The Law of Unintended Consequences

[Pat Speer]

Jim, you need to sit down and take a chill pill, IMO. You are attacking Lifton and Thompson and pretty much everyone who won't agree with your every argument. Well, here are a just a few of the reasons I doubt your arguments.

1. You rely on Costella when he tells you the Z-film is fake, but disregard his assertion that the WHOLE film is fake, and instead insist certain frames are the real frames, with the back of the head painted in. You don't seem to realize you've shot yourself in the foot by doing so. If Costella is the top expert, after all, who are YOU to say he is wrong about all this? If he is not the top expert, well, then why don't you take a step back and acknowledge he may have been mistaken about the whole film being fake?

2. You attack Thompson for praising Gary Aguilar's research about the back of the head witnesses, and insist Gary's research proves the Z-film is fake. Well, let's be clear. GARY never said his research proves the Z-film to be fake, did he? You fail to acknowledge that Gary is an agnostic on Z-film alteration, and that some researchers (eg Groden) think the wound on the back of the head is visible in the Z-film, and others (eg Thompson) think there was a wound on the back of Kennedy's head that, for unknown reasons, is not shown on the Z-film. You also fail to acknowledge that you, yourself, have disavowed Gary's research, as he concluded that the wounds seen at Parkland were the wounds seen at Bethesda, and that NO ONE altered the body in between.

3. You rely on Mantik on all things x-ray, and pretty much worship at his feet. While doing so, however, you fail to acknowledge that 1) a forensic radiologist, John J Fitzpatrick, told the ARRB that the "white patch" at the center of Mantik's research corresponded to the wing of bone visible in the right lateral autopsy photo; 2) this was something I'd proposed years before Doug Horne published Fitzpatrick's report; 3) Mantik is not above making embarrassing mistakes, such as the one demonstrated in post #505; and 4) Mantik's "white patch" does not remotely correspond to the location of the "blow-out" you claim to see in frame 374 of the Zapruder film.

Just take a breather. We're only human. Born to make mistakes.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jim, you need to sit down and take a chill pill, IMO. You are attacking Lifton and Thompson and pretty much everyone who won't agree with your every argument. Well, here are a just a few of the reasons I doubt your arguments.

1. You rely on Costella when he tells you the Z-film is fake, but disregard his assertion that the WHOLE film is fake, and instead insist certain frames are the real frames, with the back of the head painted in. You don't seem to realize you've shot yourself in the foot by doing so. If Costella is the top expert, after all, who are YOU to say he is wrong about all this? If he is not the top expert, well, then why don't you take a step back and acknowledge he may have been mistaken about the whole film being fake?

REPLY: OF COURSE the fabricated film was made from the original by removing some frames, but it was far more sophisticated than that. Using optical printing and special effects, they were able to combine any foreground with any background, take out unwanted events and add preferable ones. In case it hasn't crossed your mind, the virtually motionless spectators, who unlike almost everyone else along the motorcade route, do not cheer and wave, were taken from an earlier film BEFORE THE LIMO WAS PRESENT. Jean and Mary were interacting as they waited for JFK and Jackie to arrive, but were fixed in place like "frozen turkeys", to used John's phrase, because it was easier to fake the film that way. When they took out the limo stop, they had to take out Chaney motoring forward and Clint Hill's actions, because there wasn't enough time for them. When John talks about the whole fill being fake, what he means is that, because the "ghost panels" are double-exposures and cannot be faked, they had to reshoot each frame IN THE LAB to create new "ghost panels". That's what he means.

2. You attack Thompson for praising Gary Aguilar's research about the back of the head witnesses, and insist Gary's research proves the Z-film is fake. Well, let's be clear. GARY never said his research proves the Z-film to be fake, did he? You fail to acknowledge that Gary is an agnostic on Z-film alteration, and that some researchers (eg Groden) think the wound on the back of the head is visible in the Z-film, and others (eg Thompson) think there was a wound on the back of Kennedy's head that, for unknown reasons, is not shown on the Z-film. You also fail to acknowledge that you, yourself, have disavowed Gary's research, as he concluded that the wounds seen at Parkland were the wounds seen at Bethesda, and that NO ONE altered the body in between.

