The Law of Unintended Consequences

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You must have no idea how much you are damaging your credibility by defending

the indefensible! No one is going to believe you after all of this. When you are

doing your song and dance about technical issues, you can snow your audience.

You claim this happened after the limo had already passed the TUP and that

we have simply not been thinking about the temporal relationship here. My

three favorites are Bobby Hargis, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Jesse Curry:

(1) Forrest Sorrels: "A motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief

Curry yelled ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer replied in the affirmative,

and Chief Curry immediately broadcast to surround the building. By that time we

had gotten just about under the underpass when the President’s car pulled up

alongside,"

(2) Bobby Hargis: "I remembered seeing Officer Chaney. Chaney put his motor

in first gear and accelerated up to the front to tell them to get everything

out of the way, that he [the President] was coming through, and that is when

the Presidential limousine shot off ….”

(3) Chief Jesse Curry: "at that time I looked in my rear view mirror and I

saw some commotion in the President’s caravan and realized that proba-

bly something was wrong, and it seemed to be speeding up, and about

this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney rode up be-

side us and I asked if something happened back there"

I am sorry, Josiah but, as in the case of denying the presence of a black patch

that is obviously present in the third generation print but that you claim is not on

the MPI slide set, your credibility has been taking a very heavy, even fatal, hit.

Real simple. Note the hidden ambiguity in your citing the quote from Lawson:

Winston Lawson (Secret Service agent, in the lead car ahead of the Presidential limousine), December 1, 1963: i]“A motorcycle escort officer pulled alongside our Lead Car and said the President had been shot. Chief Curry gave a signal over his radio for police to converge on the area of the incident.”[statement: CE772: 17H632] (emphasis added)

Of course the lead car was ahead of the limousine at the time of the shooting. However, as the photo record shows, the limousine caught up with the limousine underneath the Triple Underpass and passed the lead car. From that moment on, the lead car is no longer in front of the limousine. It is at this point, as Chief Curry explained, Chaney caught up with the lead car on the on-ramp to the Stemmons Freeway. Hence, Lawson's statement is perfectly consistent with the photo evidence and other witness reports. It does not show the necessity of any faking up of the Zapruder film since it is completely consistent with it. Any honest person would not try to use it for that purpose.

Likewise, the reports of Parkland and Bethesda witnesses. What they saw does not prove what was visible in Dealey Plaza. An additional bullet to the head plus the movement of the body in the limousine and out of the limousine could have changed what was visible of the head wound. Since the Zapruder film and and Moorman photo show no damage to the back of Kennedy's head in the interval just after Z 313, since no Dealey Plaza witness reported seeing any damage to the back of Kennedy's head at this time, it is probably true that no damage to the back of Kennedy's head was visible at this time. Hence, there would be nothing in frame 317 to fix. Your way of dealing with this very simple argument is to say that the Moorman photo has been altered to conceal a wound at the back of Kennedy's head. This is just silly.

JT

Since Tink seems to have problems with reading comprehension, I have bolded

the more important observations about Chaney's motoring forward. This takes

his BELIEVE ME INSTEAD OF YOUR LYING EYES to an entirely new level.

See the source at http://assassinationresearch.com/v5n1/v5n1costella.pdf, pages 85-86.

Tink says this happened after the limo had already passed the TUP and that

we have simply not been thinking about the temporal relationship here. My

three favorites are Bobby Hargis, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Jesse Curry:

(1) Forrest Sorrels: "A motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief

Curry yelled ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer replied in the affirmative,

and Chief Curry immediately broadcast to surround the building. By that time we

had gotten just about under the underpass when the President’s car pulled up

alongside,"

(2) Bobby Hargis: "I remembered seeing Officer Chaney. Chaney put his motor

in first gear and accelerated up to the front to tell them to get everything

out of the way, that he [the President] was coming through, and that is when

the Presidential limousine shot off ….”

(3) Chief Jesse Curry: "at that time I looked in my rear view mirror and I

saw some commotion in the President’s caravan and realized that proba-

bly something was wrong, and it seemed to be speeding up, and about

this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney rode up be-

side us and I asked if something happened back there"

MOTORCYCLE POLICE OFFICER CHANEY RODE UP TO THE LEAD CAR

AND SPOKE TO POLICE CHIEF JESSE CURRY

James Chaney (motorcycle policeman, on the right rear fender of the Presi-

dential limousine), November 22, 1963: “Then the, uh, second shot came,

well then I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the

face by the second bullet. He slumped forward into Mrs. Kennedy’s lap,

and uh, it was apparent to me that we’re being fired upon. I went ahead

of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been

hit. And then he instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hos-

pital, and he had Parkland standing by. I went on up ahead of the—[lead

car]—to notify the officer that was leading the escort that he [the Presi-

dent] had been hit and we’re going to have to move out.” [interview with

Bill Lord of ABC News for WFAA-TV, as quoted in Trask, That Day in Dal-

las]

Bobby Hargis (motorcycle policeman on the left rear fender of the Presiden-

tial limousine), November 23, 1963: “The motorcycle officer on the right

side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward, and an-

nounced to the Chief that the President had been shot.” [Daily News re-

port]

Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service agent, in the lead car in front of the Presi-

dential limousine), November 28, 1963: “I noted that the President’s car

had axcelerated [sic] its speed and was closing fast the gap between us. A

motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled ‘Is any-

body hurt?’, to which the officer replied in the affirmative, and Chief

Curry immediately broadcast to surround the building. By that time we

had gotten just about under the underpass when the President’s car

pulled up alongside, and at that time Chief Curry’s car had started to

pick up speed, and someone yelled to get to the nearest hospital, and

Chief Curry broadcast for the hospital to be ready.” [statement: 21H548]

Winston Lawson (Secret Service agent, in the lead car ahead of the Presi-

dential limousine), December 1, 1963: “A motorcycle escort officer pulled

alongside our Lead Car and said the President had been shot. Chief

Curry gave a signal over his radio for police to converge on the area of the

incident.” [statement: CE772: 17H632]

James Chaney (motorcycle policeman, on the right rear fender of the Presi-

dential limousine), from the testimony of Marrion Baker (Dallas Police

Officer, on Houston Street when the shots started), March 25, 1964: “I

talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two shots hit

Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor. (Mr. Belin:

“Where was he?”) Mr. Baker: “He was on the right rear to the car or to

the side, and then at that time the chief of police, he didn’t know any-

thing about this [the shooting], and he [Chaney] moved up and told him

[the chief], and then that was during the time that the Secret Service

men were trying to get in the car ….” [Warren Commission testimony:

3H266]

Bobby Hargis (motorcycle policeman on the left rear fender of the Presiden-

tial limousine), April 8, 1964: “… when President Kennedy straightened

back up in the car the bullet hit him in the head, the one that killed him

and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood

and brain, and kind of a bloody water. It wasn’t really blood. And at that

time the Presidential car slowed down. I heard someone say, ‘Get going,’

or ‘get going,’——” (Mr. Stern: “Someone inside——”) Mr. Hargis: “I don’t

know whether it was the Secret Service car, and I remembered seeing Of-

ficer Chaney. Chaney put his motor in first gear and accelerated up to

the front to tell them to get everything out of the way, that he [the Presi-

dent] was coming through, and that is when the Presidential limousine

shot off ….” [Warren Commission testimony: 6H294]

Chief Jesse Curry (in lead car, in front of the Presidential limousine),

April 15, 1964: “I heard a sharp report. We were near the railroad yards

at the time, and I didn’t know—I didn’t know exactly where this report

came from, whether it was above us or where, but this was followed by

two more reports, and at that time I looked in my rear view mirror and I

saw some commotion in the President’s caravan and realized that proba-

bly something was wrong, and it seemed to be speeding up, and about

this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney rode up be-

side us and I asked if something happened back there and he said, ‘Yes,’

and I said, ‘Has somebody been shot?’ And he said, ‘I think so.’ ” [Warren

Commission testimony: 12H28]

Winston Lawson (Secret Service agent, in the lead car ahead of the Presi-

dential limousine), April 23, 1964: “… I recall noting a police officer

pulled up in a motorcycle alongside of us, and mentioned that the Presi-

dent had been hit.” [Warren Commission testimony: 4H353]

Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service agent, in the lead car in front of the Presi-

dential limousine), May 7, 1964: “Within about 3 seconds, there were two

more similar reports. And I said, ‘Let’s get out of here’ and looked back,

all the way back, then, to where the President’s car was, and I saw some

confusion, movement there, and the car just seemed to lurch forward.

