turned to his right to see what was going on with JFK, but his view was obstructed, so he turned back to his left and that is when he felt that "doubling-up" in his chest from the bullet having hit him in the back. Since he was turned to the side, my inference is that he was shot from the side, in particular, from the west side of the Book Depository, where, if you ever watch "What happened to JFK--and why it matters today", you will learn that my best guess is that this shooter was Frank Sturgis. I cannot claim that with certainty, of course, but based upon my research, that is my best guess. Big John may have been hit as many as three times, as I see it, where the four entry wounds in JFK combined with the three shots that missed--the one that hit Tague, the one that hit the chrome strip, and the one that was found in the grass--mean that there had to have been eight, nine or ten shots fired that day from what appear to be six locations. I do find your appeal to a single witness rather fascinating, however, and I shall certainly await the results of your research. But I hope this new work is not supposed to prove an absurd theory.

(3) the injury sustained by James Tague

The curb chip—which, as I’m sure you would agree—was covertly patched up, does not prove that the shot was fired from behind. It depends exactly when that shot was fired, and where the limo was located. I will have more to say about this in the future. At this juncture, I would agree that this has to be explained—and I can’t present a full and complete explanation in this post. But rest assured I will have more to say on this matter.

JHF Reply: Thanks for your candor. I think you will have at least as much difficulty proving the case for that shot having been fired from in front as you confront in the case of the other points I raise.

(2) The wounds in his back and all that.

What the heck does “an all that” supposed to mean?

Surely you are aware that Commander Humes called Doctor Perry either at midnight on 11/22/63 or the next day, and asked Perry—according to Perry’s own testimony—whether “we had made any wounds in the back”. And surely you are aware that the FBI agents witnessed one of the doctors putting his finger in the wound, and it barely went in. Finally, the wound—as reported by Humes—did not have an abrasion collar, the sine qua non for a bullet entry wound. So no, I do not believe that is a legitimate bullet entry wound, but rather one placed there to be a matching “receptacle” for the bullet placed on a stretcher in Dallas. Moreover, does it not pique your curiosity, Professor, that this wound was not “discovered” until several hours into the autopsy (during the “latter stages” according to the Sibert and O’Neill report?) How many episodes of Law and Order must we watch to understand that there is something mighty peculiar about this wound, and the circumstances of its "discovery"?

JHF Replies: If you haven't read David's chapter on the medical evidence in MURDER (2000), then I am quite sure you have never read my study of the back wound in "Reasoning about Assassinations", even though it was presented at Cambridge and published in an international peer-reviewed journal. Some of the faults I find in your reasoning include (i) that "Pepper" Jenkins would later observe that he had felt it with his fingers, just as Audrey Rike would later report he had felt the massive blow-out to the back of JFK's head when he helped to lift the body into the casket; (ii) that his jacket and shirt were promptly removed in Trauma Room #1 AND LEFT THERE, which makes it anomalous how they could have made a hole in the shirt and jacket that corresponded to the wound in the body at Bethesda, when they did not have the jacket and shirt to correlate in creating your fabricated wound. I am sorry, David, but when you do so much brilliant work on other aspects of the medical evidence, I am appalled to see you commit blunders of this magnitude. If you had read my article, you would see I am referring to the evidence that substantiates the location of that wound: Boswell's drawing, Sibert's drawing, Burkley's death certificate, the reenactment photographs, and the mortician's summary of the wounds. My opinion is that if we don't know where JFK was hit in the back, then we don't know enough to figure out JFK, where your fantastic theory that all the shots came from the front and your attempts to defend it are rationally irresponsible.

(1) The holes in the jacket and the shirt.

I believe these holes were man made, and created to (roughly) “match” the wound on the body. And that’s why the “dot” on the Boswell diagram made at autopsy roughly matches these clothing holes. The give-away that this is all contrived is the FBI report of the interview of Roy Kellerman by Sibert and O’Neill, from the night of the Bethesda autopsy. In that FBI report, Kellerman states that Kennedy reached around with his right hand to a point on the back of his body, when he was hit.He also then supposedly exclaimed: "My God, I am hit" and/or "Get me to a hospital!" This is all nonsense, of course--Kennedy made no such movement with his right arm, after the shots were fired (nor did he say any such thing)--but shows the extent to which a key Secret Service agent was willing to falsify his account of Kennedy’s last movements in life, in order to create false evidence corroborating this phony story of how JFK (someone whose life he was sworn to protect) actually died.

JHF Replies: As I have previously observed, if you haven't read David's chapter on the medical evidence in MURDER (2000), then I am quite sure you have never read my study of the back wound in "Reasoning about Assassinations", even though it was presented at Cambridge and published in an international peer-reviewed journal. Some of the faults I find in your reasoning include (i) that "Pepper" Jenkins would later observe that he had felt it with his fingers, just as Audrey Rike would later report he had felt the massive blow-out to the back of JFK's head when he helped to lift the body into the casket; (ii) that his jacket and shirt were promptly removed in Trauma Room #1 AND LEFT THERE, which makes it anomalous how they could have made a hole in the shirt and jacket that corresponded to the wound in the body at Bethesda, when they did not have the jacket and shirt to correlate in creating your fabricated wound. I am sorry, David, but when you do so much brilliant work on other aspects of the medical evidence, I am appalled to see you commit blunders. So I ask: precisely when were they made and by whom? Surely not at Parkland. Yet that is the only occasion on which the jacket, the shirt and the body were in the same place at the same time. I am sorry, David, but this is not your best work.