REPLY: This has nothing to with Aguilar, who is a friend of Tink. It has to do with HIS RESEARCH. In his chapter in MURDER (2000), he does a very good job of demonstrating that the reports about the wound at the back of the head were very consistent across the medical witnesses, in particular, at Parkland and even at Bethesda. I think he does not have all of that just right, because we now know that Humes took a cranial saw to JFK's skull and enlarged the wound, so thereafter the reports would have been inconsistent with those before. THIS IS ALL SPELLED OUT IN SPADES IN "Inside the ARRB". And he includes other witnesses. As I have shown many times, there is an extremely high degree of correspondence between those witnesses, the X-ray evidence, and of course frame 374. My point, therefore, is ONE OF LOGIC. IF Aguilar is right about the consistency of the reports of the blow out at the back of the head, THEN the film, which does not show it, has to have been falsified--at least to the extent of patching up the blow-out. And that is precisely what we have been discussing here.

3. You rely on Mantik on all things x-ray, and pretty much worship at his feet. While doing so, however, you fail to acknowledge that 1) a forensic radiologist, John J Fitzpatrick, told the ARRB that the "white patch" at the center of Mantik's research corresponded to the wing of bone visible in the right lateral autopsy photo; 2) this was something I'd proposed years before Doug Horne published Fitzpatrick's report; 3) Mantik is not above making embarrassing mistakes, such as the one demonstrated in post #505; and 4) Mantik's "white patch" does not remotely correspond to the location of the "blow-out" you claim to see in frame 374 of the Zapruder film.

REPLY: No, I no more "worship" at David's feet than I do at John's. They both happen to be extraordinarily competent and have made discoveries that persons of lesser qualifications could not have made. I know you have an axe to grind with David on the medical evidence, which is one of the reasons that I have had my reservations about your serving as moderator of this thread. For the most part, however, you have done a fine job, even though you allowed one exchange to go overly long. As to your claim about the relationship between frame 374 and David's "Area P", you may be forgetting that the head is rounded and that we are looking at a downward angle toward the blown-out area, which appears to be partially covered by his hair. But you have to ask yourself: what is the probability that we are NOT looking at the blow out? What else could it possibly be? And what is the probability that we are not looking at the blow out when it so closely corresponds to "Area P", what the witnesses reported, and what the physicians' observed? I know you have your "song and dance". I've pointed out the difference between the skull flap and the blow out. But my own research shows David's is the only work that makes sense of and integrates all the medical evidence.

Just take a breather. We're only human. Born to make mistakes.

REPLY: I think we've been there, done that. Thanks for posting. Go back and review the witnesses and the Parkland physicians. You seem to discount the McClelland diagram, which is in many places, including SIX SECONDS (1967), and the Crenshaw diagram, which is Appendix A to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998). The greatest blunder you make, however, is that, if the blow-out were at the side of the head, which is the theme of your work, then it would not have had cerebral and cerebellar tissue extruding from it. I have asked you to explain that phenomenon--how cerebellar and cerebral tissue could extrude from the wound as you portray it--and the answer is that you cannot. So until you do, my interpretation is clearly superior to your own. The question that I pose, therefore, is how can you reconcile your side wound with the physicians' reports, which I am now posting again? If you would like, I will be glad to post a diagram of the contents of the cranium to locate the cerebellum for you and our readers.

[/i] Edited January 15, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

Jim, you need to sit down and take a chill pill, IMO. You are attacking Lifton and Thompson and pretty much everyone who won't agree with your every argument. Well, here are a just a few of the reasons I doubt your arguments.

1. You rely on Costella when he tells you the Z-film is fake, but disregard his assertion that the WHOLE film is fake, and instead insist certain frames are the real frames, with the back of the head painted in. You don't seem to realize you've shot yourself in the foot by doing so. If Costella is the top expert, after all, who are YOU to say he is wrong about all this? If he is not the top expert, well, then why don't you take a step back and acknowledge he may have been mistaken about the whole film being fake?

