The Law of Unintended Consequences

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Chris,

Just to reassure you, I am checking out a point or two before I put up my RESPONSE,

which is in my post #565. Thanks for your interest in these issues. You seem to me to

have been doing your homework. And thanks for posting that very probative slide!

Jim

MOST OF IT WAS DONE BY SUNDAY NOVEMBER 24TH, WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NPIC.

3. Can you provide the names of any of those who were directly involved in altering it, or even present during the alteration process?

NO--BUT DAVID LIFTON AND DOUG HORNE FIGURED THIS OUT AND HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT IT.

Dr. Fetzer:

Many thanks for your reply.

Can I assume from your first statement above, then, that you believe the account of Homer McMahon, which is based (insofar as it relates to the films's presence at Hawkeye) on what "Secret Service agent Bill Smith" told him?

Further, does your response to my question regarding the identities of anyone involved in altering the film mean that you no longer subscribe to the view that "it is highly probable that Rollie Zavada might have been involved in the production of the substitute version of the film" at Kodak's Hawkeye Plant in Rochester, as you suggested in your 'Real Deal' interview with Doug Horne on Friday, November 18, last (1 hour 17 minutes 30 seconds into the programme)?

Edited January 16, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

Slides that have been in the possession of The 6th Floor Museum and which "went missing" in the midst of discussion about a "patch" that should not be there is not simply suspicious. I know your routine, Tink. WE ALL KNOW YOUR ROUTINE.

Hi Jim,

I would like to nip this in the bud, lest any responses escalate this into a row which cuold potentially derail and ruin this thread.

You appear to imply the slides at the 6th Floor 'going missing' is linked directly to Josiah Thompson. There may well be purely semantic arguments which refute my reading of this - nevertheless, can I ask, for the betterment of debate and avoidance of any abrasive responses - that you either remove this sentence, or state clearly you hold Josiah Thompson innocent of any linkage to 'missing slides'. If you have clear and compelling evidence for your assertion about Josiah Thompson or the missing slides, please produce it - however hunches, whilst usefully intuitive tools, will not be enough in this case.

As forum member, I like everyone else I can't wait to see the new slides - but until then, for me, the patch issue is a pointless debate at this stage.

To All - can we please limit the personal insults and innuendo - this only tends to escalate rows. No matter how cleverly they are formulated. Insults are insults.

Many Thanks,

Gary

In all due respect, Gary, where have you been when Craig has suggested that drug use accounts for positions held by researchers with whom he disagrees?

Hi Greg,

I am aware of Craig's remarks and personally thought they were inoffensive. If you are genuinely telling me you are not exaggerating or feigning offence because it's Craig - in the same way that some members exaggerate and feign offence because it's Len Colby - then I will ask Craig to remove the offending phrases or allow his posts to be made wholly invisible.

If my original thoughts have caused you offence I can only apologise and sincerely.

Gary

Gary,

1. what are you smokin?

a phrase used to show the stupidity of a statement or action made by another person

when he flipped off the cop at the light i smacked him a good one and yelled WHAT ARE YOU SMOKIN SON?

Guy A: That chick dont look too bad over there.

Guy B: What are you smokin? she looks like she just swallowed a beach ball!

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=what%20are%20you%20smokin%3F

Clearly Greg Burnham would never make a stupid statement so I'll go back and amend my post.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Gary, Not to suggest you haven't given this much thought, but the black patch was there in the past and now it's not. I don't think anyone has to have taught logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years to infer that something must have happened in the meanwhile. If you don't think that's "supporting evidence", I can't imagine what you would regard as evidence that something has happened to the slides. In case you haven't noticed, Josiah has said ON THIS FORUM/IN THIS THREAD that, if David Mantik reported having seen the black patch, HE MUST HAVE BEEN "MAKING IT UP". Now if you consider yourself to be the ethical cop on the block, THAT IS A GENUINELY OFFENSIVE REMARK. And so far as I can tell, no one has called him on it--not you, not Pat, not anyone but me! The hypocrisy and double-standard on this forum is nauseating, where I offer this as a stellar example. TINK DEFAMES DAVID AND YOU GUYS DO NOTHING. I find THAT offensive. Jim

Gary, Tink has a close relationship with Gary Mack. That is common knowledge. What is or is not on those slides has become a matter of controversy. I have heard from more than one source that the slide set "went missing". I have no idea who might have been responsible for that, but I am aware that experts have visited The 6th Floor Museum and found the black patch on frame 317 was conspicuous and easily detectable. Now Josiah is saying that "It's not there". But if it was there in the past and is not there now, what are we to make of this? I have no idea why you are intervening. The entire case is laden with falsified evidence. Tink wrongly insists the MPI slides are the "best evidence". I have explained repeatedly why that is untrue: it was a sloppy and incomplete set to begin with and, now that we have a 3rd generation copy directly from the Archives, there is no basis whatsoever to continue to tout its virtues, which were exaggerated from the beginning, with frames out of order and many missing frames. So if you know what happened to that slide set when it "went missing", that's just fine. If there is an innocuous explanation, then let them produce it. I have raised the question several times with no answer. But it's an important question. Otherwise, I have no idea what you are doing intervening here. That seems to me to be very inappropriate. Jim

You appear to believe, nor have you refuted this belief, that Josiah Thompson is/was involved in a plot to remove and alter slides held at the 6th floor museum. The only way Thompson knows there is no patch on the slides at the 6th floor, is because he knows the slides were removed to alter this 'fact'. This appears to be what you refer to as 'his routine'.

Anyway, forgive me having the temerity to intervene in order to head off the circular and redundant arguments which will follow, be reported and end up with moderation. I will leave it to you to decide if your approach is appropriate given the absolute lack of supporting evidence.

