The Law of Unintended Consequences

[Josiah Thompson]

(2) Thompson, in quoting Scally, has reversed the true sequence of events.... In a series of audio recordings that were made in 2009, and in a recent HD video interview conducted in July of 2011, Dino Brugioni stated unequivocally that his event commenced Saturday night, 23 November 1963. There is no doubt in his mind of this whatsoever. Furthermore, both McMahon and Hunter have stated that their event took place "a couple of days after the assassination, but before the funeral", which places it at Sunday night--THE NIGHT FOLLOWING THE DINO BRUGIONI EVENT--and the day before the formal state funeral.

You're right, I simply reversed the sequence between Brugioni's work and McMahon/Hunter's work. Their sequence should be reversed. I regret the error.

JT

Because of the seriousness of what Scally and Thompson have been maintaining and to be sure that I had these details right, I contacted Doug Horne to discuss them with him because he is the most authoritative source about the NPIC events as well as many other aspects of the assassination. I recommend INSIDE THE ARRB (2009) to every serious student of the death of JFK. He and I both agreed that these they are--intentionally or unintentionally--distorting the evidence by cherry picking one or two odd and unrepresentative remarks of a witness (Ben Hunter) and completely misrepresenting what actually happened at NPIC the weekend following the assassination. Here are some of the key points that Doug and I discussed in our exchanges:

(1) Ben Hunter only remembered a 16 mm film, but Homer McMahon's memory was better. He remembered two films: a 16mm unslit double 8 film with opposing image strips (which had every appearance of an unslit double 8 film), which he placed in the 10x20x40 enlarger when he made the inter-negatives; and ALSO a 16mm film (a copy) used for projection purposes. That is in the recorded ARRB interview. Hunter was obviously remembering only the version that was a copy and was used for projection purposes only, according to McMahon. Hunter's memory was incomplete on this score, but McMahon's was complete and superior to his. McMahon's memory was generally better in any number of respects (including the number of prints made). Tink and Scally are ignoring the most important evidence--McMahon's memory of a 16mm unslit double 8 film--and are cherry picking one fuzzy recollection by Hunter, which is only a small part of a larger story. This is intellectually dishonest and violates a basic principle of scientific reasoning, namely: that reasoning must be based upon all of the available evidence (which, of course, can include proof that certain purported evidence is phony or fake. Special pleading by citing only the evidence that is favorable to your side can be an effective way to attack a debate opponent to throw him off his game, but it is not good historiography. Doug made the point of keeping "the big picture" in front of him and his audience, while they are not doing that. They are not considering all of the evidence as science and rationality require: they are selecting bits and pieces that support a debunking argument they have constructed and are selectively ignoring the rest.

(3) Hunter remembered a Navy "Captain Sands" being present. Both an internet search, as well as numerous Dino Brugioni interviews, have confirmed that Captain Sands was then the Deputy Director at NPIC. Furthermore, Dino Brugioni has stated unequivocally that he knew both Captain Sands and Ben Hunter. He has stated unequivocally that neither Captain Sands nor Ben Hunter were present at his event. Since his event was Saturday night, 23 November 1963, this places the McMahon/Hunter event on Sunday night, 24 November 1963, one day later.

(4) In a subsequent ARRB interview (a follow-up phone call which was recorded in an ARRB call report), Hunter told the ARRB that, after further reflection, he actually did remember that a Secret Service agent was present along with Captain Sands. This indicated to the ARRB that McMahon did not "make up" or "invent" the "Bill Smith" story. In fact, it was independent corroboration that McMahon's story was most probably true. The Bill Smith quotes (about the film having been developed at Kodak in Rochester and about having been the courier who brought it from Hawkeyeworks to NPIC) are the proof, along with the changed format of the film he delivered to NPIC (the 16mm unslit versus the 8mm slit) of CIA/Kodak involvement in the film's alteration. (For those unaware of the five physical differences between the two films, see "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication".) Dismissing this key evidence by claiming it is "a figment of McMahon's imagination" is to commit the sophomoric fallacy of "begging the question" by taking for granted what has to be established on independent grounds. That is the desperate trick one would expect from a cheap lawyer--to have key evidence thrown out of court that evidence would destroy his case, if it were admitted. It may be worthy of a Vince Bugliosi, but not of a former professor of philosophy like Josiah Thompson. He ought to be ashamed but, alas, has committed too many fallacies to surprise us.