And, in the meantime, a motorcycle officer had run up on the right-hand

side and the chief yelled to him, ‘Anybody hurt?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ He said,

‘Lead us to the hospital.’ And the chief took his microphone and told

them to alert the hospital, and said, ‘Surround the building.’ He didn’t

say what building. He just said, ‘Surround the building.’ ” [Warren Com-

mission testimony: 7H345]

It's easy to "lose the thread" on this thread. I think it has exposed an interesting mistake in thinking. You might call it "blindness to when something happened."

One of the quotes given to show that the Zapruder film was altered because Officer Chaney immediately rode ahead of the limousine to rendezvous with the lead car, is this quote from Winston Lawson in the lead car: "A motorcycle escort officer pulled alongside our lead car and said the President had been shot. Chief Curry gave a signal over his radio for police to converge on the area of the incident." (CE 772; 17H632) Since both Officer Chaney and Chief Curry say that Chaney did rendezvous with the lead car, he probably did. The photos show the limousine passing the lead car as Chaney trails some hundreds of feet. So the photo evidence including the Zapruder film plus statements of Lawson, Chaney, and Curry all support the notion that Chaney met up with the lead car after the limousine took off. In short, what Lawson said really happened. It just didn't happen at the time some would have it happen. Remove the "blindness to when it happened" and things become clearer.

Likewise, with respect to the wound in the back of JFK's head. It doesn't show in the Zapruder fim or in the Moorman photo. No eyewitness from Dealey Plaza noted it. Yet it is clear that many witnesses from both Parkland and Bethesda saw it. Yet because it is seen later at Parkland and Bethesda does not mean it was visible in Dealey Plaza and should show up in the Dealey Plaza photo record. A lot happened after Z 313 including JFK getting hit a second time in the head and his body being extracted from the limousine. If one pays attention to the time difference there is no conflict.

JT

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

Edited January 18, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

I came to realize the evidence suggested there'd been more than one shooter firing from behind. That's not my pet theory. That's what the evidence shows.

No, Pat, that's what YOU THINK the evidence shows.

But as Dr. Cyril Wecht told me recently, he - a forensic scientist of over 50 years and a former President of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences - thinks the evidence shows a soft lead or "frangible" bullet struck the head from the front.

As does forensic pathologist Dr. Randy Robertson.

And neuroscientist Dr. Joseph N. Riley.

You may have convinced yourself otherwise, Pat, but your are NOT equally qualified to judge what the evidence shows. And a second shot from behind IS just your pet theory.

FACT.

Can you show me where any of them have said there was a blow-out wound low on the back of the head? The men you mention, to my recollection, agree with me that the autopsy evidence is legit, shows no sign of a blow-out wound low on the back of the head, and suggests two head shots. With Wecht it is more like a hunch, if I recall. He has said numerous times that he's found no physical evidence for a shot from the front. Robertson claims the x-rays prove two shots. If I recall, Riley agrees.

None of them, to my knowledge, have signed off on Chaney's words proving the Z-film was altered, Fetzer's "blow-out" in frame 374 proving the Z-film was altered, or Mantik's placement of the Harper fragment.

So let's be clear. Your chosen experts are on the side of Tink and myself in the debate on this thread. We may disagree about the direction of the second head shot, but I base my interpretation upon my study of the Harper fragment, a study none of them have, to my knowledge, ever looked at. (I sent a lot of information to Wecht's son at one point, and he reportedly gave it to his dad, but I never received a response--perhaps because I've been so derogatory to Wecht's blood-brother, Baden.)

As far as my THINKING things I THINK, well, of course I do. You THINK the things you THINK as well. Whenever anyone anywhere at any anytime says something is a fact they are saying they THINK it is a fact. And that's a fact. I THINK.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Tink,

You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel. If you are endorsing this guy, then I KNOW I was right not to trust him.

(1) You have never addressed the five physical differences between the two films even after repeatedly being challenged to.

(2) You have abandoned your "double-hit" theory, even though a Nobel Prize winning physicist from CalTech has verified it.

(3) You have endorse Aguilar's chapter in MURDER (2000), even though it demonstrates that the extant film must be a fake.

(4) You have vouched for the Umbrella man, even though he turns out to be a limo stop witness, who also impeaches the film.

(5) You are trying to pull one of your patented "BELIEVE ME OR YOUR LYING EYES" in relation to Chaney's motoring forward.

(6) You claim the "black patch" is not on frame 317 now, but it was there in the past and is obvious on the 3rd generation print.

(7) The cover of your book claims it proves a conspiracy, but in the final paragraph of the text, you deny that that is the case.

How long are we supposed to put up with your double-talk? Someone is throwing insults and wild charges around, but it ain't me.

Jim

Chris Scally knows more about the provenance of the Zapruder film (the original and the three first-day copies) than you ever will. He knows this because he took the time to do the reading, to make the follow-up phone calls and emails, that real research requires. His chronology of the history of the Zapruder film is showcased on the Lancer web site. I'm sure you remember Lancer... it's only one of the places that have deemed you persona non grata. You retire into your bubble and cite like a litany the names of "David Lifton, Douglas Horne and others." Yeah, they are the supporters of this little side comedy. I take it that you don't know that Chris Scally has tracked the arrival of the two Secret Service copies of the film from Dallas on sequential days where the first was examined by Hunter and McMahon and then, the next day, the second was examined by Brugioni. Ben Hunter actually worked on the film and recalled it "not of high resolution" and said he was pretty sure it had no intersprocket images. If Hunter is right, he worked on a copy sent from Dallas and "Bill Smith" is a figment of McMahon's fevered imagination.

But you don't deal with any of this. You just insult people as a matter of course, even when your interlocutor has been scrupulously polite to you. Your claim that Rollie Zavada somehow himself worked at Hawkeye on faking up the Zapruder film is just acute silliness with a nasty edge. But that's your style... when you have no facts just throw insults and wild charges around.

JT

Edited January 18, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Josiah Thompson]

You lost Lawson for the reasons given. You lose Curry because Curry said this happened on the on-ramp to the Stemmons Freeway and this is consistent with the photo evidence. You lose Hargis because he doesn't say when Chaney accelerated. We know Chaney had to accelerate to get to the position he occupies in the Daniel and McIntire photos. So, after much huffing and puffing, you're down to Sorrels. That's kind of a weak reed to base the claim that the Zapruder, Bell, Nix, Mucmore and Daniel films have all been faked up and the Altgens and McIntire photos have also been doctored.

But what about the Moorman photo? Are you still claiming that that was doctored? I'd like to hear that argument.

Never mind, you'll simply continue the huffing and puffing.