One other thing: I never said—ever—that you supported the SBT. Nor do I believe any such thing. What I believe I did say, or meant to imply, anyway, was that you seem to ignore the suspicious circumstances that took place in the Bethesda autopsy room when, hours into the autopsy, the “back” wound was suddenly “found” and then, within a minute or so, Kellerman was involved in a telephone call that basically communicated to Humes: “You have a wound without a bullet? Well, see here now, the FBI has just informed me that they have a bullet without a wound”—and so, in that manner, bullet 399 was “matched up” with the shallow wound on Kennedy’s back (or shoulder). This is all discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 of BEST EVIDENCE and, imho, constitutes further evidence that the Bethesda autopsy, in some respects, was akin to a stage-managed fraud.

JHF Replies: Well, thanks for not foisting off on me some ridiculous rubbish like that. There is a question about where the bullet that hit JFK in the back went, but it was certainly not the bullet that was planted on the stretcher. I should add that, in my opinion, that shot, which was fired from (what I take to have been) a 30.06 using a plastic collar known as a "sabot", was intended to implant a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet in the body to tie an obscure World War II weapon to the assassination. They knew they were going to steal the body and place it under medical control, where they could remove any fragments that might have undermined their official "three shot, lone assassin" script, where you know at least as well as anyone else that they had given even more thought to the cover-up than they had to killing JFK. As we both know, killing him was not the problem; rather, covering it up and making sure that no one would be held liable for his murder beyond the patsy was the challenge. And they met it!

DSL

1/14/12; 12:40 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Edited January 15, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Scott Kaiser]

JF: (1) He has abandoned his "double-hit" analysis, which was the most important contribution of his book.

Indeed, given that analysis alone, how could he conclude it by claiming nothing in it proves conspiracy?

The double-hit BY ITSELF established there were at least two shooters in Dealey Plaza. So unless he has

lost all capacity to reason, his book PROVED A CONSPIRACY, yet he disavowed having proven conspiracy.

Jim, you are forgetting something.

If Tink's new position is correct, its over for the other side.

The fatal shot came from the front. Period.

No jet effect BS. Not neuromuscular reaction BS.

The shot came from the front.

The fatal shot came from the front. Period.

Do you have solid evidence of such? I don't want theory, hearsay or because a million witnesses said so. Show me the proof.

[Josiah Thompson]

Good catch, David. Chaney never said he at any time that he saw Hargis "dump his cycle." I said that and I was mistaken. My error. He did hold there and saw Hargis run in front of him from the left or south curb of Elm Street to the north side of Elm Street. If he had immediately accelerated to catch up with the lead car he could not have seen this. The full quote from Chaney is in the first post of this thread.

The point is that Chaney on the 22nd or 23rd of November offers corroboration for what he said in a much later interview.

JT

QUOTING JOSIAH THOMPSON'S POST:

Chaney recalled almost stopping his cycle and holding there for a bit as he recalled seeing Bobby Hargis dump his cycle by the south curb and run across the street in front of him into the knoll area. UNQUOTE

Addressing the statement that Chaney "recalled seeing Bobby Hargis dump his cycle by the south curb and run across the street in front of him. . "

Please note that Hargis did not "dump his cycle by the south curb"--at least, not according to the film evidence we now have. Rather, Hargis left his cycle standing upright in the center of the street; then he went over to the lamppost, stood there briefly (as shown in Bell film frames) staring up at the area behind the concrete wall and fence; then Hargis came back to his cycle which was still standing upright, in the center of the street (Hargis' return to his cycle is shown in Bond Slide #4, showing him about to remount); and then Hargis sped off, westwards, towards the underpass (as shown in the Bothun photo, published in the next day's newspaper).

To emphasize this point: if Hargis in fact "dump[ed] his cycle by the south curb" (which is what Chaney reports) then that event has been excised from the bystander films (e.g., Bell)--and I have reason to believe that is so. (And such an event, if it happened, would be just as important as the car stop, imho).

But let's set that matter aside and return to Hargis, and what he did next, based on the (surviving) photo evidence. . . :

Having sped west and gone beyond the underpass, Hargis then returned to Dealey Plaza and, if memory serves, was the first of the three cycle cops to get on the radio (within three minutes of the assassination) and say that he "had a witness" who said the shots came from the TSBD. (Hargis 12:34 transmission can be found in the Sawyer Exhibits, the DPD "early" version of the DPD radio transmissions, and as I recall, I have heard this myself on Mary Ferrell's version of the DPD tape.)