REPLY: OF COURSE the fabricated film was made from the original by removing some frames, but it was far more sophisticated than that. Using optical printing and special effects, they were able to combine any foreground with any background, take out unwanted events and add preferable ones. In case it hasn't crossed your mind, the virtually motionless spectators, who unlike almost everyone else along the motorcade route, do not cheer and wave, were taken from an earlier film BEFORE THE LIMO WAS PRESENT. Jean and Mary were interacting as they waited for JFK and Jackie to arrive, but were fixed in place like "frozen turkeys", to used John's phrase, because it was easier to fake the film that way. When they took out the limo stop, they had to take out Chaney motoring forward and Clint Hill's actions, because there wasn't enough time for them. When John talks about the whole fill being a fabrication, what he means is that, because the "ghost panels" are double-exposures and cannot be faked, they had to reshoot each frame IN THE LAB to create new "ghost panels". That's what he means.

2. You attack Thompson for praising Gary Aguilar's research about the back of the head witnesses, and insist Gary's research proves the Z-film is fake. Well, let's be clear. GARY never said his research proves the Z-film to be fake, did he? You fail to acknowledge that Gary is an agnostic on Z-film alteration, and that some researchers (eg Groden) think the wound on the back of the head is visible in the Z-film, and others (eg Thompson) think there was a wound on the back of Kennedy's head that, for unknown reasons, is not shown on the Z-film. You also fail to acknowledge that you, yourself, have disavowed Gary's research, as he concluded that the wounds seen at Parkland were the wounds seen at Bethesda, and that NO ONE altered the body in between.

REPLY: This has nothing to with Aguilar, who is a friend of Tink. It has to do with HIS RESEARCH. In his chapter in MURDER (2000), he does a very good job of demonstrating that the reports about the wound at the back of the head were very consistent across the medical witnesses, in particular, at Parkland and even at Bethesda. I think he does not have all of that just right, because we now know that Humes took a cranial saw to JFK's skull and enlarged the wound, so thereafter the reports would have been inconsistent with those before. THIS IS ALL SPELLED OUT IN SPADES IN "Inside the ARRB". And he includes other witnesses. As I have shown many times, there is an extremely high degree of correspondence between those witnesses, the X-ray evidence, and of course frame 374. My point, therefore, is ONE OF LOGIC. IF Aguilar is right about the consistency of the reports of the blow out at the back of the head, THEN the film, which does not show it, has to have been falsified--at least to the extent of patching up the blow-out. And that is precisely what we have been discussing here.

3. You rely on Mantik on all things x-ray, and pretty much worship at his feet. While doing so, however, you fail to acknowledge that 1) a forensic radiologist, John J Fitzpatrick, told the ARRB that the "white patch" at the center of Mantik's research corresponded to the wing of bone visible in the right lateral autopsy photo; 2) this was something I'd proposed years before Doug Horne published Fitzpatrick's report; 3) Mantik is not above making embarrassing mistakes, such as the one demonstrated in post #505; and 4) Mantik's "white patch" does not remotely correspond to the location of the "blow-out" you claim to see in frame 374 of the Zapruder film.

REPLY: No, I no more "worship" at David's feet than I do at John's. They both happen to be extraordinarily competent and have made discoveries that persons of lesser qualifications could not have made. I know you have an axe to grind with David on the medical evidence, which is one of the reasons that I have had my reservations about your serving as moderator of this thread. For the most part, however, you have done a fine job, even though you allowed one exchange to go overly long. As to your claim about the relationship between frame 374 and David's "Area P", you may be forgetting that the head is rounded and that we are looking at a downward angle toward the blown-out area, which appears to be partially covered by his hair. But you have to ask yourself: what is the probability that we are NOT looking at the blow out? What else could it possibly be? And what is the probability that we are not looking at the blow out when it so closely corresponds to "Area P", what the witnesses reported, and what the physicians' observed? This is where I know you want to do your "song and dance". I have pointed out the difference between the skull flap and the blow out. My own study sholws that David's is the only work that makes sense of and integrates all of the medical evidence.

Just take a breather. We're only human. Born to make mistakes.

Pat, I think we've been there, done that. Thanks for posting. Go back and review the witnesses and the Parkland physicians. The greatest blunder you make is that, if the blow-out were at the side of the head, which is the theme of your work, then it would not have had cerebral and cerebellar tissue extruding from it. I have asked you to explain that phenomenon--how cerebellar and cerebral tissue could extrude from the wound as you portray it--and the answer is that you cannot. So until you do, my interpretation is clearly superior to your own. The question that I pose, therefore, is how can you reconcile your side wound with the physicians' reports, which I am now posting again?