JT

You must have no idea how much you are damaging your credibility by defending

the indefensible! No one is going to believe you after all of this. When you are

doing your song and dance about technical issues, you can snow your audience.

You claim this happened after the limo had already passed the TUP and that

we have simply not been thinking about the temporal relationship here. My

three favorites are Bobby Hargis, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Jesse Curry:

(1) Forrest Sorrels: "A motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief

Curry yelled ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer replied in the affirmative,

and Chief Curry immediately broadcast to surround the building. By that time we

had gotten just about under the underpass when the President’s car pulled up

alongside,"

(2) Bobby Hargis: "I remembered seeing Officer Chaney. Chaney put his motor

in first gear and accelerated up to the front to tell them to get everything

out of the way, that he [the President] was coming through, and that is when

the Presidential limousine shot off ….”

(3) Chief Jesse Curry: "at that time I looked in my rear view mirror and I

saw some commotion in the President’s caravan and realized that proba-

bly something was wrong, and it seemed to be speeding up, and about

this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney rode up be-

side us and I asked if something happened back there"

I am sorry, Josiah but, as in the case of denying the presence of a black patch

that is obviously present in the third generation print but that you claim is not on

the MPI slide set, your credibility has been taking a very heavy, even fatal, hit.

Real simple. Note the hidden ambiguity in your citing the quote from Lawson:

Winston Lawson (Secret Service agent, in the lead car ahead of the Presidential limousine), December 1, 1963: i]“A motorcycle escort officer pulled alongside our Lead Car and said the President had been shot. Chief Curry gave a signal over his radio for police to converge on the area of the incident.”[statement: CE772: 17H632] (emphasis added)

Of course the lead car was ahead of the limousine at the time of the shooting. However, as the photo record shows, the limousine caught up with the limousine underneath the Triple Underpass and passed the lead car. From that moment on, the lead car is no longer in front of the limousine. It is at this point, as Chief Curry explained, Chaney caught up with the lead car on the on-ramp to the Stemmons Freeway. Hence, Lawson's statement is perfectly consistent with the photo evidence and other witness reports. It does not show the necessity of any faking up of the Zapruder film since it is completely consistent with it. Any honest person would not try to use it for that purpose.

Likewise, the reports of Parkland and Bethesda witnesses. What they saw does not prove what was visible in Dealey Plaza. An additional bullet to the head plus the movement of the body in the limousine and out of the limousine could have changed what was visible of the head wound. Since the Zapruder film and and Moorman photo show no damage to the back of Kennedy's head in the interval just after Z 313, since no Dealey Plaza witness reported seeing any damage to the back of Kennedy's head at this time, it is probably true that no damage to the back of Kennedy's head was visible at this time. Hence, there would be nothing in frame 317 to fix. Your way of dealing with this very simple argument is to say that the Moorman photo has been altered to conceal a wound at the back of Kennedy's head. This is just silly.

JT

Since Tink seems to have problems with reading comprehension, I have bolded

the more important observations about Chaney's motoring forward. This takes

his BELIEVE ME INSTEAD OF YOUR LYING EYES to an entirely new level.

See the source at http://assassinationresearch.com/v5n1/v5n1costella.pdf, pages 85-86.

Tink says this happened after the limo had already passed the TUP and that

we have simply not been thinking about the temporal relationship here. My

three favorites are Bobby Hargis, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Jesse Curry:

(1) Forrest Sorrels: "A motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief

Curry yelled ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer replied in the affirmative,

and Chief Curry immediately broadcast to surround the building. By that time we

had gotten just about under the underpass when the President’s car pulled up

alongside,"

(2) Bobby Hargis: "I remembered seeing Officer Chaney. Chaney put his motor

in first gear and accelerated up to the front to tell them to get everything

out of the way, that he [the President] was coming through, and that is when

the Presidential limousine shot off ….”

(3) Chief Jesse Curry: "at that time I looked in my rear view mirror and I

saw some commotion in the President’s caravan and realized that proba-

bly something was wrong, and it seemed to be speeding up, and about

this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney rode up be-

side us and I asked if something happened back there"

MOTORCYCLE POLICE OFFICER CHANEY RODE UP TO THE LEAD CAR

AND SPOKE TO POLICE CHIEF JESSE CURRY

James Chaney (motorcycle policeman, on the right rear fender of the Presi-

dential limousine), November 22, 1963: “Then the, uh, second shot came,

well then I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the

face by the second bullet. He slumped forward into Mrs. Kennedy’s lap,

and uh, it was apparent to me that we’re being fired upon. I went ahead

of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been

hit. And then he instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hos-

pital, and he had Parkland standing by. I went on up ahead of the—[lead

car]—to notify the officer that was leading the escort that he [the Presi-

dent] had been hit and we’re going to have to move out.” [interview with

Bill Lord of ABC News for WFAA-TV, as quoted in Trask, That Day in Dal-

las]

Bobby Hargis (motorcycle policeman on the left rear fender of the Presiden-

tial limousine), November 23, 1963: “The motorcycle officer on the right

side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward, and an-

nounced to the Chief that the President had been shot.” [Daily News re-

port]

Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service agent, in the lead car in front of the Presi-

dential limousine), November 28, 1963: “I noted that the President’s car

had axcelerated [sic] its speed and was closing fast the gap between us. A

motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled ‘Is any-

body hurt?’, to which the officer replied in the affirmative, and Chief

Curry immediately broadcast to surround the building. By that time we

had gotten just about under the underpass when the President’s car

pulled up alongside, and at that time Chief Curry’s car had started to

pick up speed, and someone yelled to get to the nearest hospital, and

Chief Curry broadcast for the hospital to be ready.” [statement: 21H548]

Winston Lawson (Secret Service agent, in the lead car ahead of the Presi-

dential limousine), December 1, 1963: “A motorcycle escort officer pulled

alongside our Lead Car and said the President had been shot. Chief

Curry gave a signal over his radio for police to converge on the area of the

incident.” [statement: CE772: 17H632]

James Chaney (motorcycle policeman, on the right rear fender of the Presi-

dential limousine), from the testimony of Marrion Baker (Dallas Police

Officer, on Houston Street when the shots started), March 25, 1964: “I

talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two shots hit

Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor. (Mr. Belin:

“Where was he?”) Mr. Baker: “He was on the right rear to the car or to

the side, and then at that time the chief of police, he didn’t know any-

thing about this [the shooting], and he [Chaney] moved up and told him

[the chief], and then that was during the time that the Secret Service

men were trying to get in the car ….” [Warren Commission testimony:

3H266]

Bobby Hargis (motorcycle policeman on the left rear fender of the Presiden-

tial limousine), April 8, 1964: “… when President Kennedy straightened

back up in the car the bullet hit him in the head, the one that killed him

and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood

and brain, and kind of a bloody water. It wasn’t really blood. And at that

time the Presidential car slowed down. I heard someone say, ‘Get going,’

or ‘get going,’——” (Mr. Stern: “Someone inside——”) Mr. Hargis: “I don’t

know whether it was the Secret Service car, and I remembered seeing Of-

ficer Chaney. Chaney put his motor in first gear and accelerated up to

the front to tell them to get everything out of the way, that he [the Presi-

dent] was coming through, and that is when the Presidential limousine

shot off ….” [Warren Commission testimony: 6H294]

Chief Jesse Curry (in lead car, in front of the Presidential limousine),

April 15, 1964: “I heard a sharp report. We were near the railroad yards

at the time, and I didn’t know—I didn’t know exactly where this report

came from, whether it was above us or where, but this was followed by

two more reports, and at that time I looked in my rear view mirror and I

saw some commotion in the President’s caravan and realized that proba-

bly something was wrong, and it seemed to be speeding up, and about

this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney rode up be-

side us and I asked if something happened back there and he said, ‘Yes,’

and I said, ‘Has somebody been shot?’ And he said, ‘I think so.’ ” [Warren

Commission testimony: 12H28]

Winston Lawson (Secret Service agent, in the lead car ahead of the Presi-

dential limousine), April 23, 1964: “… I recall noting a police officer

pulled up in a motorcycle alongside of us, and mentioned that the Presi-

dent had been hit.” [Warren Commission testimony: 4H353]

Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service agent, in the lead car in front of the Presi-

dential limousine), May 7, 1964: “Within about 3 seconds, there were two

more similar reports. And I said, ‘Let’s get out of here’ and looked back,

all the way back, then, to where the President’s car was, and I saw some

confusion, movement there, and the car just seemed to lurch forward.

