Jump to content
The Education Forum

Josiah Thompson's brand new book LAST SECOND IN DALLAS


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

 

Your disdain for the author, the subjects, and the book you haven’t read is noted.

In November of 2005 I attended The Cracking the Case Conference in Bethesda.  When I arrived I felt a part of the JFKA Critical Research Community.  By the time I got home I was a critic of the Community.

On day one I had a 5 minute conversation with Josiah Thompson.  We mostly concurred on the authenticity of the Zapruder film.  Then I brought up my favorite subject — the primacy of the clothing evidence.

Tink just shrugged.

“Like when you examined Willis 5 under a microscope and didn’t find jacket bunch.”

“I did?”

”Yeah, you wrote it up in Six Seconds in Dallas.”

Tink rolled his eyes.  “Well, if you think that’s evidence...”.  His voice dripped with disdain.  A friend of his cut in and they walked away with me standing there thinking — “WTF was that?”

Quote

Personally, I would not put the Dictabelt evidence in my top ten indicators of conspiracy, maybe not even in my top twenty.

Of course not.  It’s only evidence of a “probable” conspiracy.  It requires an advanced college degree to verify, and it doesn’t tell us anything we haven’t learned from the clothing evidence.

Quote

But, as far as the US government is concerned, the Dictabelt is not just their number one convincing piece of evidence, it is their only piece of evidence.

Not true.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0100b.htm

Dr. Michael Baden, Head of the HSCA Medical Panel, testified:

"In the jacket and the underlying shirt there is a perforation of the fabric that corresponds directly with the location of the perforation of the skin of the right upper back that, the panel concluded, was an entrance gunshot perforation that entered the back of the President.  This is correspondingly seen in the shirt underneath."   [1 HSCA 196]     

If the HSCA had concluded a single shooter they’d have been up against the physical evidence found with the body.  Same problem Arlen Specter had when Gaeton Fonzi confronted him with the clothing evidence.  Specter had a nervous breakdown.  The HSCA side-stepped controversy (temporarily) by putting out a “probable” conspiracy on the basis of evidence it takes an advanced degree to verify. 

Quote

The Dictabelt is why the US government went from saying that they found no evidence of conspiracy to saying that JFK’s death was probably as a result of one. That’s an official conclusion that stands to this day.

And it’s a great big fat lie.  There is no “probably.”  The HSCA had iron-clad evidence of conspiracy but to admit it would have drawn the autopsy report into ill repute, which would have reflected poorly on the military, it being a military autopsy. 

Quote

As the sole reason for that official shift in US government opinion,

Factually incorrect.  The HSCA needed to finesse the clothing evidence or draw the military into the controversy.

<snip>

Quote

 

How do you know what else he does or does not address in the book

My comments referred to the dictabelt evidence and the provenance of CE399.  
 
A critique of evidence ain’t a book review.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I look forward to seeing how the fact of the President's head being turned toward the knoll at the point of impact of the shot from that direction (during that "last second") which would permit the exhausting of gore onto the driver's side tail light area and officer Hargis (to the left and rear of JFK) which indisputably must have occurred based on fluid dynamics (fluids in motion travel in a straight line) and the substantial amount of corroborated evidence for it in the record, yet that positioning of the President's head is missing from the extant Zapruder film.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2021 at 12:13 AM, Pat Speer said:

I love the writing, and that Tink is telling his story. I am saddened, however, by the fact so much of the book is devoted to the dictabelt evidence, and that none of it is devoted to the photographic evidence debunking the dictabelt evidence. 

Pat:  For someone not "up-to-date" with the "photographic evidence debunking the dictabelt evidence," it would help if you would provide a few sentences briefly listing the major points --i.e., the points that you believe "debunk" the dictabelt evidence.  Otherwise, this discussion will only be clear to those who have been following the details of this particular aspect of the debate.  I'm not requesting that you write a detailed treatise--just a few sentences listing your objections  Thanks. DSL  (2/02/21; 7:10 PM PST)

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

Pat:  For someone not "up-to-date" with the "photographic evidence debunking the dictabelt evidence," it would help if you would provide a few sentences briefly listing the major points --i.e., the points that you believe "debunk" the dictabelt evidence.  Otherwise, this discussion will only be clear to those who have been following the details of this particular aspect of the debate.  I'm not requesting that you write a detailed treatise--just a few sentences listing your objections  Thanks. DSL  (2/02/21; 7:10 PM PST)

http://www.patspeer.com/debunking-the-dictabelt

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Pat:  For someone not "up-to-date" with the "photographic evidence debunking the dictabelt evidence," it would help if you would provide a few sentences briefly listing the major points --i.e., the points that you believe "debunk" the dictabelt evidence.  Otherwise, this discussion will only be clear to those who have been following the details of this particular aspect of the debate.  I'm not requesting that you write a detailed treatise--just a few sentences listing your objections  Thanks. DSL  (2/02/21; 7:10 PM PST)

If I had to sum it up in one image, David, it's this one...known as Bond 4.