(5) Chris Scally approached Doug "ever so nicely", never telling him that he (Scally) was an intellectual adversary who was attempting to discredit Doug's work) back in 2010 and asked Doug a number of questions via e-mail. Doug replied to the best of his ability, but was rather floored when Scally later shared his draft timeline and invited Doug's comments. He took a look and observed that he (Scally) had made several value judgements and assessments that were seriously problematic, but that Doug didn't want to pursue them with him at the time. It was clear from reviewing his chain of custody timeline that he was convinced the film in the Archives was authentic and was determined to interpret the evidence in ways that would support his predetermined beliefs. His mind was made up, which led Doug to see no useful purpose by arguing with him. Doug's point was this: Chris Scally is not Moses, and his timeline is not carved upon stone tablets like the word of God. Doug considers the timeline his book--including some of the uncertainties noted--as superior to his and as a far more reliable guide to what happened to the film. Many of Scally's assertions in his timeline, Doug observed, would not withstand cross examination in a courtroom setting.

So we have another installment in an unending effort to promote a version of the history of the film that is not borne out by the evidence. Tink, Speer, and Scally all ignore the most important evidence that proves that the film is a fake. Even in his most recent posts, Speer has grossly distorted what we know about Clint Hill's actions and observations that day, as I have reported them in "Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?" Anyone who is serious about getting to the truth of these matters has to take to heart what Clint Hill has been telling us for nearly 50 years now:

"As I approached the vehicle there was a third shot. It hit the President in the head, upper right rear of the right ear, caused a gaping hole in his head, which caused brain matter, blood, and bone fragments to spew forth out over the car, over myself. At that point Mrs. Kennedy came up out of the back seat onto the trunk of the car. She was trying to retrieve something that had gone off to the right rear. She did not know I was there. At that point I grabbed Mrs. Kennedy, put her in the back seat. The President fell over into her lap, to his left.

"His right side of his head was exposed. I could see his eyes were fixed. There was a hole in the upper right rear portion of his head about the size of my palm. Most of the gray matter in that area had been removed, and was scattered throughout the entire car, including on Mrs. Kennedy. I turned and gave the follow-up car crew the thumbs-down, indicating that we were in a very dire situation. The driver accelerated; he got up to the lead car which was driven by Chief Curry, the Dallas Chief of Police . . .”.

Which of course is completely consistent with what Bobby Hargis, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Jesse Curry have told us about those events that day about Officer Chaney motoring forward, where Tink has claimed that 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 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 . . ."

Tink tries to override their consistent reports, which make it unmistakeable that Cheney rode forward BEFORE the limo had reached the TUP, by selectively quoting a fragment of the testimony of Winston Lawson:

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: “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.

. . .

JT

What no honest person would do is to appeal to the disputed film in a desperate attempt to rebut Hargis, Sorrels and Chief Curry, which has now been dramatically reinforced by the testimony of Clint Hill. How could anyone who is serious about getting to the truth of the assassination persist in special pleading by citing only part of the evidence and thereby attempt to suppress the rest? The authenticity of the film is what is at stake, where witness reports override photographic.

And, as I observed long ago, "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery" (5 February 2008), if Chaney motored forward, as we know took place from the reports I have cited and others yet, then since that event is not included in either the Zapruder or the Nix films, we know that both of them have to have been fixed, which leads us back to the NPIC, to Rochester and to Kodak. These films did not simply transform themselves! They were redone at "Hawkeye Works", the secret CIA lab at Kodak.

As Doug observed, citing only the evidence that is favorable to your side can be an effective way to attack a debate opponent to throw him off his game, but it is not good historiography. Thompson, Scally and Speer are not considering all of the evidence as science and rationality require: they are selecting bits and pieces that support arguments that would be clearly indefensible but for selectively ignoring the rest. It happens again and again. They simply hope that you won't notice.

[Josiah Thompson]

It's nice of you to offer the invitation. One benefit would be that you and I would get a chance to meet after all these years taking shots at each other. But no I don't want to spend the time and the money. Why? Well, it's pretty clear what I'd find there... exactly what you have said I'll find there, frame 317 with some patch effects. Since we've already seen that the more downstream a copy is, the more it shows patch effect, I wouldn't expect to find anything new.

I am curious though. You spent a fair amount of time with Sydney Wilkinson. What did she say about the claim from Block that her copy is really a third generation copy and not a 5th generation copy as Doug Horne wrote a couple of years ago? Given what we know of how the Archives copies were generated I'm trying to figure this out. Can you help me?

JT

This is bizarre beyond belief. Having acknowledged that the McClelland diagram is "the clearest description of the Kennedy head wound" (p. 107) in his own book, knowing that the Moorman was taken a fraction of a second after JFK was hit in the head (at approximately 12:30 PM/CT) and that he was taken immediately to Parkland Hospital and pronounced dead (at 1 PM/CT), we know that the observations that I have reported and that Jim DiEugenio has reinforced were made within 30 minutes of the Polaroid. So if the blow-out is not present, then the photo has to have been "patched", just as the film has been "patched" and just as the X-rays were "patched". And now Josiah Thompson has linked arms with Pat Speer in one of the most bizarre performances of the year!