And, in the meantime, a motorcycle officer had run up on the right-hand

side and the chief yelled to him, ‘Anybody hurt?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ He said,

‘Lead us to the hospital.’ And the chief took his microphone and told

them to alert the hospital, and said, ‘Surround the building.’ He didn’t

say what building. He just said, ‘Surround the building.’ ” [Warren Com-

mission testimony: 7H345]

It's easy to "lose the thread" on this thread. I think it has exposed an interesting mistake in thinking. You might call it "blindness to when something happened."

One of the quotes given to show that the Zapruder film was altered because Officer Chaney immediately rode ahead of the limousine to rendezvous with the lead car, is this quote from Winston Lawson in the lead car: "A motorcycle escort officer pulled alongside our lead car and said the President had been shot. Chief Curry gave a signal over his radio for police to converge on the area of the incident." (CE 772; 17H632) Since both Officer Chaney and Chief Curry say that Chaney did rendezvous with the lead car, he probably did. The photos show the limousine passing the lead car as Chaney trails some hundreds of feet. So the photo evidence including the Zapruder film plus statements of Lawson, Chaney, and Curry all support the notion that Chaney met up with the lead car after the limousine took off. In short, what Lawson said really happened. It just didn't happen at the time some would have it happen. Remove the "blindness to when it happened" and things become clearer.

Likewise, with respect to the wound in the back of JFK's head. It doesn't show in the Zapruder fim or in the Moorman photo. No eyewitness from Dealey Plaza noted it. Yet it is clear that many witnesses from both Parkland and Bethesda saw it. Yet because it is seen later at Parkland and Bethesda does not mean it was visible in Dealey Plaza and should show up in the Dealey Plaza photo record. A lot happened after Z 313 including JFK getting hit a second time in the head and his body being extracted from the limousine. If one pays attention to the time difference there is no conflict.

JT

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

[Pat Speer]

When people estimate they are usually off by a little.

2+ inches is more than "a little." The base of the neck and T3 are quite dissimilar.

And I notice you MUST pretend that the clothing holes don't exist.

I see little conflict between what the back wound witnesses remembered and what is shown in the photos.

How convenient to your pet theories. How is it that the witness testimony and the properly prepared documents (Burkley's death certificate, the autopsy face sheet diagram, the FBI report on the autopsy) all match the holes in the clothes?

When you get even one of these witnesses to say the back wound photos are fakes and that the back wound was actually well below where it's shown on the photos, you might have something.

15 people described the wound as significantly below the base of the neck. Bowron and Riebe both said the back wound was lower than what was seen in the BOH autopsy photo.

When are you going to produce any proof that it was actually JFK in that photo, Pat?

Why don't you name the person or persons who developed the autopsy photos?

You can't on either score.

But until then... please quit trying to sidetrack this thread.

What do the head wounds have to do with Chaney in the Zap?

Earlier you claimed this thread was about faked photo evidence. Well, I'm discussing faked photo evidence, thank you.

When Pat Speer sidetracks a thread into areas of his pet theories -- that's okay.

When someone calls Pat Speer on nonsense for which he cannot muster an argument -- that's thread hijacking!

Nice double standard, Pat.

No double standard at all, Cliff. The thread was about Chaney and how Chaney's latter day statements supported Z-film authenticity. It then spun into a discussion of Z-film authenticity. The head wounds are central to the discussion of Z-film authenticity. The back wound is not.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Egad, Tink! Have you forgotten that EVEN YOU CONCEDED THAT SORREL'S TESTIMONY WAS INCONSISTENT WITH YOUR POSITION? Some of them are ambiguous, but so what? Others are not. Taken altogether, they leave no room for any degree of reasonable doubt:

(1) Forrest Sorrels: "A motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer replied in the affirmative, and Chief Curry immediately broadcast to surround the building. By that time we had gotten just about under the underpass when the President’s car pulled up alongside,"

(2) Bobby Hargis: "I remembered seeing Officer Chaney. Chaney put his motor in first gear and accelerated up to the front to tell them to get everything out of the way, that he [the President] was coming through, and that is when the Presidential limousine shot off ….”

(3) Chief Jesse Curry: "at that time I looked in my rear view mirror and I saw some commotion in the President’s caravan and realized that probably something was wrong, and it seemed to be speeding up, and about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney rode up beside us and I asked if something happened back there"

You are displaying your proficiency at "special pleading" by citing only the evidence that supports your position and discarding the rest. It's getting so that, after dealing with you on this thread, I more and more feel the need to take a shower! It's completely offensive that you continue to pull such obvious scams.

You lost Lawson for the reasons given. You lose Curry because Curry said this happened on the on-ramp to the Stemmons Freeway and this is consistent with the photo evidence. You lose Hargis because he doesn't say when Chaney accelerated. We know Chaney had to accelerate to get to the position he occupies in the Daniel and McIntire photos. So, after much huffing and puffing, you're down to Sorrels. That's kind of a weak reed to base the claim that the Zapruder, Bell, Nix, Mucmore and Daniel films have all been faked up and the Altgens and McIntire photos have also been doctored.

But what about the Moorman photo? Are you still claiming that that was doctored? I'd like to hear that argument.

Never mind, you'll simply continue the huffing and puffing.

JT

You must have no idea how much you are damaging your credibility by defending

the indefensible! No one is going to believe you after all of this. When you are

doing your song and dance about technical issues, you can snow your audience.

You claim this happened after the limo had already passed the TUP and that

we have simply not been thinking about the temporal relationship here. My

three favorites are Bobby Hargis, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Jesse Curry:

(1) Forrest Sorrels: "A motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief

Curry yelled ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer replied in the affirmative,

and Chief Curry immediately broadcast to surround the building. By that time we

had gotten just about under the underpass when the President’s car pulled up

alongside,"

(2) Bobby Hargis: "I remembered seeing Officer Chaney. Chaney put his motor

in first gear and accelerated up to the front to tell them to get everything

out of the way, that he [the President] was coming through, and that is when

the Presidential limousine shot off ….”

(3) Chief Jesse Curry: "at that time I looked in my rear view mirror and I

saw some commotion in the President’s caravan and realized that proba-

bly something was wrong, and it seemed to be speeding up, and about

this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney rode up be-

side us and I asked if something happened back there"

I am sorry, Josiah but, as in the case of denying the presence of a black patch

that is obviously present in the third generation print but that you claim is not on

the MPI slide set, your credibility has been taking a very heavy, even fatal, hit.

Edited January 18, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Josiah Thompson]

Apparently, you can't permit yourself enough time to think before replying. You just keep posting the same old nonsense. Your first six points aren't worthy of consideration. The answers are obvious. I will take the time to answer your seventh point which says: (7) The cover of your book claims it proves a conspiracy, but in the final paragraph of the text, you deny that that is the case.

