The Law of Unintended Consequences

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

But Jim has it right, Pat. Since the Harper fragment is occipital bone (in whole or large part) and the occipit is at the back of the head, how could it possibly be properly placed on the side and "just above the right ear"? That clearly cannot be right.

But Pat, if the Harper fragment is occipital, then something came out the back of the head.

David Mantik:

"According to Angel, the sagittal (i.e., midline, top of the head) suture is visible on the Harper fragment. That suture line helped Angel to locate the Harper fragment near the skull vertex, as shown in my Figure 11. However, based on the Harper X-ray, the lead site then lies just to the left of the skull vertex—and the lead is on the outside of the skull! That is truly bizarre. No one has ever proposed that a bullet entered at this site, yet that is precisely where Angel’s (and Riley’s) placement of the Harper fragment has led them. There is even more evidence (in a forthcoming essay) that my placement of the Harper fragment (mostly from the upper occipital area—see my essay in Murder in Dealey Plaza) is correct, after all. However the bottom line here is this: if one accepts the Harper X-ray evidence, then the Angel location—with lead lying to the left of midline on the outside—cannot possibly be correct. Angel, however, can be forgiven. He was told, as a fait accompli, that the occipital bone was intact, so he had little choice about where to put this bone. Also, even more importantly, he knew nothing about the Harper X-ray, but now everything has changed."

Out of respect to you, Jim, I've been holding back on this, but since you bring it up...

When properly placed on the skull, the metal fragment on the Harper fragment is just forward and above Kennedy's right ear. James Curtis Jenkins, we should recall, told writer Harrison Livingstone that "just above the right ear there was some discoloration of the skull cavity with the bone area being gray and there was some speculation that it might be lead." That's no coincidence, IMO. A bullet broke up at that location.

Edited January 15, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Chris Scally]

Can you scan this with more exposure?

Craig:

Unfortunately, this is the the best scan that I could get. Remember, the slides are 30 years old, at least, and although I've kept them in a box in a drawer, and out of any natural light, they have deteriorated somewhat over time. I'm sure they were much clearer and sharper years ago, but maybe that is just my imagination.

Chris.

[Chris Scally]

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)?

[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.

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.

This is really silly, Jim.

Hargis, who was only a few yards from Kennedy, is WRONG when he says the bullet exploded from the side of the head, because YOU can't see how stuff could have exploded from the side of the head and still hit him? He's WRONG, furthermore, even though William and Gayle Newman--the best witnesses to the bullet's impact and the first to make public statements--confirmed his observation on TV a short time after the shooting?

You, as others, have taken the ONE large wound seen at Parkland and convinced yourself it is the ONE large wound seen by the Newmans, Zapruder, etc. There were NOT TWO large wounds, after all. I think we agree on that. In such case, you have followed YOUR blind belief in a shot from the front to its illogical end: that the Newmans--looking straight at Kennedy from ten yards or so away--saw an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head but thought it was on the side of his head, and that this, by PURE coincidence, happened to coincide with what is shown on the faked Zapruder film. (Or are you now of the belief the film was faked to match their "incorrect" impressions?)

In any event, you claim YOUR interpretation of Hargis' words TRUMPS the recollections of not only Hargis, but those of the Newmans and Zapruder, and proves Zapruder's film of the event to be a fake...

Here's an analogy. We have a man who says he saw a red car with a green interior. There are a number of other witnesses who saw this car at the same time. They ALL say the car was red and the interior green. One of these men, furthermore, took a picture of this car, and sure enough, his picture shows a red car with a green interior.

So it's a fact, right? The car was red and the interior green. Well, not so fast. Ten minutes later, some other people see this car. Some of them later claim the car was green and the interior red. They take no pictures of this car. They record no immediate impressions of this car.

If these people are correct, and the car was green, however, it all becomes quite mysterious, as a green car means it was a specialized paint job, etc. So you, and many others, come to believe the car was really green, and that something mysterious is afoot. YOU then decide the first witnesses must be wrong and that the picture taken by one of them has got to be a fake.