Plus we have had special effects experts (like Roderick Ryan) confirm that the "blob" was painted in (but according to Pat Speer, that is the real brains gushing out to the right/front) and Hollywood film restoration experts certify that the black "patch" on frame 317 was "crudely painted in" (but Josiah Thompson assures us it is NOT on the MIP slides in the museum), and we have had further expert confirmation from Patrick and the Director that indeed the black "patch" is an artifact that was added to the film (but no, according to Josiah Thompson, they are wrong), and we have one physician after another who reported that cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue was extruding from the wound (but according to Pat Speer, the wound was on the side of his head, so they are wrong, too).

This has to be one of the most revealing threads in the history of JFK research, where two members are willing to ignore the evidence and persist in maintaining positions that have been refuted again and again. Even when it is OBVIOUS that Chaney motored forward before the limo reached the TUP, that JFK has his brains blown out to the left/rear, that one witness after another reports that his brains were blown out the back of his head, which is confirmed by the Parkland physicians and the X-ray studies of David Mantik, where you can ACTUALLY SEE the blow out in frame 374--NO, THAT'S ALL WRONG, WE MUST BELIEVE WHAT PAT AND TINK ARE TELLING US AND NOT OUR LYING EYES! This is the most completely irrational exhibition of the method of tenacity that the world has ever seen. This is completely stunning. I am reminded of something about lunatics and asylums . . .

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:

. . . [MCCLELLAN DIAGRAM]

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.

[David Lifton]

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.

Pat,

You’re playing games with words, with terminology, and with facts.

First of all, with regard to the “Dealey Plaza witnesses”: Newman obviously saw the explosion of a bullet impacing against the right side of JFK’s head. We can say that with a fair amoiunt of confidence because noe of the Dallas doctors saw an exit wound at the site of where Newman saw an explosion of some kind. If there was an exit wound on the right side of JFK’s head in Dallas, it would have been as plain as day. But what the Dallas docors saw was an exit wound low on the back of the head.

Furthermore, I take issue with the notion that none of this appears on the Moorman photograph. If you look carefully at Kennedy’s right sholder, you can see the outline of a fragment of JFK’s head which is caught, in motion, as it oves towards the rear. Almost certainly, that’s the piece of skull, with hair on it, that was found in the rear seat of the car.

Here are facts pertaining to Robert McClelland

Regarding the diagram create in 1967 of the wound at the bottom of the back of the head:

(a) That is exactly in accord with Dr. McClelland’s filmed account, when interviewed by Stanhope Gould and Sylvia Chase for KRON-TV in the fall of 1988. I was the medical consultant on that show. I flew to Dallas with Stanhope and Sylvia.

(b ) Six months later, I returned with my own camera, and crew, and interviewed some of these same doctors again, once again using the same “McClelland diagram.”

Dr. McClelland used that diagram to illustrate what he was saying on camera.

I don’t see how anyone familiar with the facts of what McClelland said, and when he said it, can deny the obvious: He testified before the Warren Commission; he was interviewed on camera bin 1988, and then again in 1989. Dr. McClelland said there was an exit wound at the back of he head, in accordance with that diagram. And that he saw cerebellar tissue oozing out of that wound.

Why is there this repeated effort to avoid the obvious?

Re Floyd Riebe:

I interviewed Riebe in November, 1979; Best Evidence does not report if Riebe said anything about the location of the head wound.

Riebe told KRON-TV‘s team that there was a wound at the back of the head. Again, that was fall 1988; and he was so strong about it, on the phone with KRON-TV, that they hired a photographic team to go over to his place in Oklahoma, and film it for the program. Just look at the program.

In the summer of 1989, when I showed him the autopsy photographs, he said, on camera, that the pictures did not depict what he saw.

Then, some nine years later, when he was flown to Washington, he was afraid to repeat that under oath?

How can anyone ignore what he said in 1988, and then again in 1989, and instead accept what he said in 1998? Because that, Pat , is what you’re asking us to do.

This is absurd; and this kind o analysis does not deserve to be taken seriously.

DSL

What is truly absurd, IMO, is that you and others refuse to grasp and deal with the issues I've raised.