The last chapter of Six Seconds is entitled "Answered and Unanswered Questions." The final question is given on page 233 and reads: Question 4: Did Lee Harvey Oswald shoot the Preisident?

The discussion of this question goes on for a number of pages and finally ends with a full page rendition of a page from Robert Hughes' film. The final paragraph refers back to the material discussed over the last fourteen pages including many witness reports that don't fit Oswald, the tracking of a man seen near the 6th floor corner window to a light-colored Rambler station wagon and finally, photos of the front of the TSBD that may or may not show two human figures near the corner 6th floor window. Referring back to this collection of new information that last paragraph asks:

What does this collection of new evidence prove? It does not prove that the assassination was a conspiracy and that two men were together on the sixth floor of the Depository at the time the shots were fired. Nor does it prove Oswald's innocence. What it does suggest is that there are threads in this case that should have been unraveled long ago instead of being swept under the Archives rug. It also show that the question of Oswald's guilt -- must remain nearly four years after the event -- still unanswered.

I agree that what was clearly meant what should have been said was: "It does not prove that the assassination was a conspiracy because two men were together on the sixth floor of the Depository at the time the shots were fired." Typos do occur and this was one of them. It is also clear that this paragraph refers precisely to the final question asked in the final chapter of the book. To read it as referring to the book as a whole is just nuts.

Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., can make up anything he wants to. He can also be embarrassed when no evidence is presented.

JT

Tink,

You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel. If you are endorsing this guy, then I KNOW I was right not to trust him.

(1) You have never addressed the five physical differences between the two films even after repeatedly being challenged to.

(2) You have abandoned your "double-hit" theory, even though a Nobel Prize winning physicist from CalTech has verified it.

(3) You have endorse Aguilar's chapter in MURDER (2000), even though it demonstrates that the extant film must be a fake.

(4) You have vouched for the Umbrella man, even though he turns out to be a limo stop witness, who also impeaches the film.

(5) You are trying to pull one of your patented "BELIEVE ME OR YOUR LYING EYES" in relation to Chaney's motoring forward.

(6) You claim the "black patch" is not on frame 317 now, but it was there in the past and is obvious on the 3rd generation print.

(7) The cover of your book claims it proves a conspiracy, but in the final paragraph of the text, you deny that that is the case.

How long are we supposed to put up with your double-talk? Someone is throwing insults and wild charges around, but it ain't me.

Jim

Chris Scally knows more about the provenance of the Zapruder film (the original and the three first-day copies) than you ever will. He knows this because he took the time to do the reading, to make the follow-up phone calls and emails, that real research requires. His chronology of the history of the Zapruder film is showcased on the Lancer web site. I'm sure you remember Lancer... it's only one of the places that have deemed you persona non grata. You retire into your bubble and cite like a litany the names of "David Lifton, Douglas Horne and others." Yeah, they are the supporters of this little side comedy. I take it that you don't know that Chris Scally has tracked the arrival of the two Secret Service copies of the film from Dallas on sequential days where the first was examined by Hunter and McMahon and then, the next day, the second was examined by Brugioni. Ben Hunter actually worked on the film and recalled it "not of high resolution" and said he was pretty sure it had no intersprocket images. If Hunter is right, he worked on a copy sent from Dallas and "Bill Smith" is a figment of McMahon's fevered imagination.

But you don't deal with any of this. You just insult people as a matter of course, even when your interlocutor has been scrupulously polite to you. Your claim that Rollie Zavada somehow himself worked at Hawkeye on faking up the Zapruder film is just acute silliness with a nasty edge. But that's your style... when you have no facts just throw insults and wild charges around.

JT

[Cliff Varnell]

Nice double standard, Pat.

No double standard at all, Cliff. The thread was about Chaney and how Chaney's latter day statements supported Z-film authenticity. It then spun into a discussion of Z-film authenticity. The head wounds are central to the discussion of Z-film authenticity. The back wound is not.

You're overlooking the fact that you and Jim F actively spun the thread into a discussion of the authenticity of the autopsy photos, to which the back wound is germane.

Jim D also chimed in on your defense of the autopsy photos.

And then I weighed in.

I'll ask you again: what is your proof that it was John F. Kennedy in the BOH photo?

Who developed the autopsy photos?

And why do you dismiss properly prepared medical evidence in favor of improperly prepared medical evidence?

[Pat Speer]

Martin is right, Pat, and of course their conclusions have been corroborated by David Mantik's studies of the autopsy X-rays. 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.

Until you do, my interpretation is clearly superior to your own. The question that I pose again, as I have before, 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, as I am now doing below. Physician after physicians observed cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue extruding from this wound as summarized here:

Now since you apparently DO NOT KNOW THE LOCATION OF THE CEREBELLUM IN RELATION TO THE CRANIUM, here is a nice diagram that shows their relative locations, which was first published in BEST EVIDENCE (1980), which I would have thought would have been enough time to have taken note, especially in relation to the multiple, consistent Parkland reports from these experienced physicians that CEREBELLAR AS WELL AS CEREBRAL TISSUE WAS EXTRUDING FROM THIS WOUND:

What continues to astonish me is that your theory of a side wound is not supported by the witness reports and is clearly contradicted by the Parkland physicians, by David Mantik's X-ray studies, and by frame 374, yet you persist in defense of a hopelessly untenable theory of the medical evidence, whose inadequacy in relation to the evidence OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN APPARENT TO ANYONE WHO HAD EVER READ THOMPSON AND DAVID LIFTON'S BOOKS.

Have you never read them? Why should the theory of a man who's position is not even consistent with the gross anatomy of human brain be taken seriously? I have explained this point several times now, where I am increasingly drawn to the conclusion that, because you have been committed for so many years and have immortalized it on your web site, that you will not abandon it, no matter what the evidence against it! Which confirms your adherence to the method of tenacity.

Jim, I've read virtually every word ever published on the Kennedy assassination medical evidence, including AS and MIDP. My position on the cerebellum has been explained numerous times, several times in this thread. The doctors were mistaken. They didn't see any. End of story. Your pal Livingston acknowledged, in YOUR book, that it's easy to mistake macerated cerebrum for cerebellum. While he said HE THOUGHT the Parkland doctors wouldn't make this mistake, several of the doctors themselves said that they had indeed been mistaken, and who is he to tell them what mistakes they're capable of making? (Yes, I know McClelland still says he saw cerebellum, but he is not exactly reliable, is he?)

Now, I know you're getting all upset about my saying some doctors made a mistake, even when many of them claimed long before I that they'd made such a mistake. But you have to look in the mirror.

William Newman said he saw a large blow-out on the side of the head. He did not see a blow-out low on the back of the head. Was he mistaken? Or lying?

His wife shared his appraisal. Mistaken? Lying?

What about Abraham Zapruder, Marilyn Sitzman, Emmett Hudson, James Chaney, Douglas Jackson, and all the other Dealey Plaza witnesses noting an explosion from the top or right side of Kennedy's head, who failed to note a large blow-out on the back of his head? Mistaken? Lying?

Clint Hill has recently said he saw a large wound on the top of Kennedy's head above his ear. He never claimed, EVER, that he saw a large blow out wound low on the back of Kennedy's head. Mistaken? Lying?

I could go on and on, of course. The point is, in case you missed it, that the list of people that must be mistaken or lying for your interpretation to be accurate is many times the number of people who must be mistaken or lying for mine to be accurate.

P.S. You still haven't responded to my slide showing Mantik's obvious mistake. I take it you have no response.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

When Vince Salandria confronted you about this, you explained that it was simply infelicitous language.