Edited January 15, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Greg Burnham]

Hi Greg,

I am aware of Craig's remarks and personally thought they were inoffensive.

That's not the point. Of course you weren't offended personally, they were not directed your way.

If you are genuinely telling me you are not exaggerating or feigning offence because it's Craig - in the same way that some members exaggerate and feign offence because it's Len Colby - then I will ask Craig to remove the offending phrases or allow his posts to be made wholly invisible.

This has nothing to do with "who it is" -- Gary. The comments are inappropriate and somewhat disruptive and therefore should not be tolerated. I think this should be a level playing field where moderation is avoided when possible, but evenly applied independent from the posters popularity.

If my original thoughts have caused you offence I can only apologise and sincerely.

Gary

I didn't notice an original thought...but maybe I missed them.

[Craig Lamson]

Gary, Not to suggest you haven't given this much thought, but the black patch was there in the past and now it's not.

What are you...opps...

This is just silly to the extreme.

The so call black patch/shadow has never "gone missing". One person calls it a natural shadow, yet another calls it evidence of alteration.

NEITHER HAS PROVIDED ANYTHING BUT PERSONAL OBSERVATION TO BACK THEIR CLAIM!

You need to get up to speed on this or else stop commenting.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Guest Gary Loughran]

Hi Greg,

I am aware of Craig's remarks and personally thought they were inoffensive.

That's not the point. Of course you weren't offended personally, they were not directed your way.

If you are genuinely telling me you are not exaggerating or feigning offence because it's Craig - in the same way that some members exaggerate and feign offence because it's Len Colby - then I will ask Craig to remove the offending phrases or allow his posts to be made wholly invisible.

This has nothing to do with "who it is" -- Gary. The comments are inappropriate and somewhat disruptive and therefore should not be tolerated. I think this should be a level playing field where moderation is avoided when possible, but evenly applied independent from the posters popularity.

If my original thoughts have caused you offence I can only apologise and sincerely.

Gary

I didn't notice an original thought...but maybe I missed them.

I hope Craig's suggested action has resolved the issue.

You, of course, didn't notice any original thought, there were none. This forum hasn't produced too many orginal thoughts lately, instead we have the same argument retreads, the same deliberate misreading of posts, the condescending intellectual aloofness, the general lack of civility which has caused posters such as Lee Farley (who was bringing original thoughts to the forum) to leave.

I am truly sorry, you found Craig's post so offensive. You are right the poster shouldn't matter - I am sorry for suggesting you exaggerated offence. Most of all I am sorry you appear to have went out of your way to read my post in the worst way possible at every point. I can't imagine how you would've replied if I was trying to be insulting!!

[Josiah Thompson]

This is absurd. First, the guy who started all this, Doug Horne, is the guy who holds the 6th Floor Museum 4" by 5" MPI Ektachrome transparencies to be the gold standard:

Douglas P. Horne, Inside the Assassinations Review Board, Vol IV, page 1362

Gary Mack replied by email on August 28th [to an inquiry from David Mantik] that the Ektachrome transparencies [of the extant Zapruder film commissioned by MPI in 1997 for its video, Image of an Assassination] were in the possession of the Sixth Floor Museum and were available for viewing... Whereas Syd Wilkinson’s dupe 35 mm negative was a fifth generation copy, the Ektachrome transparencies were only one generation removed from the extant film, and presumably would show any anomalies, or apparent alterations, in much greater detail than even the 35 mm dupe negative made from the Forensic Copy. If the extant film under cold storage at NARA were to be declared unavailable for direct examination for any reason, then the Ektachrome transparencies at the Sixth Floor Museum could become the best tool for studying apparent alterations in the film. Not only would these images be four generations closer to the extant film than Sydney’s dupe negative (and therefore theoretically depict details in better resolution), but they could serve as a “control” to prove that Sydney and her research team have not digitally altered their scans of the Zapruder frames in any way. I am confident this is not the case, but anyone who is interested in verifying the provenance of the image content in Sydney’s high resolution scans of the dupe negative could compare her digital files of each frame with the corresponding Ektachrome transparency at the Sixth Floor Museum.

I took Horne seriously and went to Dallas and viewed the MPI transparencies. It was clear that Z 317 and adjacent frames showed no indication of what we've come to call the "black patch effect." If David Mantik claims it is there, he's irremediably, unsalvageably and completely WRONG! So now Fetzer claims that I'm part of some conspiracy to alter the MPI transparencies which are in the custody of the Sixth Floor Museum. So the logic goes like this. (1) The MPI transparencies are the gold standard [Horne's book]. (2) Thompson goes to Dallas and views the gold standard. (3) The gold standard shows the opposite of what we want it to show. (4) Therefore, Thompson must be part of some plot to alter the gold standard. I am so tickled that we have a professionally trained critical thinker who has "taught logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning" for a long, long, very long, in fact, incredibly long, time to help us understand all these things. Without such a trained professional, golly, I bet we wouldn't be able to figure out anything.

Now let's go to the Moorman photo taken at Z 315. If a hole was blown out of the back of JFK's head at this time we would expect it to show. It doesn't, In fact, it shows us just what we see in Zapruder frame 315 taken at the same instant. What are we to make of this? The simplest answer is that any hole in the back of JFK's head was not visible at this time. Of course, if there is no hole visible in the Zapruder film there is no reason to paint a patch in Z 317. Since there is no reason to do it, most probably no one did it. Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., says he won't deal with the issue. Could it be that he doesn't want to deal with the issue because he doesn't know how to deal with the issue? I have all sorts of copies of the Moorman photo.. the Zippo, the FBI copy, the drum scan copy, the Gordon Smith copy, the UPI copy. I am posting below the drum scan copy.