The whole "cerebellum" argument rests on the credibility of Dr. Clark, who thought conspiracy theorists "damn fools." In order to prop up his credibility, and deny he could have made a mistake, you have to malign the integrity and/or veracity of nearly every witness to see the impact of the bullet or see the head wound afterward. The irony about this is, if you'd only followed the other trail--the one where the Dealey Plaza witnesses and Z-film are trusted, instead of Clark--you'd have come to a place where the likelihood of a conspiracy is both undeniable, and in keeping with the evidence. To refer back to an earlier analogy, you got yourselves so obsessed with the red car in the photo's really being green that you failed to realize that the car's being red was just as damaging to the single-assassin conclusion as it's being green. Actually far more damaging.

FWIW, When you say "what the Dallas doctors saw was an exit wound low on the back of the head" you are pushing something that just isn't so. The doctors, for the most part, claimed they'd seen a wound at the top of the back of the head, and you and others have taken the reported sighting of cerebellum and the Harper fragment's purportedly being occipital bone to mean they really meant it was low on the back of the head. This is clearly demonstrated in the photos in Groden's book, where virtually none of the supposed "low on the back of the head" witnesses put their hands below the top of their ear. The irony regarding this point is that if you claimed the wound was high on the back of the head, where many witnesses claimed it to have been, you could still claim the top part of the cerebellum was damaged and in line with what the doctors saw. You could then claim the Harper fragment was parietal bone, and on the skull where Dr. Angel placed it. You'd then have metallic debris near Kennedy's temple, which would then prove a bullet impacted at that location.

Oh, but wait. You'd then have a defect on the skull above and in front of the ear, and this would cut into the credibility of your star "back of the head witnesses," who saw no such wound.

As far as McClelland, I'm pretty sure you don't really believe him, either. He insists the throat wound seen on the autopsy photos represents the appearance of the throat wound after the tracheotomy incision, and that people claiming the throat wound was altered are terribly mistaken. If I'm thinking of a different doctor, or if you now believe the throat wound wasn't altered, please let me know.

As far as Riebe, I have no doubt he told you what he believed to be true at the time. And only a slight doubt he told the ARRB what he believed to be true. When you talk to someone about something that happened years before, they are incredibly open to suggestion. Perhaps someone had shown Riebe the McClelland drawing when Tink's book came out. Then years later, after being shown the drawing once again, he felt a twinge of familiarity, which convinced him this was how Kennedy's head wound actually appeared. Well, when shown the official photos by the ARRB, he may have felt that twinge again. As photo after photo showed equipment he remembered, walls he remembered, and arms he remembered, he may have realized "Well, heck, this looks like the real deal. I guess I was mistaken."

I think he's still alive. Maybe you can call him up and ask him.

Sorry, Pat, but its you who are advancing misleading arguments, and mis-interpreting the data.

First, let's start with this one:

QUOTING PAT SPEER: The whole "cerebellum" argument rests on the credibility of Dr. Clark, who thought conspiracy theorists "damn fools." UNQUOTE

Pure nonsense. Dr. Clark's original reports and his testimony talk of cerebellar tissue.

Also: where do you come up with this "damn fools" quote?? From some newspaper article decades later??

Here's the reality: When Dr. Clark heard I was in Dallas (this was very early January, 1983), and possessed the autopsy photographs, he telephoned me, at my hotel, and wanted to speak with me, in person, and see the photos. Pat Valentino--who witnessed the incoming call (which I have a tape of, by the way)--was astounded. We had both been expecting a call from someone else, and that's why the recorder was set up. But here was Dr. Kemp Clark himself, the man who pronounced Kennedy dead, the doctor famous for refusing to speak with any of the JFK critics, telephoning me, at my hotel, and asking me to come to his office. We both visited Dr. Clark the very next day. By that time (and to our considerable surprise) he had changed his mind. He then refused to permit me to open the envelope and view the photographs he had been so eager to see the day before. Instead, he made disparaging remarks about Arlen Specter ("the only one who got anything out of this whole deal", or something like that). Furthermore, in response to my assertions that the body had been altered, he made a reference to the fact that I'd have to speak to the Secret Service, about that. All of this is laid out in the Epilogue to the Carrol and Graf edition of Best Evidence.

Also FYI: I was the first JFK researcher--as far as I know--to actually speak with Dr. Kemp Clark, in November 1966. When I asked him if he had done any cutting on the body. He answered, very icily, "no."

So it is you, Pat Speer--and not I (or any fellow JFK researchers) --who are promulgating false and incomplete information about Dr. Kemp Clark.

Let me emphasize that at no time, when I spoke with him--either in November, 1966 or in January, 1983--did he ever indicate that anything which he had originally reported, was in error. Never did he indicate or suggest any such thing. So if that's the kind of information that is the foundation for your revisionist history, I'd suggest you set it aside.

It has no validity.