Here's another example, where you cannot seriously claim that you were merely sloppy with your words.

The guy who is making stuff up is the one to whom I directed seven (7) questions. Where are your answers?

You are a past master of the art of distraction. I asked seven, so where are your answers to the other six?

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

who attended JFK at Parkland. All by itself, a massive blow-out of this kind, by itself, proves conspiracy:

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

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

Just to make the obvious point, since this blow out is "the clearest description we have of the Kennedy

head wound", how could the Moorman be authentic if it does NOT show a massive blow-out of this kind?

Obviously, IT SHOULD BE THERE. But the image is sufficient obscure that I am not in the position to

verify whether it's there or it's not. BUT I CAN AFFIRM THAT, IF IT'S NOT, THE PHOTO'S A FAKE.

Apparently, you can't permit yourself enough time to think before replying. You just keep posting the same old nonsense. Your first six points aren't worthy of consideration. The answers are obvious. I will take the time to answer your seventh point which says: (7) The cover of your book claims it proves a conspiracy, but in the final paragraph of the text, you deny that that is the case.

The last chapter of Six Seconds is entitled "Answered and Unanswered Questions." The final question is given on page 233 and reads: Question 4: Did Lee Harvey Oswald shoot the Preisident?

The discussion of this question goes on for a number of pages and finally ends with a full page rendition of a page from Robert Hughes' film. The final paragraph refers back to the material discussed over the last fourteen pages including many witness reports that don't fit Oswald, the tracking of a man seen near the 6th floor corner window to a light-colored Rambler station wagon and finally, photos of the front of the TSBD that may or may not show two human figures near the corner 6th floor window. Referring back to this collection of new information that last paragraph asks:

What does this collection of new evidence prove? It does not prove that the assassination was a conspiracy and that two men were together on the sixth floor of the Depository at the time the shots were fired. Nor does it prove Oswald's innocence. What it does suggest is that there are threads in this case that should have been unraveled long ago instead of being swept under the Archives rug. It also show that the question of Oswald's guilt -- must remain nearly four years after the event -- still unanswered.

I agree that what was clearly meant what should have been said was: "It does not prove that the assassination was a conspiracy because two men were together on the sixth floor of the Depository at the time the shots were fired." Typos do occur and this was one of them. It is also clear that this paragraph refers precisely to the final question asked in the final chapter of the book. To read it as referring to the book as a whole is just nuts.

Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., can make up anything he wants to. He can also be embarrassed when no evidence is presented.

JT

Tink,

You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel. If you are endorsing this guy, then I KNOW I was right not to trust him.

(1) You have never addressed the five physical differences between the two films even after repeatedly being challenged to.

(2) You have abandoned your "double-hit" theory, even though a Nobel Prize winning physicist from CalTech has verified it.

(3) You have endorse Aguilar's chapter in MURDER (2000), even though it demonstrates that the extant film must be a fake.

(4) You have vouched for the Umbrella man, even though he turns out to be a limo stop witness, who also impeaches the film.

(5) You are trying to pull one of your patented "BELIEVE ME OR YOUR LYING EYES" in relation to Chaney's motoring forward.

(6) You claim the "black patch" is not on frame 317 now, but it was there in the past and is obvious on the 3rd generation print.

(7) The cover of your book claims it proves a conspiracy, but in the final paragraph of the text, you deny that that is the case.

How long are we supposed to put up with your double-talk? Someone is throwing insults and wild charges around, but it ain't me.

Jim

Chris Scally knows more about the provenance of the Zapruder film (the original and the three first-day copies) than you ever will. He knows this because he took the time to do the reading, to make the follow-up phone calls and emails, that real research requires. His chronology of the history of the Zapruder film is showcased on the Lancer web site. I'm sure you remember Lancer... it's only one of the places that have deemed you persona non grata. You retire into your bubble and cite like a litany the names of "David Lifton, Douglas Horne and others." Yeah, they are the supporters of this little side comedy. I take it that you don't know that Chris Scally has tracked the arrival of the two Secret Service copies of the film from Dallas on sequential days where the first was examined by Hunter and McMahon and then, the next day, the second was examined by Brugioni. Ben Hunter actually worked on the film and recalled it "not of high resolution" and said he was pretty sure it had no intersprocket images. If Hunter is right, he worked on a copy sent from Dallas and "Bill Smith" is a figment of McMahon's fevered imagination.

But you don't deal with any of this. You just insult people as a matter of course, even when your interlocutor has been scrupulously polite to you. Your claim that Rollie Zavada somehow himself worked at Hawkeye on faking up the Zapruder film is just acute silliness with a nasty edge. But that's your style... when you have no facts just throw insults and wild charges around.

JT

Edited January 18, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Cliff Varnell]

I agree that what was clearly meant what should have been said was: "It does not prove that the assassination was a conspiracy because two men were together on the sixth floor of the Depository at the time the shots were fired." Typos do occur and this was one of them. It is also clear that this paragraph refers precisely to the final question asked in the final chapter of the book.

I find this a perfectly reasonable explanation. Thanks for clearing that up, Tink.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat, I repeat for (what I hope will be) the last time. A man whose theory is not consistent with the gross anatomy of the human brain should not be taken seriously. Nor should anyone who dismisses the the most important early reports about the wound. You seem to ignore that, with the passage of time, memories can dim but, more importantly, key witnesses can be subjected to harassment and intimidation. Do you know the story of what happened to Malcolm Perry, M.D.? Your methodology is completely indefensible. Let's cease exchanges between us, because I do not find your position even remotely reasonable. Enough! "I gave at the office!"

Martin is right, Pat, and of course their conclusions have been corroborated by David Mantik's studies of the autopsy X-rays. 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.

Until you do, my interpretation is clearly superior to your own. The question that I pose again, as I have before, 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, as I am now doing below. Physician after physicians observed cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue extruding from this wound as summarized here:

Now since you apparently DO NOT KNOW THE LOCATION OF THE CEREBELLUM IN RELATION TO THE CRANIUM, here is a nice diagram that shows their relative locations, which was first published in BEST EVIDENCE (1980), which I would have thought would have been enough time to have taken note, especially in relation to the multiple, consistent Parkland reports from these experienced physicians that CEREBELLAR AS WELL AS CEREBRAL TISSUE WAS EXTRUDING FROM THIS WOUND:

What continues to astonish me is that your theory of a side wound is not supported by the witness reports and is clearly contradicted by the Parkland physicians, by David Mantik's X-ray studies, and by frame 374, yet you persist in defense of a hopelessly untenable theory of the medical evidence, whose inadequacy in relation to the evidence OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN APPARENT TO ANYONE WHO HAD EVER READ THOMPSON AND DAVID LIFTON'S BOOKS.

Have you never read them? Why should the theory of a man who's position is not even consistent with the gross anatomy of human brain be taken seriously? I have explained this point several times now, where I am increasingly drawn to the conclusion that, because you have been committed for so many years and have immortalized it on your web site, that you will not abandon it, no matter what the evidence against it! Which confirms your adherence to the method of tenacity.

Jim, I've read virtually every word ever published on the Kennedy assassination medical evidence, including AS and MIDP. My position on the cerebellum has been explained numerous times, several times in this thread. The doctors were mistaken. They didn't see any. End of story. Your pal Livingston acknowledged, in YOUR book, that it's easy to mistake macerated cerebrum for cerebellum. While he said HE THOUGHT the Parkland doctors wouldn't make this mistake, several of the doctors themselves said that they had indeed been mistaken, and who is he to tell them what mistakes they're capable of making? (Yes, I know McClelland still says he saw cerebellum, but he is not exactly reliable, is he?)