JT

Gary, Not to suggest you haven't given this much thought, but the black patch was there in the past and now it's not. I don't think anyone has to have taught logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years to infer that something must have happened in the meanwhile. If you don't think that's "supporting evidence", I can't imagine what you would regard as evidence that something has happened to the slides. In case you haven't noticed, Josiah has said ON THIS FORUM/IN THIS THREAD that, if David Mantik reported having seen the black patch, HE MUST HAVE BEEN "MAKING IT UP". Now if you consider yourself to be the ethical cop on the block, THAT IS A GENUINELY OFFENSIVE REMARK. And so far as I can tell, no one has called him on it--not you, not Pat, not anyone but me! The hypocrisy and double-standard on this forum is nauseating, where I offer this as a stellar example. TINK DEFAMES DAVID AND YOU GUYS DO NOTHING. I find THAT offensive. Jim

Gary, Tink has a close relationship with Gary Mack. That is common knowledge. What is or is not on those slides has become a matter of controversy. I have heard from more than one source that the slide set "went missing". I have no idea who might have been responsible for that, but I am aware that experts have visited The 6th Floor Museum and found the black patch on frame 317 was conspicuous and easily detectable. Now Josiah is saying that "It's not there". But if it was there in the past and is not there now, what are we to make of this? I have no idea why you are intervening. The entire case is laden with falsified evidence. Tink wrongly insists the MPI slides are the "best evidence". I have explained repeatedly why that is untrue: it was a sloppy and incomplete set to begin with and, now that we have a 3rd generation copy directly from the Archives, there is no basis whatsoever to continue to tout its virtues, which were exaggerated from the beginning, with frames out of order and many missing frames. So if you know what happened to that slide set when it "went missing", that's just fine. If there is an innocuous explanation, then let them produce it. I have raised the question several times with no answer. But it's an important question. Otherwise, I have no idea what you are doing intervening here. That seems to me to be very inappropriate. Jim

You appear to believe, nor have you refuted this belief, that Josiah Thompson is/was involved in a plot to remove and alter slides held at the 6th floor museum. The only way Thompson knows there is no patch on the slides at the 6th floor, is because he knows the slides were removed to alter this 'fact'. This appears to be what you refer to as 'his routine'.

Anyway, forgive me having the temerity to intervene in order to head off the circular and redundant arguments which will follow, be reported and end up with moderation. I will leave it to you to decide if your approach is appropriate given the absolute lack of supporting evidence.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Josiah Thompson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, I doubt very much that Doug Horne would hold the MPI slides to be "the gold standard" today. If they are so pristine and sharp and their images so well-defined, all the more reason to doubt that David Mantik could possibly have been mistaken in observing the black patch in the past or, for that matter, that Tink could possibly be wrong that it isn't there today. So by simply assuming that they are BOTH TELLING THE TRUTH, we have a prima facie case that CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE SLIDE SET. A prima facie case is not definitive but creates a presumption that something is the case, in this instance, that the slide set has been altered. In order to defeat that presumption, it would be necessary to establish proof to the contrary, which I have yet to see. Indeed, although I have repeatedly asked about reports that the slide set recently "went missing", no one appears to be willing to address that question. This case is riddled with falsified and fabricated evidence, which may or may not include the Moorman Polaroid. I have deferred to John Costella because he is a bona fide expert in the area of photography and film, while I am not. Never one to miss an opportunity to make cheap points, I am supposed to be "unwilling to deal with the issue", when I am deferring to John's greater expertise.

But AS TINK KNOWS FULL WELL, we have been round and round about the Moorman for many years. I have opinions about it, which include that, even as I view the version Tink has posted here, there appears to me to be a darkened area at the back of his head. OBVIOUSLY, if the photo has NOT been tampered with, THERE SHOULD BE A MASSIVE BLOW-OUT AT THE BACK OF HIS HEAD. Many witnesses, including Beverly Oliver, watched his brains be blown out the back of his head. That OBVIOUSLY REQUIRED THAT THERE BE A MASSIVE DEFECT AT THE BACK OF HIS HEAD. Clint Hill, lying across Jack and Jackie's bodies, has reported peering down into a fist-sized opening at the back of his head. The physicians reported it. McClelland and Crenshaw--and others now, in relation to the ARRB--have diagrammed it. Gary Aguilar published a chapter in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) documenting it. Dozens of witnesses have confirmed it. David Mantik's studies of the X-rays confirmed that it had been "patched". Now world-class experts on film have confirmed the presence of a counterpart "patch" on the 3rd generation copy obtained from NARA by Sydney Wilkinson.

Tink now wants us to believe THAT THE MOORMAN DOES NOT SHOW IT. And I say, given the preponderance of evidence that it was there, which is simply overwhelming, IF IT IS NOT SEEN IN THE MOORMAN WHEN IT OUGHT TO BE VISIBLE, HOW CAN ANYONE SERIOUSLY DOUBT THAT THE POLAROID HAS TO HAVE BEEN FAKED? Far from evading the question, I regard this argument as "cut and dry". Give it some thought. HIS BRAINS CANNOT HAVE BEEN BLOWN-OUT THE BACK OF HIS HEAD IN THE ABSENCE OF A MASSIVE DEFECT! It has been said that no position is so absurd that some philosopher has not held it. But to maintain that the Moorman could possibly be authentic IF IT DOES NOT SHOW A BLOW OUT IN THE BACK OF HIS HEAD would set a new standard. As Josiah has felt himself becoming more and more boxed in relative to his obsessive dedication to defending the indefensible--the authenticity of the film--he finds himself resorting to more and more desperate arguments. This one takes the cake!