You might as well go back and inform us that, upon reinterpretion of the bible, there were really 12 commandments, not ten, and that two of them got lost before Moses came down the mountain; and oh, by the way, he confided that to this or that person and you can find reference to it in volume such and so in. . (fill in your favorite source)

What you are promoting, essentially, is your own "error theory" of the historical record. Jim Fetzer (more accurately) calls this "special pleading" and I don't doubt he is correct. All I know is that it denies the reality that I experienced as a writer, researcher, and documentary film maker. I went through the process of studying the record, then interviewing the doctors (by phone, in 1966-67); then again in 1982, on audio; then again in 1989 and 1990, on camera; and here you come along, decades later, with your attempt at "revisionist history" based on, more or less, a psychological theory of who made an error, and when they (supposedly) admitted it; along with a fundamentally incorrect methodology of taking the Dealey Plaza witnesses who saw an impact against the side of JFK's head, and trying to confuse matters by referring to that as an exit wound, which was "somehow" missed, or overlooked, or misinterpreted at Parkland Hospital, some five minutes later. That is just absurd.

And yes, I did peruse your book. Including that big picture you included of you kissing your girlfriend. Yes, it is a nice photo and perhaps you believe that personalizes your message, but it doesn't really add to the argument.

Re your final comment, again, quoting you, Pat Speer: "In order to prop up his [Dr. Clark's--dsl] credibility, and deny he could have made a mistake, you have to malign the integrity and/or veracity of nearly every witness to see the impact of the bullet or see the head wound afterward."

No, Pat, not at all. The record speaks for itself. It is you that has to pull and tug and what is written in plain English in order to come up with this theory of yours that President Kennedy was struck by three shots from behind, that the answer to all the evidentiary conflics is that the Dallas doctors were wrong, and that there was no falsification of any evidence in this case.

But it is you, not the Dallas doctors, who are wrong.

First day evidence is what counts.

What also counts is paying attention to the data that indicates that, in this case, the body was altered between Dallas and Bethesda, which you blithely ignore.

I haven't included any of that in this posting of mine, but how in the world can you go down this peculiar path of analysis on which you have embarked, and of which you are apparently so proud, while ignoring all the obvious evidence of (a) body interception prior to Bethesda (multiple coffin entry times, different coffin, different wrappings. . etc.). . and (b)the FBI report itself which says that, by the time the body was unwrapped at Bethesda, it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull."

Remember what Prof. Fetzer said about an appropriate and valid analysis means including "all" the evidence? He's right about that principle, of course, and here is another major area of evidence that your false and totally incorrect theory must also ignore, to have any semblance of credence.

The interception evidence will not go away--it is an integral part of the record, and, ultimately, it proves your entire medical "re-interpretation" to be totally invalid.

DSL

1/18/12 5:10 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Edited January 19, 2012 by David Lifton

[Greg Burnham]

It's nice of you to offer the invitation. One benefit would be that you and I would get a chance to meet after all these years taking shots at each other. But no I don't want to spend the time and the money. Why? Well, it's pretty clear what I'd find there... exactly what you have said I'll find there, frame 317 with some patch effects. Since we've already seen that the more downstream a copy is, the more it shows patch effect, I wouldn't expect to find anything new.

I am curious though. You spent a fair amount of time with Sydney Wilkinson. What did she say about the claim from Block that her copy is really a third generation copy and not a 5th generation copy as Doug Horne wrote a couple of years ago? Given what we know of how the Archives copies were generated I'm trying to figure this out. Can you help me?

JT

It is definitely a 3rd generation copy. Doug Horne has also confirmed the same. He inadvertently said 5th generation in his book. Anyone can obtain a 3rd generation copy from the archives. I don't believe they even offer a 5th generation copy. Of course, you might be able to ask them to make one for you and wait for it, I suppose.

Another problem with the idea that this "patch effect" would merely be the product of "downstream" copying is that, except for the rear blowout area of JFK's head, we do not see this patchwork effect anywhere. This is significant, Tink. It is not rational to arbitrarily conclude that this so-called "downstream degeneration" of the copy would randomly select ONLY the reported BLOWOUT area of JFK's head in which to manifest itself. It is clearly the BLACKEST area in the frames. There are many other shadowed areas with which to compare this anomaly. None of them are even remotely close. Indeed, those areas (like 317) are most closely compared to the edge of the frame, which is outside of the exposure! This "back of head blackout" occurs in several frames.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Greg Burnham

[Craig Lamson]

It is clearly the BLACKEST area in the frames. There are many other shadowed areas with which to compare this anomaly. None of them are even remotely close. Indeed, those areas are most closely compared to the edge of the frame, which is outside of the xposure! This "back of head blackout" occurs in several frames.