Bond4withpatch.png

The motorcyclist on the far left is H.B. McLain. The acoustics evidence holds that he was 20 feet short of the corner of Houston and Elm when the first shot was fired and that he traveled at 10-11 mph afterwards. And yet here he is in a photo taken more than 30 seconds after the first shot.

Note the officer on foot in front of Hill and Moorman. That's Bobby Hargis. In the seconds after the shooting, he has 1) parked his bike, 2) dismounted his bike, 3) run over to the white wall across the street, 4) looked around, 5) run over to the lamp post by the Newmans, and 6) run back to his bike. 

Now note the photographer behind the lamp post. That's Dave Wiegman. He turned his camera on within 4 seconds or so of the first shot, jumped out of Camera Car #1, and filmed almost non-stop after. He is at this time filming the Newmans, a scene that comes more than 30 seconds into his film. 

Now note the camera man behind Wiegman. That's Thomas Atkins. Both Wiegman and Atkins were riding in Camera Car #1--2 cars behind McLain's supposed location at the time of the first shot. And yet here they are filming on the knoll as McLain drives by.

In the scenario pushed by the acoustics devotees, Wiegman, on foot, raced past McLain on his motorcycle, and filmed the Hesters etc before McLain could even catch up.

It's absolute nonsense. The acoustics experts hired by the HSCA claimed the mike recording the shots traveled 10-11 mph across the plaza. And yet, the photo evidence makes clear McLain was either traveling at a much slower rate--slower than the idling speed of a Harley--or had started from much further back than 20 feet south of Houston and Elm. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat:

Here is my question then:  Does this analysis contest the efficacy of the acoustics evidence or does it simply suggest that McLain's was the wrong motorcycle?

In other words, is there someone else who could have recorded it and been accurate?

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Pat:

Here is my question then:  Does this analysis contest the efficacy of the acoustics evidence or does it simply suggest that McLain's was the wrong motorcycle?

In other words, is there someone else who could have recorded it and been accurate?

I was hoping Tink or someone else would make that argument, but, as of yet, no one has. 

To be clear, the acoustics experts didn't just match up recorded impulses to gunshots, they matched them up to gunshots as recorded at specific locations. They then claimed there was a pattern to these impulses, in that they indicated the mike recording these impulses captured the first impulse 20 feet south of Houston and Elm and traveled across the plaza at 10-11 mph. Now, seeing as McLain wasn't where they needed him to be, one might take from this that the mike was a mike in the Cabell car, or some such thing.'

But that creates another problem. The hum of a motorcycle engine is present throughout the recording. A number of DPD employees have identified that engine, moreover, and swear it's the engine of a three-wheeler, not a two-wheeler. 

I'm fairly certain this claim has never been addressed by those propping up that the bike was McLain's. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading Last Second in Dallas now.  Fascinating history and insights.  The incongruity of audio and visual evidence suggests a different sequence of events may have happened in the last second at DP.  I thought this might stimulate conversation.  It's clearly speculative but I think it fits with the corroborated evidence I've seen. 

image.thumb.png.d32dede5f7b1074af656b8ecdc29bea5.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Steven Kossor said:

Reading Last Second in Dallas now.  Fascinating history and insights.  The incongruity of audio and visual evidence suggests a different sequence of events may have happened in the last second at DP.  I thought this might stimulate conversation.  It's clearly speculative but I think it fits with the corroborated evidence I've seen. 

image.thumb.png.d32dede5f7b1074af656b8ecdc29bea5.png

Compelling analysis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my view the best, most corroborated “last second” testimony is by SSA Glen Bennett — his contemporaneous written statement describes a shot in JFK’s back “about 4 inches down from the right shoulder” immediately before the head shot/s.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2021 at 9:20 AM, Cliff Varnell said:

What, nothing of the NAA or the conflicting head wound/s evidence?

There was another thread that talked about this sometime back.  Just counting the head wounds and other shots that people suggested, I think I came up with more than 3 or 4 shots, if my memory is right.

1. A wound to the back of the head

2. A wound to the head from the front

3. A wound to the right side of the head

4. A wound to the left side of the head

5. A back wound (an autopsy photo may show more)

6. A wound to the throat

7. A dent in the front windshield chrome

8. Collateral damage down at the Triple Underpass- James Tague

9. A .45 found in the grass

10. A bullet scarred concrete later removed

PS

I just remembered one more:

11. 30.06 shell found on the top of the Court Records Building.

 

Edited by John Butler
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Steven Kossor said:

Reading Last Second in Dallas now.  Fascinating history and insights.  The incongruity of audio and visual evidence suggests a different sequence of events may have happened in the last second at DP.  I thought this might stimulate conversation.  It's clearly speculative but I think it fits with the corroborated evidence I've seen. 

image.thumb.png.d32dede5f7b1074af656b8ecdc29bea5.png

 

 

The first photo would indicate, from the direction, a shot from the Triple Underpass, or a airplane, or a helicopter.  Is it an argument for the "ghost train" or maybe one of the alleged railroad men on the bridge doing the shooting?  Maybe Officer Foster?  The direction of the red line seems to come from that area.