This is absurd. First, the guy who started all this, Doug Horne, is the guy who holds the 6th Floor Museum 4" by 5" MPI Ektachrome transparencies to be the gold standard:

Douglas P. Horne, Inside the Assassinations Review Board, Vol IV, page 1362

Gary Mack replied by email on August 28th [to an inquiry from David Mantik] that the Ektachrome transparencies [of the extant Zapruder film commissioned by MPI in 1997 for its video, Image of an Assassination] were in the possession of the Sixth Floor Museum and were available for viewing... Whereas Syd Wilkinson’s dupe 35 mm negative was a fifth generation copy, the Ektachrome transparencies were only one generation removed from the extant film, and presumably would show any anomalies, or apparent alterations, in much greater detail than even the 35 mm dupe negative made from the Forensic Copy. If the extant film under cold storage at NARA were to be declared unavailable for direct examination for any reason, then the Ektachrome transparencies at the Sixth Floor Museum could become the best tool for studying apparent alterations in the film. Not only would these images be four generations closer to the extant film than Sydney’s dupe negative (and therefore theoretically depict details in better resolution), but they could serve as a “control” to prove that Sydney and her research team have not digitally altered their scans of the Zapruder frames in any way. I am confident this is not the case, but anyone who is interested in verifying the provenance of the image content in Sydney’s high resolution scans of the dupe negative could compare her digital files of each frame with the corresponding Ektachrome transparency at the Sixth Floor Museum.

I took Horne seriously and went to Dallas and viewed the MPI transparencies. It was clear that Z 317 and adjacent frames showed no indication of what we've come to call the "black patch effect." If David Mantik claims it is there, he's irremediably, unsalvageably and completely WRONG! So now Fetzer claims that I'm part of some conspiracy to alter the MPI transparencies which are in the custody of the Sixth Floor Museum. So the logic goes like this. (1) The MPI transparencies are the gold standard [Horne's book]. (2) Thompson goes to Dallas and views the gold standard. (3) The gold standard shows the opposite of what we want it to show. (4) Therefore, Thompson must be part of some plot to alter the gold standard. I am so tickled that we have a professionally trained critical thinker who has "taught logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning" for a long, long, very long, in fact, incredibly long, time to help us understand all these things. Without such a trained professional, golly, I bet we wouldn't be able to figure out anything.

Now let's go to the Moorman photo taken at Z 315. If a hole was blown out of the back of JFK's head at this time we would expect it to show. It doesn't, In fact, it shows us just what we see in Zapruder frame 315 taken at the same instant. What are we to make of this? The simplest answer is that any hole in the back of JFK's head was not visible at this time. Of course, if there is no hole visible in the Zapruder film there is no reason to paint a patch in Z 317. Since there is no reason to do it, most probably no one did it. Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., says he won't deal with the issue. Could it be that he doesn't want to deal with the issue because he doesn't know how to deal with the issue? I have all sorts of copies of the Moorman photo.. the Zippo, the FBI copy, the drum scan copy, the Gordon Smith copy, the UPI copy. I am posting below the drum scan copy.

JT

Gary, Not to suggest you haven't given this much thought, but the black patch was there in the past and now it's not. I don't think anyone has to have taught logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years to infer that something must have happened in the meanwhile. If you don't think that's "supporting evidence", I can't imagine what you would regard as evidence that something has happened to the slides. In case you haven't noticed, Josiah has said ON THIS FORUM/IN THIS THREAD that, if David Mantik reported having seen the black patch, HE MUST HAVE BEEN "MAKING IT UP". Now if you consider yourself to be the ethical cop on the block, THAT IS A GENUINELY OFFENSIVE REMARK. And so far as I can tell, no one has called him on it--not you, not Pat, not anyone but me! The hypocrisy and double-standard on this forum is nauseating, where I offer this as a stellar example. TINK DEFAMES DAVID AND YOU GUYS DO NOTHING. I find THAT offensive. Jim

Gary, Tink has a close relationship with Gary Mack. That is common knowledge. What is or is not on those slides has become a matter of controversy. I have heard from more than one source that the slide set "went missing". I have no idea who might have been responsible for that, but I am aware that experts have visited The 6th Floor Museum and found the black patch on frame 317 was conspicuous and easily detectable. Now Josiah is saying that "It's not there". But if it was there in the past and is not there now, what are we to make of this? I have no idea why you are intervening. The entire case is laden with falsified evidence. Tink wrongly insists the MPI slides are the "best evidence". I have explained repeatedly why that is untrue: it was a sloppy and incomplete set to begin with and, now that we have a 3rd generation copy directly from the Archives, there is no basis whatsoever to continue to tout its virtues, which were exaggerated from the beginning, with frames out of order and many missing frames. So if you know what happened to that slide set when it "went missing", that's just fine. If there is an innocuous explanation, then let them produce it. I have raised the question several times with no answer. But it's an important question. Otherwise, I have no idea what you are doing intervening here. That seems to me to be very inappropriate. Jim

You appear to believe, nor have you refuted this belief, that Josiah Thompson is/was involved in a plot to remove and alter slides held at the 6th floor museum. The only way Thompson knows there is no patch on the slides at the 6th floor, is because he knows the slides were removed to alter this 'fact'. This appears to be what you refer to as 'his routine'.

Anyway, forgive me having the temerity to intervene in order to head off the circular and redundant arguments which will follow, be reported and end up with moderation. I will leave it to you to decide if your approach is appropriate given the absolute lack of supporting evidence.