Did you actually MEASURE or is this more of the "I see it, just believe me" crap.

And if you measured it, how did you and what were the numbers...

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Tink,

You meant this for Monk, but I can answer your question. Based on the Richard Trask description of the Archives' copying process, Doug Horne estimated that Sydney had a fifth generation product. He described his reasoning (perhaps indirectly) in his chapter on the Zapruder chapter. But Sydney asked the direct question of the new Head of the Sound and Motion Picture Branch, and he told her in an e-mail reply, "Third Generation." "Third Generation" is what NARA has replied to her inquiry.

In your post #629, you maintain, "Since we've already seen that the more downstream a copy is, the more it shows patch effect, I wouldn't expect to find anything new...." Not even one or more patch effects somewhere else on the president? Why not, Josiah? Why just that one on the lower back of JFK's head? Is that because it's the only place one was "needed"? And if "patch effects" are more conspicuous in later generational copies, doesn't that make them the best source to locate them?

NIST denied that it had found any evidence of explosives at the Twin Towers but, when pressed, admitted that it had not looked for them. Aren't you in a similar position by maintaining "(I) already know!" what will be on the third generation copy WITHOUT EVEN BOTHERING TO LOOK AT IT? Why should we take you seriously when you adopt such an anti-scientific position? Do you realize there are multiple ways to confirm the existence of the "patch"? Could you identify at least three of them?

Doug Horne wrote--on page 1353 of Vol. IV of INSIDE THE ARRB (2009)--in response to Sydney's decision to form a research group to pursue this question, "I was stunned by the simplicity and power of the concept behind her research effort: only Hollywood visual effect technicians or other film professionals familiar with the optical effects techniques of the 1960s would be truly qualified to say whether or not there was evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film's image content!" I very strongly agree.

And he writes (as I have explained to Scally), "While Rollie Zavada was a film chemist and a Kodak product manager (and was eminently qualified to study film density and edge print), he had no practical experience with the creation of motion picture special effects, and I therefore viewed him as unqualified to make a final determination as to whether or not the Zapruder film was an altered film." ARRB's senior management agreed. Why do you and Scally adopt such a very different stance?

Jim

It's nice of you to offer the invitation. One benefit would be that you and I would get a chance to meet after all these years taking shots at each other. But no I don't want to spend the time and the money. Why? Well, it's pretty clear what I'd find there... exactly what you have said I'll find there, frame 317 with some patch effects. Since we've already seen that the more downstream a copy is, the more it shows patch effect, I wouldn't expect to find anything new.

I am curious though. You spent a fair amount of time with Sydney Wilkinson. What did she say about the claim from Block that her copy is really a third generation copy and not a 5th generation copy as Doug Horne wrote a couple of years ago? Given what we know of how the Archives copies were generated I'm trying to figure this out. Can you help me?

JT

This is bizarre beyond belief. Having acknowledged that the McClelland diagram is "the clearest description of the Kennedy head wound" (p. 107) in his own book, knowing that the Moorman was taken a fraction of a second after JFK was hit in the head (at approximately 12:30 PM/CT) and that he was taken immediately to Parkland Hospital and pronounced dead (at 1 PM/CT), we know that the observations that I have reported and that Jim DiEugenio has reinforced were made within 30 minutes of the Polaroid. So if the blow-out is not present, then the photo has to have been "patched", just as the film has been "patched" and just as the X-rays were "patched". And now Josiah Thompson has linked arms with Pat Speer in one of the most bizarre performances of the year!

Plus we have had special effects experts (like Roderick Ryan) confirm that the "blob" was painted in (but according to Pat Speer, that is the real brains gushing out to the right/front) and Hollywood film restoration experts certify that the black "patch" on frame 317 was "crudely painted in" (but Josiah Thompson assures us it is NOT on the MIP slides in the museum), and we have had further expert confirmation from Patrick and the Director that indeed the black "patch" is an artifact that was added to the film (but no, according to Josiah Thompson, they are wrong), and we have one physician after another who reported that cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue was extruding from the wound (but according to Pat Speer, the wound was on the side of his head, so they are wrong, too).

This has to be one of the most revealing threads in the history of JFK research, where two members are willing to ignore the evidence and persist in maintaining positions that have been refuted again and again. Even when it is OBVIOUS that Chaney motored forward before the limo reached the TUP, that JFK has his brains blown out to the left/rear, that one witness after another reports that his brains were blown out the back of his head, which is confirmed by the Parkland physicians and the X-ray studies of David Mantik, where you can ACTUALLY SEE the blow out in frame 374--NO, THAT'S ALL WRONG, WE MUST BELIEVE WHAT PAT AND TINK ARE TELLING US AND NOT OUR LYING EYES! This is the most completely irrational exhibition of the method of tenacity that the world has ever seen. This is completely stunning. I am reminded of something about lunatics and asylums . . .