So, let's recap.

1. You claim Costella says the Z-film was made up of pieces of a number of films, including the actual film. Is that right? If this is indeed what he has proposed, I'd appreciate his saying so.

2. You evade my basic point...that you criticize Thompson for endorsing Aguilar's chapter but not accepting Aguilar's conclusion the Z-film was fake, when 1) Aguilar DID NOT conclude the Z-film was fake, and 2) YOU push people to buy your book even though you fail to accept one of Aguilar's actual conclusions, that is, that the body was not altered between Dallas and Bethesda.

3. You evade as well the FACT, demonstrated by my slide, that the location of your proposed "blow-out"in frame 374 has little or no overlap with Mantik's "white patch." Apparently, you think that some of the Parkland witnesses' claiming they saw cerebellum is PROOF they in fact saw cerebellum, and that therefore the wound must have overlay the cerebellum. This is ridiculous, IMO. As most of these witnesses later claimed they'd been mistaken, and as one (Peters) specified that he looked down at the cerebellum from a hole higher up on the skull, and as your own chosen expert, Livingston, in YOUR book, admits it's easy to mistake macerated cerebrum for cerebellum (although he doubted the Parkland doctors could be so mistaken), you are simply cherry-picking people's statements to fit your agenda.

In my last few posts I have shown that 1) Clint Hill's proposed location for the head wound is inconsistent with Charles Crenshaw's location for the head wound, 2) Dr. Mantik was mistaken when he said Dr. Angel's orientation of the Harper fragment put the metallic debris at the top of the head, and 3) your "blow-out" in frame 374 does not correspond to the location of Dr. Mantik's "white patch," but to areas of the x-ray Dr. Mantik believes legit, and yet you have failed to acknowledge any of it. Well, that's just peachy.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff and Craig, your obsession with a shadow or not shadow on one photo has nothing to do with this thread,

Pat,

Since I haven't said a word about shadow in a photo -- other than to say it's gibberish -- please spare me the school marm act. I was making a larger point about Craig Lamson's demonstrated double standard. Since a couple of other members referred to Craig as a so-called "photo expert", I felt it was fair game to demonstrate his obvious biases.

This thread is about information contained in the Dealey Plaza films and photos. Some say that the most crucial information in those photos is evidence of alteration. While that may be a very important subject, I disagree that it is the most significant area of discussion.

I'm analyzing information in the Dealey Plaza films and photos with the subtext that these images are genuine. I have vetted a particular set of images with my Alterationist friends and they have given me no reason to doubt the authenticity of the following:

Croft 3 (Z161)

Betzner 3 (Z186)

Willis 5 (Z202)

Altgens 6 (Z255)

Zapruder frames 161 thru 255.

Along with the clothing and the testimony of the witnesses with the best view of JFK in that 161-255 time frame, these images form

THE BEDROCK EVIDENCE OF THE CASE

Edited January 15, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Croft 3 (Z161)

Betzner 3 (Z186)

Willis 5 (Z202)

Altgens 6 (Z255)

Zapruder frames 161 thru 255.

Along with the clothing and the testimony of the witnesses with the best view of JFK in that 161-255 time frame, these images form

THE BEDROCK EVIDENCE OF THE CASE

Now, just to make things nice and even, allow me to assert with equal conviction the view that evidence of fakery in the Dealey Plaza films and photos, as well as well-established fakery of the autopsy films and photos, certainly form

THE BEDROCK EVIDENCE OF THE COVER-UP

Edited January 15, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Chris Scally]

Dr.Fetzer:

On January 5, in post #4 of this thread, you said: "WE KNOW THE FILM IS A FAKE AND WHERE AND WHEN IT WAS DONE" (your emphasis).

Today, over 500 posts later in the thread, I'm still waiting to see any direct evidence in support of that statement, so I would like to put the following three short questions to you, if I may:

1. Where, specifically, was the Zapruder film altered?

2. When, specifically, was it altered?

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

I would respectfully ask that you do not respond by telling me to read your books (I have purchased and read them), telling me to read your published articles (I have done so), or telling me to study your Duluth material (I have done so).

Chris.

[Cliff Varnell]

Pat,

This is Tink Thompson's thread. Ask him if he wants the following removed...