By this time, however, the witnesses claiming the car was green have become aware that there are pictures of the car which show it to have been a red car with a green interior, and have almost universally admitted they were wrong. This leads you to insist they were really right, and that they are now in fear for their lives and LYING. There is no evidence for this, mind you. None of them have told you they are in fear for their lives. It's just your conclusion. Why else would they deny what YOU know to be true?

You fail to see that you are now pushing a pet theory almost entirely at odds with the evidence. You are pushing that others believe the car was green even though virtually all those viewing this car now accept that it was red, and there are numerous photos of the car showing it to have been, gulp, red. It's all a conspiracy, you claim. All those claiming it was red are either mistaken or lying. All the films of the red car are fakes. The car couldn't possibly have been red. Never. Never. Never. Those new to the case concluding it was red and telling people it was red are quite possibly disinfo agents. IT DOES NOT COMPUTE!

And, you know, the silliest part of it all, Jim, is that, if you'd actually looked into it, you'd have found that the car's being red is just as mysterious as its being green...

P.S. One of your silliest claims, by the way, is that I have been trying to make the evidence match some predetermined conclusion. This is 100% false. I was at one time quite taken with Assassination Science and Murder in Dealey Plaza, and used to defer to Dr. Mantik's analysis of the x-rays. Continued study of the evidence, however, led me to come to a different conclusion.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

But Jim has it right, Pat. Since the Harper fragment is occipital bone (in whole or large part) and the occipit is at the back of the head, how could it possibly be properly placed on the side and "just above the right ear"? That clearly cannot be right.

But Pat, if the Harper fragment is occipital, then something came out the back of the head.

David Mantik:

"According to Angel, the sagittal (i.e., midline, top of the head) suture is visible on the Harper fragment. That suture line helped Angel to locate the Harper fragment near the skull vertex, as shown in my Figure 11. However, based on the Harper X-ray, the lead site then lies just to the left of the skull vertex—and the lead is on the outside of the skull! That is truly bizarre. No one has ever proposed that a bullet entered at this site, yet that is precisely where Angel’s (and Riley’s) placement of the Harper fragment has led them. There is even more evidence (in a forthcoming essay) that my placement of the Harper fragment (mostly from the upper occipital area—see my essay in Murder in Dealey Plaza) is correct, after all. However the bottom line here is this: if one accepts the Harper X-ray evidence, then the Angel location—with lead lying to the left of midline on the outside—cannot possibly be correct. Angel, however, can be forgiven. He was told, as a fait accompli, that the occipital bone was intact, so he had little choice about where to put this bone. Also, even more importantly, he knew nothing about the Harper X-ray, but now everything has changed."

Out of respect to you, Jim, I've been holding back on this, but since you bring it up...

When properly placed on the skull, the metal fragment on the Harper fragment is just forward and above Kennedy's right ear. James Curtis Jenkins, we should recall, told writer Harrison Livingstone that "just above the right ear there was some discoloration of the skull cavity with the bone area being gray and there was some speculation that it might be lead." That's no coincidence, IMO. A bullet broke up at that location.

But the Harper fragment is NOT occipital bone, Jim. This is what I mean by worshiping Mantik. If you took your eyes off his and took a closer look at my slide you'd realize that the metallic debris on the Harper fragment in Forensic Anthropologist Dr, Angel's orientation (which has been confirmed by Dr. Joseph Riley) confirms that a bullet broke up at the supposed exit. This, then, PROVES there was more than one shooter. Whether you agree with me--that this bullet came from behind--or agree with Tink and others--that it came from the front--this single-handedly DESTROYS the official story, as it PROVES there were TWO head shots.

This is exactly the kind of breakthrough we've been waiting for. And it has been held up by your friend Mantik's inability to admit he was wrong. He is wrong, after all, isn't he, Jim?