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:

. . . [MCCLELLAN DIAGRAM]

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.

Edited January 19, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Greg Burnham]

It is clearly the BLACKEST area in the frames. There are many other shadowed areas with which to compare this anomaly. None of them are even remotely close. Indeed, those areas are most closely compared to the edge of the frame, which is outside of the xposure! This "back of head blackout" occurs in several frames.

Did you actually MEASURE or is this more of the "I see it, just believe me" crap.

And if you measured it, how did you and what were the numbers...

I apologize for leaving you out, Craig.

Sydney has graciously granted my request that you too be included in the invitation. It was difficult though. I had to convince her that you really do "know something" about film. She (and they) didn't believe it at first, but were willing to take my word for it (just in case).

So, I went to bat for you, Craig. When can you come to Hollywood? I know that you have been a very dedicated researcher of this subject for over a decade when you and I first crossed swords. I don't think that you should trust me at all. I don't think that you should take my word for it. I think that you should really see it for yourself and ask all the questions that you want and take all the measurements that you need.

Since you have been such a vocal critic of this research, even though you have not yourself invested anything into actually obtaining the information one would REQUIRE to make an informed judgment about it, this should be a golden opportunity for you!

I went to Dallas to film the LAST possible footage with a B&H camera, using the last available Kodachrome film, on the last November 22nd in which the film could still be processed before Kodak discontinued it...

I have now viewed the actual highest resolution Z-film scans available...

I am now inviting you to do REAL PRIMARY RESEARCH and come to Hollywood. I'll take you out for a good time after you concede the points.

[Craig Lamson]

It is clearly the BLACKEST area in the frames. There are many other shadowed areas with which to compare this anomaly. None of them are even remotely close. Indeed, those areas are most closely compared to the edge of the frame, which is outside of the xposure! This "back of head blackout" occurs in several frames.

Did you actually MEASURE or is this more of the "I see it, just believe me" crap.

And if you measured it, how did you and what were the numbers...

I apologize for leaving you out, Craig.

Sydney has graciously granted my request that you too be included in the invitation. It was difficult though. I had to convince her that you really do "know something" about film. She (and they) didn't believe it at first, but were willing to take my word for it (just in case).

So, I went to bat for you, Craig. When can you come to Hollywood? I know that you have been a very dedicated researcher of this subject for over a decade when you and I first crossed swords. I don't think that you should trust me at all. I don't think that you should take my word for it. I think that you should really see it for yourself and ask all the questions that you want and take all the measurements that you need.

Since you have been such a vocal critic of this research, even though you have not yourself invested anything into actually obtaining the information one would REQUIRE to make an informed judgment about it, this should be a golden opportunity for you!

I went to Dallas to film the LAST possible footage with a B&H camera, using the last available Kodachrome film, on the last November 22nd in which the film could still be processed before Kodak discontinued it...

I have now viewed the actual highest resolution Z-film scans available...

I am now inviting you to do REAL PRIMARY RESEARCH and come to Hollywood. I'll take you out for a good time after you concede the points.

I don't take your word for anything.

Your problem is you DON'T know what I might have viewed and measured. It might surprise you. I mean Sydney's is a downstream THIRD generation after all. But hey, I'll see what my schedule will allow. Pass me the information for Sydney and I'll see what I can put together. It will be interesting to compare.....

Edited January 19, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Burnham]

It is clearly the BLACKEST area in the frames. There are many other shadowed areas with which to compare this anomaly. None of them are even remotely close. Indeed, those areas are most closely compared to the edge of the frame, which is outside of the xposure! This "back of head blackout" occurs in several frames.

Did you actually MEASURE or is this more of the "I see it, just believe me" crap.

And if you measured it, how did you and what were the numbers...

I apologize for leaving you out, Craig.

Sydney has graciously granted my request that you too be included in the invitation. It was difficult though. I had to convince her that you really do "know something" about film. She (and they) didn't believe it at first, but were willing to take my word for it (just in case).

So, I went to bat for you, Craig. When can you come to Hollywood? I know that you have been a very dedicated researcher of this subject for over a decade when you and I first crossed swords. I don't think that you should trust me at all. I don't think that you should take my word for it. I think that you should really see it for yourself and ask all the questions that you want and take all the measurements that you need.

Since you have been such a vocal critic of this research, even though you have not yourself invested anything into actually obtaining the information one would REQUIRE to make an informed judgment about it, this should be a golden opportunity for you!