Croft 3 (Z161)

Betzner 3 (Z186)

Willis 5 (Z202)

Altgens 6 (Z255)

Zapruder frames 161 thru 255.

Along with the clothing and the testimony of the witnesses with the best view of JFK in that 161-255 time frame, these images form

THE BEDROCK EVIDENCE OF THE CASE

Edited January 15, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Pat, this is in response to your earlier admonitions concerning my discussion with Craig.

I'm all about focusing on areas where there is no disagreement.

It took the better part of 4 years for Craig Lamson to acknowledge that JFK's jacket collar rested in a normal position at the base of his neck. Craig insists this is true, and I couldn't agree more. Any claims that there were multi-inches of shirt/jacket fabric bunched up entirely above the base of the neck without displacing the jacket collar at the base of the neck MUST be demonstrated.

But such a scenario is clearly contrary to the nature of reality.

Now, this puts your pet back/throat wounds theories in mortal danger, Pat, so I don't blame you for wanting to make the subject go away.

[Chris Scally]

(4) Your claim that the Wilkinson copy is not what she claimed it to be two years ago is based upon hearsay from Block who says only he heard it from someone. Even if the Wilkinson copy turned out to be "3rd generation" it would still be downstream from the copies David Lifton and I posted.

(5) The copies we posted show the likelihood that the whole "patch" phenomonon is based upon contrast build-up in the repetition of copies.

JT

For whatever it is worth -

This is a direct scan of frame 317 from my set of 35mm Zapruder frames, which (I believe it was) Robert Groden made available in the late 1970s or early 1980s.

Chris.

[Craig Lamson]

Pat,

Since I haven't said a word about shadow in a photo -- other than to say it's gibberish -- please spare me the school marm act. I was making a larger point about Craig Lamson's demonstrated double standard. Since a couple of other members referred to Craig as a so-called "photo expert", I felt it was fair game to demonstrate his obvious biases.

And what would my "obvious bias" be? That I'm biased toward responding to ignorant photo analysis? If so you are correct. YOURS is a perfect example.

BTW you surely have talked about a shadow. You claimed...wrongly...that I made it up from thin air. The evidence I have presented for its existence is unimpeachable. cliff is "overselling" again.

Try here cliff...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18646

Edited January 15, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

(4) Your claim that the Wilkinson copy is not what she claimed it to be two years ago is based upon hearsay from Block who says only he heard it from someone. Even if the Wilkinson copy turned out to be "3rd generation" it would still be downstream from the copies David Lifton and I posted.

(5) The copies we posted show the likelihood that the whole "patch" phenomonon is based upon contrast build-up in the repetition of copies.

JT

For whatever it is worth -

This is a direct scan of frame 317 from my set of 35mm Zapruder frames, which (I believe it was) Robert Groden made available in the late 1970s or early 1980s.

Chris.

Can you scan this with more exposure?

[Craig Lamson]

It took the better part of 4 years for Craig Lamson to acknowledge that JFK's jacket collar rested in a normal position at the base of his neck. Craig insists this is true, and I couldn't agree more. Any claims that there were multi-inches of shirt/jacket fabric bunched up entirely above the base of the neck without displacing the jacket collar at the base of the neck MUST be demonstrated.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18646

Edited January 15, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Croft 3 (Z161)

Betzner 3 (Z186)

Willis 5 (Z202)

Altgens 6 (Z255)

Zapruder frames 161 thru 255.

Along with the clothing and the testimony of the witnesses with the best view of JFK in that 161-255 time frame, these images form

THE BEDROCK EVIDENCE OF THE CASE

Now, just to make things nice and even, allow me to assert with equal conviction the view that evidence of fakery in the Dealey Plaza films and photos, as well as well-established fakery of the autopsy films and photos, certainly form

THE BEDROCK EVIDENCE OF THE COVER-UP

How varnellian. Lots of fake photos and film, JUST NOT THE ONES Varnell wants to use....how convenient.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jim, you need to sit down and take a chill pill, IMO. You are attacking Lifton and Thompson and pretty much everyone who won't agree with your every argument. Well, here are a just a few of the reasons I doubt your arguments.