The angle indicated by the red line seems to be to high for the railroad bridge.  Maybe one of the Chris's could figure that out on the angles.  I seem to recall the Nix film has problems with angles.

The two photos, I would think, are a contradiction according to President Kennedy's head wounds, particularly from high powered weapons.

I have not heard any reports of a bullet striking Hargis' motorbike.  Can someone elaborate?

On 2/3/2021 at 11:46 AM, Pat Speer said:

If I had to sum it up in one image, David, it's this one...known as Bond 4.

Bond4withpatch.png

The motorcyclist on the far left is H.B. McLain. The acoustics evidence holds that he was 20 feet short of the corner of Houston and Elm when the first shot was fired and that he traveled at 10-11 mph afterwards. And yet here he is in a photo taken more than 30 seconds after the first shot.

Note the officer on foot in front of Hill and Moorman. That's Bobby Hargis. In the seconds after the shooting, he has 1) parked his bike, 2) dismounted his bike, 3) run over to the white wall across the street, 4) looked around, 5) run over to the lamp post by the Newmans, and 6) run back to his bike. 

Now note the photographer behind the lamp post. That's Dave Wiegman. He turned his camera on within 4 seconds or so of the first shot, jumped out of Camera Car #1, and filmed almost non-stop after. He is at this time filming the Newmans, a scene that comes more than 30 seconds into his film. 

Now note the camera man behind Wiegman. That's Thomas Atkins. Both Wiegman and Atkins were riding in Camera Car #1--2 cars behind McLain's supposed location at the time of the first shot. And yet here they are filming on the knoll as McLain drives by.

In the scenario pushed by the acoustics devotees, Wiegman, on foot, raced past McLain on his motorcycle, and filmed the Hesters etc before McLain could even catch up.

It's absolute nonsense. The acoustics experts hired by the HSCA claimed the mike recording the shots traveled 10-11 mph across the plaza. And yet, the photo evidence makes clear McLain was either traveling at a much slower rate--slower than the idling speed of a Harley--or had started from much further back than 20 feet south of Houston and Elm. 

 

All said here, this is evidence of an altered photo, Bond 4.  Other than concentrating on the peculiarities of the photo, Pat Speer has provided sound evidence based no doubt on witness testimony.  Just about anywhere you go in Dealey Plaza the evidence has been adjusted by government agencies for the Warren Commission. 

Just as an aside, I have always thought the section of the photo showing the Babushka Lady has been adjusted.  Although she shows up in many photos and films, the Babushka Lady, as seen in Bond 4, is a fictional character also shown in some other films and photos.  In other films and photos she is a real, but unidentified person first see at the intersection of Main and Houston and later in the Grassy Knoll area. 

The Babushka Lady is fictional character designed to hide the identity of the Lady in Blue seen in the Zapruder film.  The real Babushka Lady did not show up on Elm Street until a minute or two later. 

Edited by John Butler
Link to post
Share on other sites

Both trajectory lines are based on "connecting the dots" between a hole at the right rear of JFK's head and the depositing of blood and brain matter onto the driver's side tail light area (and officer Hargis) -- evidence that has been corroborated widely.  In the trajectory line on the Moorman photograph, it points to the spot along the picket fence on the knoll where others have identified a "photographic anomaly" that could be a human head.  The trajectory line in the Nix film frame is scaled to the same point as the origin in the Moorman photo, but if my two-shot sequence is correct, the shooter of the first head shot was positioned farther West along the picket fence (closer to the junction of the overpass wall and the picket fence) so that shot came more directly at the President (hitting him in the forehead above the right eye, turning his head rapidly to the right) and the shot from the knoll struck the right side of his head and exited from the right rear.

The Nix frame may be showing JFK a fraction of a second before Moorman's photo was snapped, and if so, the trajectory of the first shot would be flatter than I've made it.  The second head shot, a fraction of a second later, definitely came from the right side.  I think the Moorman photo's exposure occurred between the two shots since her photo shows a piece of "hair and scalp" on JFK's right shoulder, but JFK's head isn't yet turned to the right (as it must have been when the second shot struck because that shot exhausted a cone of blood and brain "back and to the left" that landed on the driver's side tail light and onto officer Hargis).

The Zapruder film definitely doesn't show JFK's head turned toward the knoll, so my interpretation is that this is evidence of film alteration.  Jackie's head was "in the way" of the Nix film so it wasn't necessary to edit that film (although the opportunity to promptly and professionally edit any of the pictures/film collected throughout the day on 11/22/63 certainly existed at the Jamison film studio in Dallas where the copies of the Zapruder film were made, which was called "The Hollywood of the Midwest" in publicity media of the day).  Lots of food for thought, for sure.

As far as the claim that a bullet was found in the gutter of Elm Street after the shooting, I recall the report of it being a .45 caliber slug and the report somehow associated with Bill O'Reilly.  I've been reading lots of material about the case for about 40 years, some more reputable than others, but this Forum is definitely the place to sort it all out...

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...