Edited January 16, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Greg Burnham]

Hi Greg,

I am aware of Craig's remarks and personally thought they were inoffensive.

That's not the point. Of course you weren't offended personally, they were not directed your way.

If you are genuinely telling me you are not exaggerating or feigning offence because it's Craig - in the same way that some members exaggerate and feign offence because it's Len Colby - then I will ask Craig to remove the offending phrases or allow his posts to be made wholly invisible.

This has nothing to do with "who it is" -- Gary. The comments are inappropriate and somewhat disruptive and therefore should not be tolerated. I think this should be a level playing field where moderation is avoided when possible, but evenly applied independent from the posters popularity.

If my original thoughts have caused you offence I can only apologise and sincerely.

Gary

I didn't notice an original thought...but maybe I missed them.

I hope Craig's suggested action has resolved the issue.

You, of course, didn't notice any original thought, there were none. This forum hasn't produced too many orginal thoughts lately, instead we have the same argument retreads, the same deliberate misreading of posts, the condescending intellectual aloofness, the general lack of civility which has caused posters such as Lee Farley (who was bringing original thoughts to the forum) to leave.

I am truly sorry, you found Craig's post so offensive. You are right the poster shouldn't matter - I am sorry for suggesting you exaggerated offence. Most of all I am sorry you appear to have went out of your way to read my post in the worst way possible at every point. I can't imagine how you would've replied if I was trying to be insulting!!

Gary,

I will reply in a PM as this is not between you and me.

[Josiah Thompson]

Fetzer quote:

"Tink now wants us to believe THAT THE MOORMAN DOES NOT SHOW IT. And I say, given the preponderance of evidence that it was there, which is simply overwhelming, IF IT IS NOT SEEN IN THE MOORMAN WHEN IT OUGHT TO BE VISIBLE, HOW CAN ANYONE SERIOUSLY DOUBT THAT THE POLAROID HAS TO HAVE BEEN FAKED? Far from evading the question, I regard this argument as "cut and dry". Give it some thought. HIS BRAINS CANNOT HAVE BEEN BLOWN-OUT THE BACK OF HIS HEAD IN THE ABSENCE OF A MASSIVE DEFECT! It has been said that no position is so absurd that some philosopher has not held it. But to maintain that the Moorman could possibly be authentic IF IT DOES NOT SHOW A BLOW OUT IN THE BACK OF HIS HEAD would set a new standard."[emphasis in original]

Once again, how incredibly lucky we are to have a trained professional, a critical thinker and expert in logic and scientific method, to help us out when things get difficult. On your own, take a shot at figuring out just what the logic is... the argument so "cut and dry"... that Professor Fetzer has persuaded himself of. Might it not look something like this: Since I'm right, says Fetzer, anything that indicates I'm wrong must have been fabricated.

Without the assistance of such an expert in critical thinking, we could never have come up with such a conclusion on our own.

So, for everyone's viewing pleasure, I add below a copy of the Moorman photo taken within 75 minutes of the assassination by a press photographer while Mary Moorman and Jean Hill were being questioned by the authorities, and, secondly, a copy of the Moorman photo as it went out on the news wire on the afternoon of November 22nd. Go ahead, Professor, tell us how it happened since you are so sure it happened. How did the Moorman photo get altered before it even left Mary Moorman's hands? You appear to be digging the hole you got yourself in even deeper, Great. Keep digging. I love to sit back and watch you dig. And while you're at it, throw a few insults around at the rest of us who don't have your extraordinary powers of ratiocination.

JT

Well, I doubt very much that Doug Horne would hold the MPI slides to be "the gold standard" today. If they are so pristine and sharp and their images so well-defined, all the more reason to doubt that David Mantik could possibly have been mistaken in observing the black patch in the past or, for that matter, that Tink could possibly be wrong that it isn't there today. So by simply assuming that they are BOTH TELLING THE TRUTH, we have a prima facie case that CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE SLIDE SET. A prima facie case is not definitive but creates a presumption that something is the case, in this instance, that the slide set has been altered. In order to defeat that presumption, it would be necessary to establish proof to the contrary, which I have yet to see. Indeed, although I have repeatedly asked about reports that the slide set recently "went missing", no one appears to be willing to address that question. This case is riddled with falsified and fabricated evidence, which may or may not include the Moorman Polaroid. I have deferred to John Costella because he is a bona fide expert in the area of photography and film, while I am not. Never one to miss an opportunity to make cheap points, I am supposed to be "unwilling to deal with the issue", when I am deferring to John's greater expertise.

But AS TINK KNOWS FULL WELL, we have been round and round about the Moorman for many years. I have opinions about it, which include that, even as I view the version Tink has posted here, there appears to me to be a darkened area at the back of his head. OBVIOUSLY, if the photo has NOT been tampered with, THERE SHOULD BE A MASSIVE BLOW-OUT AT THE BACK OF HIS HEAD. Many witnesses, including Beverly Oliver, watched his brains be blown out the back of his head. That OBVIOUSLY REQUIRED THAT THERE BE A MASSIVE DEFECT AT THE BACK OF HIS HEAD. Clint Hill, lying across Jack and Jackie's bodies, has reported peering down into a fist-sized opening at the back of his head. The physicians reported it. McClelland and Crenshaw--and others now, in relation to the ARRB--have diagrammed it. Gary Aguilar published a chapter in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) documenting it. Dozens of witnesses have confirmed it. David Mantik's studies of the X-rays confirmed that it had been "patched". Now world-class experts on film have confirmed the presence of a counterpart "patch" on the 3rd generation copy obtained from NARA by Sydney Wilkinson.