This transmission, and those of the other cycle cops, is discussed in Chapter 14 of B.E.

My main point: either Chaney provided an incorrect account of what Hargis did (or, if he is correct, then civilian photos (e.g., the Bell film) have been edited, to delete what he described); and, notably, Hargis doesn't volunteer anything of the sort, either. As far as I know, the only cycle officer whose cycle may have tipped over, was that of Haygood, but I'm not sure that his cycle ever actually tipped over.

My main point is that what Chaney describes (re Hargis) does not appear on the Bell film. Hargis' cycle (per the civilian films) never tips over, nor did he "dump" it anywhere. He simply dismounted, steadied it, and put the kickstand down.

Of course, anyone looking at the Bell Film frames has to wonder what Hargis was doing next, standing adjacent to the light pole, and looking directly up at the area behind the concrete wall on the grassy knoll.

DSL

1/14/11 1 PM

Los Angeles, CA

I agree. This is a terrific find! But not for the reasons you give.

This thread began with the posting of an excerpt from the Chaney interview from the early 1970s. This interview showed that Chaney had not initially gunned his cycle and raced forward to inform Chief Curry what happened. On the contrary, Chaney recalled almost stopping his cycle and holding there for a bit as he recalled seeing Bobby Hargis dump his cycle by the south curb and run across the street in front of him into the knoll area. Your gloss on this was that since Chaney had seen the Zapruder film he was tailoring his report to the film and essentially making up seeing Hargis cross the street in front of him. Since his questioner was trying to get Chaney to say something to undermine the Zapruder's films authenticity, this seems like a stretch. But the Houston Chroniclen report from Chaney on November 22nd or 23rd makes it even more of a stretch. Let's say that Chaney did exactly as you've been saying he did. Chaney saw Kennedy hit in the head and raced ahead to tell Chief Curry what had happened. If Chaney did this, then how did he see "a policeman ran between two cars with his pistol drawn, heading toward the building." The article makes clear that Chaney "sped toward the lead car" after seeing the policeman with gun drawn. If Chaney had done what you have said he did, then his back would have been to all this. What Chaney said in his 1970s interview and what he says in this report is consistent with what all the films show and inconsistent with the scenario you constructed. But you are right. This is a terrific find!

JT

[snipped]

[snipped]

Edited January 14, 2012 by Josiah Thompson

[John Costella]

Tink,

Thanks. We disagree on much, but at least our interactions are consistent. I am pleased that you take no offence at my recognition of your modus operandi. Adversaries can still harbour a degree of mutual respect, in some areas at least.

I have had discussions with a mutual acquaintance -- whose motives (I am sure you won't mind me saying) I trust far more than yours -- and there seems to be some scope for me to get access to some of this material. Let's see how that pans out.

It almost goes without saying that (if it does pan out) I'll report whatever I find -- and that won't necessarily be restricted to the back of the head.

John

My comments are in bold-face and underlined.

Tink,

"Crossed in the mail", 21st century style. I've just finished my post saying that I think the back of the head is a distraction.

I couldn't agree with you more. Another one like "full frame left penetration" that is now deader than door nail.

I also know that when you go after an issue with as much gusto as "Moorman in the Street", that you know with high confidence that the extant photographic evidence has nothing to hide.

I can't disagree with you here.

I also know (after 11 or so years of it) that when your tone softens, and you invite me to join in with scholarly research with you, that you know what I'll find, and you're very happy with what that outcome will be.

Once again, how could I disagree with you here.

But I do enjoy getting down to the truth, so let me propose a compromise: I'll give you my opinion of the back of the head, on any material you're able to send to my side of the planet (electronically, by mail, carrier pigeon, or otherwise), if any such material has the FULL FRAME at that resolution.

I take it what you are saying here is that you need a full-frame not a close-up to examine. Secondly, I imagine you also need a frame that has not been touched by any compression program.

That's not really what I want -- I'd prefer ALL parts of ALL frames of ALL copies at as high fidelity and resolution as possible -- but, as I said, this proposal is a compromise.

Okay. I'll see what I can do.

John

Really fascinating! I gotta say, you sure do tell it as it is.

The "missing bullet" copy of Z 317 is apparently quite downstream of other copies. When I look at the Lifton copy of Z 317, it certainly reminds me of what I saw in the MPI transparencies recently and what I remember from the old LIFE transparencies. It also is not far from my own close-up of 317 that I'm coming to recognize is a tad out of focus.

So let's ask the best question we can. David apparently has a high resolution scan of Z 317. If he agreed to cooperate, what tests would you think might be run on the scan to determine whether any artwork, any patch, had been imposed on it? Perhaps we don't have to wait on either the Hollywood Seven or the 6th Floor Museum to resolve this question. Perhaps we could do it ourselves. Why don't we forget for awhile which tribe we're supposed to belong to and operate as genuine scholars trying to resolve a question that has come up? I'd like to work with you, John, on getting this resolved. What do you think should be done?

JT