Please look at the slide and confirm whether you agree that the metallic debris is at point C of the Harper fragment, where I claim it was, and not at point B, where Mantik claims it was.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

One of the techniques you employ in argument is to accent minor differences and ignore major similarities. Even if there may be some differences in the Crenshaw diagram and the Mantik X-ray analysis, both of which are of course two-dimensional representations of a three-dimensional object (the cranium of our deceased president), AND EVEN THOUGH BOTH PLACE THE BLOW-OUT AT THE BACK/RIGHT OF THE HEAD, you consider them discrepant. In detail, but not in general location:

What I mean by that is that they are both GROSSLY AT ODDS WITH THE HSCA REPRESENTATION, with which you appear to agree. And when it comes to degrees of silliness, nothing I have argued during our exchanges here has anything remotely approaching the degree of silliness you display in regarding this as a closer approximation to the truth than the witnesses, the Parkland physicians, McClelland or Crenshaw's diagram, David's X-ray, which defined "Area P" for "patched", or frame 374:

These depictions, where, while they both show the skull flap, the purported entry at the crown seen in the Ida Dox diagram on the right is not also seen in the photograph at the left, where I have a hard time imagining that anyone could be taken in by the obvious deception involved here. They not only contradict the Parkland observations but are completely inconsistent with the Bethesda autopsy report. I think it's best that we should now leave it for others to sort out our well-defined differences.

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.

This is really silly, Jim.

Hargis, who was only a few yards from Kennedy, is WRONG when he says the bullet exploded from the side of the head, because YOU can't see how stuff could have exploded from the side of the head and still hit him? He's WRONG, furthermore, even though William and Gayle Newman--the best witnesses to the bullet's impact and the first to make public statements--confirmed his observation on TV a short time after the shooting?

You, as others, have taken the ONE large wound seen at Parkland and convinced yourself it is the ONE large wound seen by the Newmans, Zapruder, etc. There were NOT TWO large wounds, after all. I think we agree on that. In such case, you have followed YOUR blind belief in a shot from the front to its illogical end: that the Newmans--looking straight at Kennedy from ten yards or so away--saw an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head but thought it was on the side of his head, and that this, by PURE coincidence, happened to coincide with what is shown on the faked Zapruder film. (Or are you now of the belief the film was faked to match their "incorrect" impressions?)

In any event, you claim YOUR interpretation of Hargis' words TRUMPS the recollections of not only Hargis, but those of the Newmans and Zapruder, and proves Zapruder's film of the event to be a fake...

. . . .

P.S. One of your silliest claims, by the way, is that I have been trying to make the evidence match some predetermined conclusion. This is 100% false. I was at one time quite taken with Assassination Science and Murder in Dealey Plaza, and used to defer to Dr. Mantik's analysis of the x-rays. Continued study of the evidence, however, led me to come to a different conclusion.

Edited January 15, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

One of the techniques you employ in argument is to accent minor differences and ignore major similarities. Even if there may be some differences in the Crenshaw diagram and the Mantik X-ray analysis, both of which are of course two-dimensional representations of a three-dimensional object (the cranium of our deceased president), AND EVEN THOUGH BOTH PLACE THE BLOW-OUT AT THE BACK/RIGHT OF THE HEAD, you consider them discrepant. In detail, but not in general location:

What I mean by that is that they are both GROSSLY AT ODDS WITH THE HSCA REPRESENTATION, with which you appear to agree. When it comes to degrees of silliness, nothing I have argued during our exchanges here has anything remotely approaching the degree of silliness you display in regarding this as a closer approximation to the truth than the witnesses, the Parkland physicians, Crenshaw's diagram, and David's X-ray study, which defined "Area P" for "patched":

These depictions, where, while they both show the skull flap, the purported entry at the crown seen in the Ida Dox diagram on the right is not also seen in the photograph at the left, where I have a hard time imagining that anyone could be taken in by the obvious deception involved here. They not only contradict the Parkland observations but are completely inconsistent with the Bethesda autopsy report. I think it's best that we should now leave it for others to sort out our well-defined differences.