1. You rely on Costella when he tells you the Z-film is fake, but disregard his assertion that the WHOLE film is fake, and instead insist certain frames are the real frames, with the back of the head painted in. You don't seem to realize you've shot yourself in the foot by doing so. If Costella is the top expert, after all, who are YOU to say he is wrong about all this? If he is not the top expert, well, then why don't you take a step back and acknowledge he may have been mistaken about the whole film being fake?

REPLY: OF COURSE the fabricated film was made from the original by removing some frames, but it was far more sophisticated than that. Using optical printing and special effects, they were able to combine any foreground with any background, take out unwanted events and add preferable ones. In case it hasn't crossed your mind, the virtually motionless spectators, who unlike almost everyone else along the motorcade route, do not cheer and wave, were taken from an earlier film BEFORE THE LIMO WAS PRESENT. Jean and Mary were interacting as they waited for JFK and Jackie to arrive, but were fixed in place like "frozen turkeys", to used John's phrase, because it was easier to fake the film that way. When they took out the limo stop, they had to take out Chaney motoring forward and Clint Hill's actions, because there wasn't enough time for them. When John talks about the whole fill being a fabrication, what he means is that, because the "ghost panels" are double-exposures and cannot be faked, they had to reshoot each frame IN THE LAB to create new "ghost panels". That's what he means.

2. You attack Thompson for praising Gary Aguilar's research about the back of the head witnesses, and insist Gary's research proves the Z-film is fake. Well, let's be clear. GARY never said his research proves the Z-film to be fake, did he? You fail to acknowledge that Gary is an agnostic on Z-film alteration, and that some researchers (eg Groden) think the wound on the back of the head is visible in the Z-film, and others (eg Thompson) think there was a wound on the back of Kennedy's head that, for unknown reasons, is not shown on the Z-film. You also fail to acknowledge that you, yourself, have disavowed Gary's research, as he concluded that the wounds seen at Parkland were the wounds seen at Bethesda, and that NO ONE altered the body in between.

REPLY: This has nothing to with Aguilar, who is a friend of Tink. It has to do with HIS RESEARCH. In his chapter in MURDER (2000), he does a very good job of demonstrating that the reports about the wound at the back of the head were very consistent across the medical witnesses, in particular, at Parkland and even at Bethesda. I think he does not have all of that just right, because we now know that Humes took a cranial saw to JFK's skull and enlarged the wound, so thereafter the reports would have been inconsistent with those before. THIS IS ALL SPELLED OUT IN SPADES IN "Inside the ARRB". And he includes other witnesses. As I have shown many times, there is an extremely high degree of correspondence between those witnesses, the X-ray evidence, and of course frame 374. My point, therefore, is ONE OF LOGIC. IF Aguilar is right about the consistency of the reports of the blow out at the back of the head, THEN the film, which does not show it, has to have been falsified--at least to the extent of patching up the blow-out. And that is precisely what we have been discussing here.

3. You rely on Mantik on all things x-ray, and pretty much worship at his feet. While doing so, however, you fail to acknowledge that 1) a forensic radiologist, John J Fitzpatrick, told the ARRB that the "white patch" at the center of Mantik's research corresponded to the wing of bone visible in the right lateral autopsy photo; 2) this was something I'd proposed years before Doug Horne published Fitzpatrick's report; 3) Mantik is not above making embarrassing mistakes, such as the one demonstrated in post #505; and 4) Mantik's "white patch" does not remotely correspond to the location of the "blow-out" you claim to see in frame 374 of the Zapruder film.

REPLY: No, I no more "worship" at David's feet than I do at John's. They both happen to be extraordinarily competent and have made discoveries that persons of lesser qualifications could not have made. I know you have an axe to grind with David on the medical evidence, which is one of the reasons that I have had my reservations about your serving as moderator of this thread. For the most part, however, you have done a fine job, even though you allowed one exchange to go overly long. As to your claim about the relationship between frame 374 and David's "Area P", you may be forgetting that the head is rounded and that we are looking at a downward angle toward the blown-out area, which appears to be partially covered by his hair. But you have to ask yourself: what is the probability that we are NOT looking at the blow out? What else could it possibly be? And what is the probability that we are not looking at the blow out when it so closely corresponds to "Area P", what the witnesses reported, and what the physicians' observed? This is where I know you want to do your "song and dance". I have pointed out the difference between the skull flap and the blow out. My own study sholws that David's is the only work that makes sense of and integrates all of the medical evidence.