As Josiah has felt himself becoming more and more boxed in relative to his obsessive dedication to defending the indefensible--the authenticity of the film--he finds himself resorting to more and more desperate arguments. This one takes the cake!

This is absurd. First, the guy who started all this, Doug Horne, is the guy who holds the 6th Floor Museum 4" by 5" MPI Ektachrome transparencies to be the gold standard:

Douglas P. Horne, Inside the Assassinations Review Board, Vol IV, page 1362

Gary Mack replied by email on August 28th [to an inquiry from David Mantik] that the Ektachrome transparencies [of the extant Zapruder film commissioned by MPI in 1997 for its video, Image of an Assassination] were in the possession of the Sixth Floor Museum and were available for viewing... Whereas Syd Wilkinson’s dupe 35 mm negative was a fifth generation copy, the Ektachrome transparencies were only one generation removed from the extant film, and presumably would show any anomalies, or apparent alterations, in much greater detail than even the 35 mm dupe negative made from the Forensic Copy. If the extant film under cold storage at NARA were to be declared unavailable for direct examination for any reason, then the Ektachrome transparencies at the Sixth Floor Museum could become the best tool for studying apparent alterations in the film. Not only would these images be four generations closer to the extant film than Sydney’s dupe negative (and therefore theoretically depict details in better resolution), but they could serve as a “control” to prove that Sydney and her research team have not digitally altered their scans of the Zapruder frames in any way. I am confident this is not the case, but anyone who is interested in verifying the provenance of the image content in Sydney’s high resolution scans of the dupe negative could compare her digital files of each frame with the corresponding Ektachrome transparency at the Sixth Floor Museum.

I took Horne seriously and went to Dallas and viewed the MPI transparencies. It was clear that Z 317 and adjacent frames showed no indication of what we've come to call the "black patch effect." If David Mantik claims it is there, he's irremediably, unsalvageably and completely WRONG! So now Fetzer claims that I'm part of some conspiracy to alter the MPI transparencies which are in the custody of the Sixth Floor Museum. So the logic goes like this. (1) The MPI transparencies are the gold standard [Horne's book]. (2) Thompson goes to Dallas and views the gold standard. (3) The gold standard shows the opposite of what we want it to show. (4) Therefore, Thompson must be part of some plot to alter the gold standard. I am so tickled that we have a professionally trained critical thinker who has "taught logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning" for a long, long, very long, in fact, incredibly long, time to help us understand all these things. Without such a trained professional, golly, I bet we wouldn't be able to figure out anything.

Now let's go to the Moorman photo taken at Z 315. If a hole was blown out of the back of JFK's head at this time we would expect it to show. It doesn't, In fact, it shows us just what we see in Zapruder frame 315 taken at the same instant. What are we to make of this? The simplest answer is that any hole in the back of JFK's head was not visible at this time. Of course, if there is no hole visible in the Zapruder film there is no reason to paint a patch in Z 317. Since there is no reason to do it, most probably no one did it. Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., says he won't deal with the issue. Could it be that he doesn't want to deal with the issue because he doesn't know how to deal with the issue? I have all sorts of copies of the Moorman photo.. the Zippo, the FBI copy, the drum scan copy, the Gordon Smith copy, the UPI copy. I am posting below the drum scan copy.

JT

Gary, Not to suggest you haven't given this much thought, but the black patch was there in the past and now it's not. I don't think anyone has to have taught logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years to infer that something must have happened in the meanwhile. If you don't think that's "supporting evidence", I can't imagine what you would regard as evidence that something has happened to the slides. In case you haven't noticed, Josiah has said ON THIS FORUM/IN THIS THREAD that, if David Mantik reported having seen the black patch, HE MUST HAVE BEEN "MAKING IT UP". Now if you consider yourself to be the ethical cop on the block, THAT IS A GENUINELY OFFENSIVE REMARK. And so far as I can tell, no one has called him on it--not you, not Pat, not anyone but me! The hypocrisy and double-standard on this forum is nauseating, where I offer this as a stellar example. TINK DEFAMES DAVID AND YOU GUYS DO NOTHING. I find THAT offensive. Jim

Gary, Tink has a close relationship with Gary Mack. That is common knowledge. What is or is not on those slides has become a matter of controversy. I have heard from more than one source that the slide set "went missing". I have no idea who might have been responsible for that, but I am aware that experts have visited The 6th Floor Museum and found the black patch on frame 317 was conspicuous and easily detectable. Now Josiah is saying that "It's not there". But if it was there in the past and is not there now, what are we to make of this? I have no idea why you are intervening. The entire case is laden with falsified evidence. Tink wrongly insists the MPI slides are the "best evidence". I have explained repeatedly why that is untrue: it was a sloppy and incomplete set to begin with and, now that we have a 3rd generation copy directly from the Archives, there is no basis whatsoever to continue to tout its virtues, which were exaggerated from the beginning, with frames out of order and many missing frames. So if you know what happened to that slide set when it "went missing", that's just fine. If there is an innocuous explanation, then let them produce it. I have raised the question several times with no answer. But it's an important question. Otherwise, I have no idea what you are doing intervening here. That seems to me to be very inappropriate. Jim

You appear to believe, nor have you refuted this belief, that Josiah Thompson is/was involved in a plot to remove and alter slides held at the 6th floor museum. The only way Thompson knows there is no patch on the slides at the 6th floor, is because he knows the slides were removed to alter this 'fact'. This appears to be what you refer to as 'his routine'.