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.

[Josiah Thompson]

It's wearisome to reply to questions when the answers are so obvious.

I do not know what the Wilkinson copy shows since the people concerned have been sitting on it for over two years. Had they released it years ago, it could have been subjected to scientific testing. However, we do know that, as copy is piled on copy, the build-up of contrast often produces untoward effects. You should know about this since almost twenty years ago you were enthusiastic about Greer shooting the President with a chrome handgun. By comparing images of Z 317 that are only one or two generations away from the original with images that are downstream in the copying process, we know that certain "patchlike" characteristics emerge from the multicopying process. Lifton's posted image of Z 317 and my posted image of Z 317 don't show these "patchlike" while downstream copies do.

From this, I infer that the Wilkinson copy may have patchlike characteristics. Hence, Patrick Block, the Director, Sydney Wilkinson's group probably were looking at an image that had "patchlike" characteristics. I don't know this but this seems likely.

David Mantik and the MPI transparencies constitute a completely different matter. I studied those transparencies last June for many hours. Mantik is simply and irremediably mistaken and the proof is sitting there to show he is mistaken. You have never bothered to go to Dallas and look at the evidence that Doug Horne and others have said is the "best evidence" with respect to what is and is not there in Z 317.

When either you or Sydney Wilkinson has evidence that the Wilkinson copy is a "3rd generation" and not a "4th or 5th generation" copy, please present it. Thus far you have Mr. Block saying he heard this from someone but he won't tell us who this "someone" was.

There are differences between Z 314 and Z 317 of course. Do these differences show a black patch mysteriously appearing? No.

You steadfastly refuse to answer the most telling question here. I've asked it three times before so I will ask it again. The Moorman photo was taken simultaneous with Z 315. It shows no massive hole in the back of JFK's head. If such a massive hole was concealed by unknown conspiritors through the addition of a "black patch" in Z 317, why does it not show up in the Moorman photo? Again and again you are tripped up by the simple fact that the photos taken in Dealey Plaza form a self-authenticating whole. One photo or film confirms another. Any doctoring of a film or photo would stand out like a sore thumb against the background of other photos. When faced with this simple fact, you start scrammbling by adding more and more films to the list of doctored evidence. You've been doing this for fifteen years. By now it's kind of laughable. Was the Moorman photo also faked up? Please answer.

In post #466, I asked you a few questions about your absurd suggestion in post #369 that David Mantik was "making up" what he saw on the MPI slides when he visited The 6th Floor Museum and which Doug Horne reported in his blog, which I have cited in earlier posts. But you have not responded to them. I have repeated them in my most recent post #513. I think it's time you answered them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

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. The "best evidence" of what is on the Zapruder film archived by NARA is NOT the MPI slide set. I exposed problems with those slides at the opening session of the Duluth Conference: the MPI version has reversed the order of frames 331 and 332; does not include (what should be) frames 341, 350, and 486; does not include frames 155 and 156; and also does not include frames 208, 209, 210, and 211. It was NEVER the "best evidence". Now that we have a 3rd generation copy in the hands of experts, I expect a great deal of progress will be made. The evidence is all against you, even though you will never admit it.

Indeed, Chris Scally has posted an image that shows your claim about "build-up of contrast" is not supported by the evidence. Why does that come as no surprise? You are now asking about the Moorman, which John is better positioned to address than am I. You love to recycle fabricated stories about my belief that Greer shot JFK, when I had only informed you that I had seen a photograph of Kellerman with a finger in his left ear that struck me as strange and asked if it contributed to that possibility. The ballistics are wrong for Greer to have shot JFK, since the debris would have blown out to the right/rear, when it blew out to the left/rear. Perhaps you and Pat Speer should join in common cause. Take the Moorman up with John Costella, unless you are afraid to deal with a real photo and film expert. I suggest you follow though on your joint plans with John Costella.

It's wearisome to reply to questions when the answers are so obvious.