Just take a breather. We're only human. Born to make mistakes.

REPLY: Pat, I think we've been there, done that. Thanks for posting. Go back and review the witnesses and the Parkland physicians. The greatest blunder you make is that, if the blow-out were at the side of the head, which is the theme of your work, then it would not have had cerebral and cerebellar tissue extruding from it. I have asked you to explain that phenomenon--how cerebellar and cerebral tissue could extrude from the wound as you portray it--and the answer is that you cannot. So until you do, my interpretation is clearly superior to your own. The question that I pose, therefore, is how can you reconcile your side wound with the physicians' reports, which I am now posting again?

So, let's recap.

1. You claim Costella says the Z-film was made up of pieces of a number of films, including the actual film. Is that right? If this is indeed what he has proposed, I'd appreciate his saying so.

REPLY: Yes, of course. They took the original film and, using the sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects, ALTERED IT. What did you think we were talking about? CREATING A NEW FILM OUT OF THIN AIR OR ON A STAGE? How much have you read about this, Pat? Have you read HOAX (2003)? Have you watched John's visual tutorial on how we know it was faked? Have you watched the 66-part series on Zapruder fakery from the Duluth conference? Have you read at least some of the articles I have published about this? Do you understand optical printing? What in the world have you thought we were talking about? Do you understand the "ghost panel" issue and why the frames had to be reshot--not outside in the world, but in a photo processing lab? Your question by itself leaves me in a state of stunned disbelief. How could anyone in the world have any doubt about something that is so obvious and elementary?

2. You evade my basic point...that you criticize Thompson for endorsing Aguilar's chapter but not accepting Aguilar's conclusion the Z-film was fake, when 1) Aguilar DID NOT conclude the Z-film was fake, and 2) YOU push people to buy your book even though you fail to accept one of Aguilar's actual conclusions, that is, that the body was not altered between Dallas and Bethesda.

REPLY: You apparently do not understand that publishing an article does not mean agreeing with the article. If that were the case, practically everything published in any scholarly journal, for example, would have to be consistent with the editors point of view. But none of us has privileged access to the truth. Those whose views differ from our own may be right and we may be wrong, especially in detail. When I edit books on JFK, for example, I look for the best students of the case who have something to contribute, even though it is possible they have something wrong. Then once it is out there in print, other students can take a look and offer their own criticism and alternative suggestions. That is how progress is made--in successive, incremental stages. David Mantik, for example, was THRILLED when Costella explained that some of his arguments about how the film was faked and how we can know were WRONG. Egad! That Aguilar does not draw the obvious conclusion that, if he is right, then the film is fake, is something to take up with Aguilar. But surely even you can see that, IF HE IS RIGHT (about this fist-sized hole in the head), THEN THE FILM HAS TO HAVE BEEN FAKED--and that remains the case whether he wants to acknowledge it or not. It is a matter of logic!

3. You evade as well the FACT, demonstrated by my slide, that the location of your proposed "blow-out"in frame 374 has little or no overlap with Mantik's "white patch." Apparently, you think that some of the Parkland witnesses' claiming they saw cerebellum is PROOF they in fact saw cerebellum, and that therefore the wound must have overlay the cerebellum. This is ridiculous, IMO. As most of these witnesses later claimed they'd been mistaken, and as one (Peters) specified that he looked down at the cerebellum from a hole higher up on the skull, and as your own chosen expert, Livingston, in YOUR book, admits it's easy to mistake macerated cerebrum for cerebellum (although he doubted the Parkland doctors could be so mistaken), you are simply cherry-picking people's statements to fit your agenda.