Now, I know you're getting all upset about my saying some doctors made a mistake, even when many of them claimed long before I that they'd made such a mistake. But you have to look in the mirror.

William Newman said he saw a large blow-out on the side of the head. He did not see a blow-out low on the back of the head. Was he mistaken? Or lying?

His wife shared his appraisal. Mistaken? Lying?

What about Abraham Zapruder, Marilyn Sitzman, Emmett Hudson, James Chaney, Douglas Jackson, and all the other Dealey Plaza witnesses noting an explosion from the top or right side of Kennedy's head, who failed to note a large blow-out on the back of his head? Mistaken? Lying?

Clint Hill has recently said he saw a large wound on the top of Kennedy's head above his ear. He never claimed, EVER, that he saw a large blow out wound low on the back of Kennedy's head. Mistaken? Lying?

I could go on and on, of course. The point is, in case you missed it, that the list of people that must be mistaken or lying for your interpretation to be accurate is many times the number of people who must be mistaken or lying for mine to be accurate.

P.S. You still haven't responded to my slide showing Mantik's obvious mistake. I take it you have no response.

Edited January 18, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

Pat, I repeat for (what I hope will be) the last time. A man whose theory is not consistent with the gross anatomy of the human brain should not be taken seriously. Nor should anyone who dismisses the the most important early reports about the wound. You seem to ignore that, with the passage of time, memories can dim but, more importantly, key witnesses can be subjected to harassment and intimidation. Do you know the story of what happened to Malcolm Perry, M.D.? Your methodology is completely indefensible. Let's cease exchanges between us, because I do not find your position even remotely reasonable. Enough! "I gave at the office!"

Let's deconstruct.

"Pat, I repeat for (what I hope will be) the last time." In other words, for what is now the umpteenth time since you first came to this forum, you're gonna run away rather than acknowledge your obvious mistakes.

"A man whose theory is not consistent with the gross anatomy of the human brain should not be taken seriously." Absolute rubbish. The repeatedly proven theory that doctors make mistakes--this time proposed by the doctors themselves--is not inconsistent with the gross anatomy of the human brain.

"Nor should anyone who dismisses the the most important early reports about the wound." More rubbish. I discuss all these early reports, one by one, on chapter 18d of my website. Only a handful of these early reports mentioned "cerebellum," and none of the doctors mentioning "cerebellum" stood by their accounts and claimed the autopsy protocol, autopsy photos, and Zapruder film are fake. The reality is, moreover, that it is you who dismisses "the most important early reports" on the wound location--those of William and Gayle Newman on TV before the President's death had been announced.

"You seem to ignore that, with the passage of time, memories can dim but, more importantly, key witnesses can be subjected to harassment and intimidation." No, that's not my problem. It's yours. You cite Livingston and Crenshaw, senior citizens who'd never bothered to record their recollections when fresh, as if their words have been delivered from Mt. Olympus. When Chris Scally pointed out that your sole source for information re "William Smith" was a man who'd admitted having dementia, you dismissed this as irrelevant, and questioned Chris' bona fides.

"Do you know the story of what happened to Malcolm Perry, M.D.?" You mean the one where he said the throat wound was an entrance, and was then pressured into saying he'd never said that by the Warren Commission? Or the one where he spent the rest of his life dodging conspiracy theorists who refused to believe him when he said he no longer believed Kennedy had been shot from the front?

"Your methodology is completely indefensible. Let's cease exchanges between us, because I do not find your position even remotely reasonable. Enough! "I gave at the office!" Now that would be convenient, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, we have some unfinished business. Dozens if not hundreds of times, you have referred me to your books and the writings of Dr. David Mantik. He's the top expert, according to you. Well, your top expert finally responded to some of my research on a website that doesn't allow rebuttals, and made one of the most embarrassing mistakes I've seen. Now, I don't wish to rub his face in it, as I'm sure he'll ultimately acknowledge he screwed up. I just want YOU to either acknowledge that your top expert made a stupid mistake, or that you are completely inadequate to pass judgement on something that should be clear to a two year old. Here it is again:

Dr. Mantik says the metallic debris is at Point B. I think it's clearly at Point C. Who's correct? It's real simple. A, B, or C?

Edited January 18, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

From IARRb, p. 757, this is under oath in Dallas by Dr. Ronald Jones:

1. "Twice during the Dallas deposition, Dr. Jones volunteered that he saw no damage on the right side of the head above the ear nor any damage to the top of the head on President Kennedy....." (Emphasis in original)

2. More sworn testimony from Dr, Peters from IARRB, p. 758: "And so at that point I did step around Dr Baxter and I looked into the President's head, and I reported to the Warren Commission that there was about a seven centimeter hole in the occipitoparietal area and that there was obviously quite a bit of brain missing. Some brain was hanging down in the wound and I thought the cerebellum had been injured as well as the cerebral cortex." (Emphasis in original)

(I just want to add, seven centimeters is a large piece of area on the rear skull.)

3. McClelland, under oath, pretty much echoes Peters:

"It was a very large wound and I would agree that it was at least seven or eight centimeters in diameter and was mostly really in the occipital part of the skull. And as we were looking at it a fairly large portion of the cerebellum fell out of the skull. There was already some brain there on the cart, but during the tracheostomy more fell out and that was clearly cerebellum. I mean, there was no doubt about it..." (ibid, p. 759)

Gunn then asked him how far he was from the deceased at the time he looked at the large occipital wound. The doctor replied he was about 12-18 inches away and he was in that position for about five minutes or more.

When asked later about the rear skull wound, both men said it was cerebellum, they were sure of it:

MeClelland: "Well, I know it was. ...I looked at it for several minutes, and it was clearly cerebellum. There's no question abut it...."

Peters: "RIght."

McClelland : ".... I remember thinking now, "Well, that's the rest of the cerebellum oozed out on the table. So it's not, "Well, I kind of think it was." It was. (ibid)

Now, if this is not enough for you, later on McClelland said that there was no tentorium when he looked at the rear skull. This is a membrane that surrounds the cerebellum. As Horne notes, if this was gone, it is the equivalent of saying the right cerebellum was blasted out. (ibid, p. 762)

Jones later went on to say that "I thought the skin over the top of the head was intact from what I saw." (ibid p. 764)

4. Dr. Crenshaw's sworn deposition from the ARRB interview with Gunn said that there was a baseball sized wound in the right rear quadrant of the head reaching over to the parietal area. He saw cerebellum leaking from this wound. He observed no damage to the right side of the head, above the ear or forward of it. Nor did he see any damage to the top of the head. (ibid, p. 642) In fact, Crenshaw looked puzzled when he was asked that question, and replied, "Absolutely not."

5. Nurse Audrey Bell described the head wound under oath as a right rear posterior head wound which she depicted in her drawing as in the occipital area. (ibid, p. 644)

Quoting Horne: "When I asked her whether the top or right side of President Kennedy's head was damaged, she too, just like Dr. Crenshaw the day before, registered on her face what I interpreted as amazement that I would even ask such a question." (Ibid p. 644)

6. Written report of Dr. Kemp Clark (Chairman of Neurosurgery at Parkland): "a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region. Much of the skull appeared gone at first examination....There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding form the wound." (Ibid p. 658)

Kemp Clark's sworn testimony to to Arlen Specter: "I then examined the wound in the back of the president's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed." (ibid) Now recall what Clark's specialty is--neurosurgery-- and again read what he says about cerebral and cerebellar tissue.