Anyway, forgive me having the temerity to intervene in order to head off the circular and redundant arguments which will follow, be reported and end up with moderation. I will leave it to you to decide if your approach is appropriate given the absolute lack of supporting evidence.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Here's the McClelland diagram, which, like the Crenshaw diagram, was drawn/authorized by a physician

who attended JFK at Parkland. Notice how much it agrees with the witnesses and other Parkland reports:

It was first published in SIX SECONDS (1967), with an accompanying description by Dr. McClelland, and

a comment by the author, "This is the clearest description we have of the Kennedy head wound" (p. 107).

So what has happened in the meanwhile to cause Josiah Thompson to change his mind? Notice that this

wound is clearly inconsistent with the Moorman Polaroid, if it does not display a massive cranial defect.

Here is a comparison from BEST EVIDENCE (1980) that illustrates the gross differences between what

the Parkland physicians initially observed, the Bethesda autopsy report, and the HSCA reconstruction.

No one would imagine in their wildest dreams that the Moorman Polaroid is consistent with the Bethesda

autopsy report. If the blow out is missing, why would anyone think it is consistent with Parkland, either?

Fetzer quote:

"Tink now wants us to believe THAT THE MOORMAN DOES NOT SHOW IT. And I say, given the preponderance of evidence that it was there, which is simply overwhelming, IF IT IS NOT SEEN IN THE MOORMAN WHEN IT OUGHT TO BE VISIBLE, HOW CAN ANYONE SERIOUSLY DOUBT THAT THE POLAROID HAS TO HAVE BEEN FAKED? Far from evading the question, I regard this argument as "cut and dry". Give it some thought. HIS BRAINS CANNOT HAVE BEEN BLOWN-OUT THE BACK OF HIS HEAD IN THE ABSENCE OF A MASSIVE DEFECT! It has been said that no position is so absurd that some philosopher has not held it. But to maintain that the Moorman could possibly be authentic IF IT DOES NOT SHOW A BLOW OUT IN THE BACK OF HIS HEAD would set a new standard."[emphasis in original]

Once again, how incredibly lucky we are to have a trained professional, a critical thinker and expert in logic and scientific method, to help us out when things get difficult. On your own, take a shot at figuring out just what the logic is... the argument so "cut and dry"... that Professor Fetzer has persuaded himself of. Might it not look something like this: Since I'm right, says Fetzer, anything that indicates I'm wrong must have been fabricated.

Without the assistance of such an expert in critical thinking, we could never have come up with such a conclusion on our own.

So, for everyone's viewing pleasure, I add below a copy of the Moorman photo taken within 75 minutes of the assassination by a press photographer while Mary Moorman and Jean Hill were being questioned by the authorities, and, secondly, a copy of the Moorman photo as it went out on the news wire on the afternoon of November 22nd. Go ahead, Professor, tell us how it happened since you are so sure it happened. How did the Moorman photo get altered before it even left Mary Moorman's hands? You appear to be digging the hole you got yourself in even deeper, Great. Keep digging. I love to sit back and watch you dig. And while you're at it, throw a few insults around at the rest of us who don't have your extraordinary powers of ratiocination.

JT

Edited January 16, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Greg Burnham]

Excellent points, Jim. More interesting to me is the fact that the authors themselves appear to need to be reminded of the significance of what this means! That the photographic evidence is inconsistent with the voluminous eyewitness testimony is simply astounding. That the authors themselves have abandoned their earlier, very well thought out, positions--merely because the photographic evidence (as it now appears) does not support it--is disappointing. At the very least, one would hope that they would seek to find out why the discrepancy exists instead of simply dismissing it as though it was an expected outcome. It is anything, but, expected.

[Pat Speer]

Here's the McClelland diagram, which, like the Crenshaw diagram, was drawn/authorized by a physician

who attended JFK at Parkland. Notice how much it agrees with the witnesses and other Parkland reports:

It was first published in SIX SECONDS (1967), with an accompanying description by Dr. McClelland, and

a comment by the author, "This is the clearest description we have of the Kennedy head wound" (p. 107).

So what has happened in the meanwhile to cause Josiah Thompson to change his mind? Notice that this

wound is clearly inconsistent with the Moorman Polaroid, if it does not display a massive cranial defect.

Here is a comparison from BEST EVIDENCE (1980) that illustrates the gross differences between what

the Parkland physicians initially observed, the Bethesda autopsy report, and the HSCA reconstruction.

No one would imagine in their wildest dreams that the Moorman Polaroid is consistent with the Bethesda

autopsy report. If the blow out is missing, why would anyone think it is consistent with Parkland, either?

I can't believe you brought up the McClelland drawing, Jim. Have you forgotten we've been through this before, and that I demonstrated that the drawing is NOT consistent with the statements of the witnesses?

From patspeer.com, chapter 18c:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited January 16, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

In my opinion, your arguments become more and more implausible. The mistakes you commit are also complicated and rather subtle. Since I can see no point in continuing a debate between us, I would point out that, in response to a challenge from you, David Mantik has taken the time and effort to dissect your positions, which has now been published at CTKA:

David Mantik vs. Pat Speer on the JFK Autopsy X-rays:

A Critique of http://www.patspeer.com/

Chapters 18a, 18b, and 19b

by David W. Mantik

http://www.ctka.net/reviews/mantik_speer.html

That you are taking these HSCA exhibits seriously offers more evidence that I am right about your tendency to "special plead". We KNOW there should be a massive blow-out at the back of the head from the witnesses, the Parkland physicians, David's X-ray studies, McClelland and Crenshaw's diagrams and frame 374. Your position, in my view, is simply indefensible.

Not to nit-pick on this point, Jim, because we agree that the HSCA's drawing was deceptive, but your comparison of the autopsy photo and HSCA drawing is highly misleading. The red mark or blood stain they pretended was a bullet entrance IS visible on the photo you present, only not in the circle you provide. Your circle, moreover, is in an entirely different location than the one on the drawing.