I do not know what the Wilkinson copy shows since the people concerned have been sitting on it for over two years. Had they released it years ago, it could have been subjected to scientific testing. However, we do know that, as copy is piled on copy, the build-up of contrast often produces untoward effects. You should know about this since almost twenty years ago you were enthusiastic about Greer shooting the President with a chrome handgun. By comparing images of Z 317 that are only one or two generations away from the original with images that are downstream in the copying process, we know that certain "patchlike" characteristics emerge from the multicopying process. Lifton's posted image of Z 317 and my posted image of Z 317 don't show these "patchlike" while downstream copies do.

From this, I infer that the Wilkinson copy may have patchlike characteristics. Hence, Patrick Block, the Director, Sydney Wilkinson's group probably were looking at an image that had "patchlike" characteristics. I don't know this but this seems likely.

David Mantik and the MPI transparencies constitute a completely different matter. I studied those transparencies last June for many hours. Mantik is simply and irremediably mistaken and the proof is sitting there to show he is mistaken. You have never bothered to go to Dallas and look at the evidence that Doug Horne and others have said is the "best evidence" with respect to what is and is not there in Z 317.

When either you or Sydney Wilkinson has evidence that the Wilkinson copy is a "3rd generation" and not a "4th or 5th generation" copy, please present it. Thus far you have Mr. Block saying he heard this from someone but he won't tell us who this "someone" was.

There are differences between Z 314 and Z 317 of course. Do these differences show a black patch mysteriously appearing? No.

You steadfastly refuse to answer the most telling question here. I've asked it three times before so I will ask it again. The Moorman photo was taken simultaneous with Z 315. It shows no massive hole in the back of JFK's head. If such a massive hole was concealed by unknown conspiritors through the addition of a "black patch" in Z 317, why does it not show up in the Moorman photo? Again and again you are tripped up by the simple fact that the photos taken in Dealey Plaza form a self-authenticating whole. One photo or film confirms another. Any doctoring of a film or photo would stand out like a sore thumb against the background of other photos. When faced with this simple fact, you start scrammbling by adding more and more films to the list of doctored evidence. You've been doing this for fifteen years. By now it's kind of laughable. Was the Moorman photo also faked up? Please answer.

In post #466, I asked you a few questions about your absurd suggestion in post #369 that David Mantik was "making up" what he saw on the MPI slides when he visited The 6th Floor Museum and which Doug Horne reported in his blog, which I have cited in earlier posts. But you have not responded to them. I have repeated them in my most recent post #513. I think it's time you answered them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited January 15, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest Gary Loughran]

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

[Greg Burnham]

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?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

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

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

Edited January 15, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

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.

One of the techniques you employ in argument is to accent minor differences and ignore major similarities. Even if there may be some differences in the Crenshaw diagram and the Mantik X-ray analysis, both of which are of course two-dimensional representations of a three-dimensional object (the cranium of our deceased president), AND EVEN THOUGH BOTH PLACE THE BLOW-OUT AT THE BACK/RIGHT OF THE HEAD, you consider them discrepant. In detail, but not in general location:

What I mean by that is that they are both GROSSLY AT ODDS WITH THE HSCA REPRESENTATION, with which you appear to agree. When it comes to degrees of silliness, nothing I have argued during our exchanges here has anything remotely approaching the degree of silliness you display in regarding this as a closer approximation to the truth than the witnesses, the Parkland physicians, Crenshaw's diagram, and David's X-ray study, which defined "Area P" for "patched":

These depictions, where, while they both show the skull flap, the purported entry at the crown seen in the Ida Dox diagram on the right is not also seen in the photograph at the left, where I have a hard time imagining that anyone could be taken in by the obvious deception involved here. They not only contradict the Parkland observations but are completely inconsistent with the Bethesda autopsy report. I think it's best that we should now leave it for others to sort out our well-defined differences.

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.

Edited January 15, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest Gary Loughran]

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

[Guest Gary Loughran]

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.