REPLY: I don't think I am "evading" anything. You are a classic example of a "special pleader", that is, of someone who wants to pick and choose your evidence while suppressing or ignoring the rest. The method you employ can also be described as the method of SELECTION AND ELIMINATION, by selecting evidence that supports a predetermined point of view and eliminating the rest. The overwhelming majority of the evidence supports, in a straightforward way, that JFK was hit around the right temple by a frangible bullet, that the shock waves blew open the skull flap (which is the pink extension on the right around his right ear), and created a fist-sized blow-out to the center-right of the back of his head, which blew brains and debris to the left/rear with such force that Officer Bobby Hargis was hit so hard that, at first, he thought that he himself had been shot. You want to claim that actually his brains were blown out to the side of his head, which makes it very difficult to see how they could have hit Hargis. Both cerebellar and cerebral tissue were observed extruding from the wound at Parkland. None of this is reasonably disputable, yet you dispute it and even cite later statements by the physicians after it has become clear to them that this was a STATE-SPONSORED CRIME AND THAT WITNESSES WHO DID NOT PLAY ALONG WITH THE "OFFICIAL ACCOUNT" OFTEN TURNED UP DEAD. To demonstrate my point, you are going to respond to me with elaborate explanations as to why the evidence is not as I describe it (even though it is) and why no one has ever understood the case properly (which is your opinion, even though I have already refuted it).

In my last few posts I have shown that 1) Clint Hill's proposed location for the head wound is inconsistent with Charles Crenshaw's location for the head wound, 2) Dr. Mantik was mistaken when he said Dr. Angel's orientation of the Harper fragment put the metallic debris at the top of the head, and 3) your "blow-out" in frame 374 does not correspond to the location of Dr. Mantik's "white patch," but to areas of the x-ray Dr. Mantik believes legit, and yet you have failed to acknowledge any of it. Well, that's just peachy.

REPLY: What's "just peachy" is that I have refuted your position--PROVEN THAT YOU ARE WRONG (FOR REASONS OF THE KIND THAT I HAVE OUTLINED HERE)--several times in the past. The most important of my proofs are that the debris from his head hit Hargis to the left/rear and that cerebellum as well as cerebral tissue was extruding from the wound. I have reposted a the reports of many Parkland physicians, whose observations you want to dispute because they do not agree with your side-exit theory, which is a perfect illustration of what I am saying about your methodology. THEY WERE THERE. THEY WERE COMPETENT AND EXPERIENCED WITH GUNSHOT VICTIMS. As in the case of the limo stop and the black patch, I HAVE NEVER KNOWN ANY COMPETENT AND EXPERIENCED PHYSICIAN WHO WOULD DESCRIBE "EXTRUDING CEREBELLUM" IF THERE HAD BEEN NO EXTRUDING CEREBELLUM. But I can certainly understand why a physician WHO HAD SEEN AND REPORTED EXTRUDING CEREBELLUM MIGHT LATER, REALIZING HIS LIFE MIGHT DEPEND UPON IT, WOULD LATER EQUIVOCATE AND INTRODUCE UNCERTAINTY OR EVEN DENY HIS ORIGINAL OBSERVATIONS. That's called "life preservation", not science. I had thought we had all understood that, as a rule, earlier testimony is more reliable than later. You are not the only one who violates that maxim. But you are a stellar case. Clint Hill also says that there were three shots, even though he has to know better. Have you listened to his account of the actions he took in Dealey Plaza, which I have included in "Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?" Mantik's analysis of the medical evidence appears to be superior to Angel's and to fit the skull better; but because David's conclusions are at odds with your theory, you want to go with Angel. One of the criteria of adequacy of explanations is whether they can account for all of the authentic evidence. David's work does a better job of accounting for all of the authentic evidence than any alternative, just as a blow out at the back of the head is a better explanation for the authentic evidence than a blow out at the side of his head, for reasons I have advanced.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Dr.Fetzer:

On January 5, in post #4 of this thread, you said: "WE KNOW THE FILM IS A FAKE AND WHERE AND WHEN IT WAS DONE" (your emphasis).

Today, over 500 posts later in the thread, I'm still waiting to see any direct evidence in support of that statement, so I would like to put the following three short questions to you, if I may:

REPLY: THREE SHORT ANSWERS:

1. Where, specifically, was the Zapruder film altered?

A SECRET CIA LAB CALLED "HAWKEYE WORKS" IN ROCHESTER AT KODAK HEADQUARTERS.

2. When, specifically, was it altered?

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.

I would respectfully ask that you do not respond by telling me to read your books (I have purchased and read them), telling me to read your published articles (I have done so), or telling me to study your Duluth material (I have done so).

SINCE YOU'VE READ MY WORK, I ASSUME THAT YOU ALREADY KNEW MY SHORT ANSWERS.

Chris.