Here is a slide I've created which shows where the red mark is on the photo.

Wait, let me get this right... YOU have, for years now, been posting and publishing a grossly misleading comparison between an autopsy photo and an HSCA drawing in which you have a circled area purportedly showing the same area, but in fact showing different areas, and you claim MY noticing YOUR mistake proves MY inadequacy as a critical thinker? Are you kidding? I hope so.

But suspect not. It feels as though you are incapable of admitting your mistakes, Jim. And even the mistakes of those you hold in high esteem...

Since you bring up Mantik's recent article, in which he makes one of the most embarrassing mistakes imaginable, I'll ask it again. On the slide below I present a number of Dr. Mantik's exhibits, and prove, beyond all doubt, he is wrong in his claim the metallic debris on the Harper fragment is on the top of the head in Dr. Angel's orientation. Now, you don't need a degree for this. I've made it real simple. The metallic debris is either at point A, B, or C. Well, which is it, Jim?

Edited January 17, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat,

What can I tell you? I have ALREADY EXPLAINED that you take MINOR DISCREPANCIES and attempt to

convert them into MAJOR DIFFERENCES. For your argument to be correct, McClelland, Crenshaw, and

the Dealey Plaza witnesses, the other physicians at Parkland, David's X-ray studies and even frame 374

must all be wrong, not merely with regard to details, but even relative to their gross location of the wound.

Here's the McClelland diagram, which, like the Crenshaw diagram, was drawn/authorized by a physician

who attended JFK at Parkland. Notice how much it agrees with the witnesses and other Parkland reports:

It was first published in SIX SECONDS (1967), with an accompanying description by Dr. McClelland, and

a comment by the author, "This is the clearest description we have of the Kennedy head wound" (p. 107).

So what has happened in the meanwhile to cause Josiah Thompson to change his mind? Notice that this

wound is clearly inconsistent with the Moorman Polaroid, if it does not display a massive cranial defect.

Here is a comparison from BEST EVIDENCE (1980) that illustrates the gross differences between what

the Parkland physicians initially observed, the Bethesda autopsy report, and the HSCA reconstruction.

No one would imagine in their wildest dreams that the Moorman Polaroid is consistent with the Bethesda

autopsy report. If the blow out is missing, why would anyone think it is consistent with Parkland, either?

I can't believe you brought up the McClelland drawing, Jim. Have you forgotten we've been through this before, and that I

demonstrated that the drawing is NOT consistent with the statements of the witnesses? From patspeer.com, chapter 18c:

. . .

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

Perhaps nothing demonstrates your incompetence at research than your dismissal of McClelland and your treatment of the other witnesses. You are not even taking into account THE ROLE OF PERSPECTIVE. The Willises were to his right side, where Phil appears to have seen the blow-out of the skull flap. Ed Hoffman was looking downward and similarly for others. VIRTUALLY ALL OF THEM ARE LOCATING THE WOUND IN THE SAME GENERAL AREA AT THE BACK OF THE HEAD.

But let's assume you are right: there is a mix of reports, because, after all, he had several wounds (when you factor in the blow-out of the skull flap). BY YOUR OWN CALCULATION, THERE WERE AT LEAST 7 WITNESSES WHO REPORTED THE BLOW-OUT AT THE CENTER-RIGHT OF THE BACK OF HIS HEAD, just as McClelland and Crenshaw described it in their diagrams. THEY ARE LOCATING IT AT THE BACK OF THE HEAD. NONE WERE LOCATING IT AT THE SIDE.

Now why would McClelland and Crenshaw, who were both experience physicians, HAVE GOT THIS WRONG? It is easy to grasp why bystanders with no experience in dealing with victims of gunshot wounds, might be impresses with the skull-flap as it was blown open at precisely the same time that his brains were being blown out the back of his head to the left-rear. And, lest you forget, Officer Hargis, riding to the left/rear, was hit by the debris so hard he initially thought he had been shot!

Unless you are implying that Josiah Thompson was incompetent when he composed SIX SECONDS (1967), why in the world would he make an observation of the kind that he does there on page 107 in relation to the McClelland diagram, which I believe he invited for publication in his book, "This is the clearest description we have of the Kennedy head wound"? WHY DO YOU SUPPOSE HE WOULD HAVE WRITTEN, "This is the clearest description we have of the Kennedy head wound"?

Have you bothered to check that reference, because, beside the diagram itself, we have the following testimony from Dr. Robert N. McClelland, an extraordinary head-wound witness, whom Josiah Thompson quotes as follows on page 107:

"As I too the position at the head of the table . . . I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out."

So we not only have--by your own admission--seven witnesses who confirm this location but also a very specific, detailed description of the wound by Dr. McClelland, which even Tink acknowledges to be the clearest description we have of the Kennedy head wound! It is generally consistent with the locations specified by the witnesses and with David's X-ray studies. WHY WOULD YOU OR ANYONE ELSE THINK THEY SHOULD BE IN PRECISE AGREEMENT IN EVERY DETAIL?

BECAUSE YOU DO NOT FIND AGREEMENT IN EVERY DETAIL, YOU WANT TO EXAGGERATE THE DIFFERENCES AND SUPPRESS THE GROSS AGREEMENT ABOUT ITS LOCATION AND GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS. That is not a responsible attitude to adopt toward witnesses who were not medical professionals as the event unfolded in the plaza and it is completely absurd relative to medical professionals, which is where you commit your most grievous blunder, as I shall show.

(continued)

Edited January 16, 2012 by James H. Fetzer