7. Now let us link this with just one Bethesda witness out of many. Dr. Ebersole, under oath before the HSCA, was being shown the autopsy photos:

"You know, my recollection is more of a gaping occipital wound than this....But had you asked me without seeing these or seeing the pictures, you know, I would have put the gaping wound here rather than more forward." In other words he thought the defect was more occipital than the one shown in the photos. (ibid p. 241)

BTW, Randy Roberston does feel there is a blow out in the back of the skull. And a shot from the front. I have never talked to Riley but he does feel there is a shot from the front, so he must think it exited somewhere in the rear.

Thanks, Jim, for helping me prove my point. These men saw ONE wound, a big one, and thought it was on the back part of the head, They did not recall a wound above the ear or on the front part of the head, where the Dealey Plaza witnesses saw the ONE wound they saw. It follows, then, that they either saw the same wound, and that some of them were mistaken, or that, by some INCREDIBLE coincidence, they saw different wounds, and the incredibly diligent Parkland staff failed to note the large wound above the ear observed by Newman, etc., while at the same time Newman failed to note the large blow-out on the back of Kennedy's head directly in front of him.

So which is it? Who is more reliable on all this? William Newman or Robert ("The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple" "there is no reason to suspect that any shots came from the front") McClelland?

As far as Robertson, I'll have to re-read his article, but I could have sworn he'd said there was evidence for the entrance near the EOP described in the autopsy report, and that the large head wound represented an entrance from the front, and that this proved there'd been two gunshots to the head.

P.S. I went back and reread Robertson's findings, and I was mostly correct. He described an entrance wound near the EOP and an exit for this wound on the top of the head. He held that a second bullet entered through this exit and left fractures on the back of the head on the parietal bone. Jim is therefore incorrect. Robertson does not "feel there is a blow out in the back of the skull."

Edited January 18, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Josiah Thompson]

I took what Dr. McClelland reported and gave it to a medical illustrator who drew the illustration. This is what Pat told you earlier and this is what happened. In 1967, this was the clearest description from Parkland medical personnel of the wound in the back of the head. How could the Moorman photo be authentic if it does not show a massive blow out like this? Easy, JFK's head was to take another shot and then be bounced around both in the limousine and during its extraction before it found itself on a gurney for Dr. McClelland to see it. There was underlying damage to the cranium in the back intensified and exacerbated by a second shot crashing into the back of the skull. All that happened later.

Because it does not appear in the Moorman photo and does not appear in the Zapruder film and was not apparent to a single witness in Dealey Plaza... all these facts point to one result. It wasn't there in the milliseconds immediately after Z 313 and because it was not there there was nothing to fix with a patch in Z 317. That's why better copies of the film show no patch and why your pal, John Costella, can find in David Lifton's copy of Z 317 no doctoring. The "patch" is visible only in bad oopies.

I've said this three times now. All you do is claim over and over again that the Moorman photo has been doctored. However, characteristically, you fail to give any inkling of how this was possible. If you think the Moorman photo was doctored, then tell us how this came about. If you don't, it will become clear that all you have to offer is your anger and insult. That's not worth much.

JT

When Vince Salandria confronted you about this, you explained that it was simply infelicitous language.

Here's another example, where you cannot seriously claim that you were merely sloppy with your words.

The guy who is making stuff up is the one to whom I directed seven (7) questions. Where are your answers?

You are a past master of the art of distraction. I asked seven, so where are your answers to the other six?

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

who attended JFK at Parkland. All by itself, a massive blow-out of this kind, by itself, proves conspiracy:

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

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

Just to make the obvious point, since this blow out is "the clearest description we have of the Kennedy

head wound", how could the Moorman be authentic if it does NOT show a massive blow-out of this kind?

Obviously, IT SHOULD BE THERE. But the image is sufficient obscure that I am not in the position to

verify whether it's there or it's not. BUT I CAN AFFIRM THAT, IF IT'S NOT, THE PHOTO'S A FAKE.

Apparently, you can't permit yourself enough time to think before replying. You just keep posting the same old nonsense. Your first six points aren't worthy of consideration. The answers are obvious. I will take the time to answer your seventh point which says: (7) The cover of your book claims it proves a conspiracy, but in the final paragraph of the text, you deny that that is the case.

The last chapter of Six Seconds is entitled "Answered and Unanswered Questions." The final question is given on page 233 and reads: Question 4: Did Lee Harvey Oswald shoot the Preisident?

The discussion of this question goes on for a number of pages and finally ends with a full page rendition of a page from Robert Hughes' film. The final paragraph refers back to the material discussed over the last fourteen pages including many witness reports that don't fit Oswald, the tracking of a man seen near the 6th floor corner window to a light-colored Rambler station wagon and finally, photos of the front of the TSBD that may or may not show two human figures near the corner 6th floor window. Referring back to this collection of new information that last paragraph asks:

What does this collection of new evidence prove? It does not prove that the assassination was a conspiracy and that two men were together on the sixth floor of the Depository at the time the shots were fired. Nor does it prove Oswald's innocence. What it does suggest is that there are threads in this case that should have been unraveled long ago instead of being swept under the Archives rug. It also show that the question of Oswald's guilt -- must remain nearly four years after the event -- still unanswered.

I agree that what was clearly meant what should have been said was: "It does not prove that the assassination was a conspiracy because two men were together on the sixth floor of the Depository at the time the shots were fired." Typos do occur and this was one of them. It is also clear that this paragraph refers precisely to the final question asked in the final chapter of the book. To read it as referring to the book as a whole is just nuts.

Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., can make up anything he wants to. He can also be embarrassed when no evidence is presented.

JT

Tink,

You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel. If you are endorsing this guy, then I KNOW I was right not to trust him.

(1) You have never addressed the five physical differences between the two films even after repeatedly being challenged to.

(2) You have abandoned your "double-hit" theory, even though a Nobel Prize winning physicist from CalTech has verified it.

(3) You have endorse Aguilar's chapter in MURDER (2000), even though it demonstrates that the extant film must be a fake.

(4) You have vouched for the Umbrella man, even though he turns out to be a limo stop witness, who also impeaches the film.

(5) You are trying to pull one of your patented "BELIEVE ME OR YOUR LYING EYES" in relation to Chaney's motoring forward.

(6) You claim the "black patch" is not on frame 317 now, but it was there in the past and is obvious on the 3rd generation print.

(7) The cover of your book claims it proves a conspiracy, but in the final paragraph of the text, you deny that that is the case.

How long are we supposed to put up with your double-talk? Someone is throwing insults and wild charges around, but it ain't me.

Jim

Chris Scally knows more about the provenance of the Zapruder film (the original and the three first-day copies) than you ever will. He knows this because he took the time to do the reading, to make the follow-up phone calls and emails, that real research requires. His chronology of the history of the Zapruder film is showcased on the Lancer web site. I'm sure you remember Lancer... it's only one of the places that have deemed you persona non grata. You retire into your bubble and cite like a litany the names of "David Lifton, Douglas Horne and others." Yeah, they are the supporters of this little side comedy. I take it that you don't know that Chris Scally has tracked the arrival of the two Secret Service copies of the film from Dallas on sequential days where the first was examined by Hunter and McMahon and then, the next day, the second was examined by Brugioni. Ben Hunter actually worked on the film and recalled it "not of high resolution" and said he was pretty sure it had no intersprocket images. If Hunter is right, he worked on a copy sent from Dallas and "Bill Smith" is a figment of McMahon's fevered imagination.

But you don't deal with any of this. You just insult people as a matter of course, even when your interlocutor has been scrupulously polite to you. Your claim that Rollie Zavada somehow himself worked at Hawkeye on faking up the Zapruder film is just acute silliness with a nasty edge. But that's your style... when you have no facts just throw insults and wild charges around.

JT