I went to Dallas to film the LAST possible footage with a B&H camera, using the last available Kodachrome film, on the last November 22nd in which the film could still be processed before Kodak discontinued it...

I have now viewed the actual highest resolution Z-film scans available...

I am now inviting you to do REAL PRIMARY RESEARCH and come to Hollywood. I'll take you out for a good time after you concede the points.

I don't take your word for anything.

Your problem is you DON'T know what I might have viewed and measured. It might surprise you. I mean Sydney's is a downstream THIRD generation after all. But hey, I'll see what my schedule will allow. Pass me the information for Sydney and I'll see what I can put together. It will be interesting to compare.....

You can go through me. I'll accompany you.

JFKresearch@cox.net

[Craig Lamson]

You can go through me. I'll accompany you.

JFKresearch@cox.net

No.

I'll do my own work, You are not required.

Just pass the information along and I'll put it together.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Burnham]

You can go through me. I'll accompany you.

JFKresearch@cox.net

No.

I'll do my own work, You are not required.

Just pass the information along and I'll put it together.

Do your own homework, then. Find your own way. Gain your own access. I'll just surprise you after you arrive.

[Craig Lamson]

You can go through me. I'll accompany you.

JFKresearch@cox.net

No.

I'll do my own work, You are not required.

Just pass the information along and I'll put it together.

Do your own homework, then. Find your own way. Gain your own access. I'll just surprise you after you arrive.

Really? You can't surprise me Burnham.

Why are you so afraid of me going without your presence? Clearly you don't have a ounce of photographic knowledge. There is nothing of value you can add. Or is the questions you are afraid of? Don't worry, I'll not ask many. They can make their case. Or not.

Would I like to see the scans? Sure. I prefer to have copies to actually study, but that's not a really big deal either. All they really have is yet another data point. A third generation data point.

I'm sure there are agents of this group reading this thread. If the invite is real, just drop me a line. I'll put a trip together. if not, so be it. They are not the only game.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Burnham]

Go ahead, Craig. Find your own way. Or, you can simply agree to collaborate with me. You will not be the first individual with whom I disagree but with whom I have still cooperatively chosen to work in the hope of discovering the truth. I am not concerned with you going there without me. However, I would prefer to see what you are doing for myself. That way, I can confirm that what you report is accurate. I would think that you would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate your prowess in front of one of your skeptics. Why not allow me to see your methodology?

[Josiah Thompson]

"It is clearly the BLACKEST area in the frames." You recall that John Costella found the shadow at the back of JFK's head not to be "the blackest area in the frames" in the very excellent upstream copy of 317 provided by David Lifton.

JT

It's nice of you to offer the invitation. One benefit would be that you and I would get a chance to meet after all these years taking shots at each other. But no I don't want to spend the time and the money. Why? Well, it's pretty clear what I'd find there... exactly what you have said I'll find there, frame 317 with some patch effects. Since we've already seen that the more downstream a copy is, the more it shows patch effect, I wouldn't expect to find anything new.

I am curious though. You spent a fair amount of time with Sydney Wilkinson. What did she say about the claim from Block that her copy is really a third generation copy and not a 5th generation copy as Doug Horne wrote a couple of years ago? Given what we know of how the Archives copies were generated I'm trying to figure this out. Can you help me?

JT

It is definitely a 3rd generation copy. Doug Horne has also confirmed the same. He inadvertently said 5th generation in his book. Anyone can obtain a 3rd generation copy from the archives. I don't believe they even offer a 5th generation copy. Of course, you might be able to ask them to make one for you and wait for it, I suppose.

Another problem with the idea that this "patch effect" would merely be the product of "downstream" copying is that, except for the rear blowout area of JFK's head, we do not see this patchwork effect anywhere. This is significant, Tink. It is not rational to arbitrarily conclude that this so-called "downstream degeneration" of the copy would randomly select ONLY the reported BLOWOUT area of JFK's head in which to manifest itself. It is clearly the BLACKEST area in the frames. There are many other shadowed areas with which to compare this anomaly. None of them are even remotely close. Indeed, those areas (like 317) are most closely compared to the edge of the frame, which is outside of the exposure! This "back of head blackout" occurs in several frames.

[Greg Burnham]

Craig,

I just got off the phone with Sydney. She said that you can even bring along "any equipment of your choosing" in order to take the measurements (or whatever it is) that you seek.

Just as a "word to the wise" : DELUXE STUDIOS is the definitive REAL DEAL. Bring what you think you need, but the airlines are charging 50 bucks just for an additional checked bag these days.

I can assure you that DELUXE has equipment that will far surpass your wildest imagination. Still, knock yourself out--