Jump to content
The Education Forum

Josiah Thompson's brand new book LAST SECOND IN DALLAS


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 256
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Add another option.

Thanks for your patience and attention to the question I asked.  Yes, that would be another option, but I am trying to stay with what H. Brennan said about the "red brick building" before he was corrected and take into account the "inmate story" from the 5th floor jail cells.  Brennan's very specific wording/distances are to me, examples of a very good engineer who is applying his everyday attention to detail and exactitude to what he saw from that central location with the "panoramic view" as he described it.  It also makes much more sense with the inmates looking almost straight across the street as opposed to an almost 45 degree angle across to the TSBD.  They would have had an excellent view of this sniper.  They would be ALMOST the only ones who would have noticed anything here because almost EVERYONE else would have been looking the opposite direction.  Those on Elm Street beyond Houston would have been looking the correct direction, but at street level in order to see the parade, with virtually no reason to look up to that height.  This, to me is what signifies COMPLETE professionally planned attack.  The very quick alteration to Brennan's statement, his surveillance and constant escort of "federal agents" until he had relented to the official story speak to a team of individuals who already know what the story MUST be as it goes out.

Brennan relented willingly and quickly because he was scared and he did not want to be the "only one" who saw something different.  Who knows what he was either threatened with or possibly he was told that he needed to follow the official story for his own safety until any other shooters were caught and THEN he could speak up.  His story (the altered one) was so quickly put into print/repeated, that there was never going to be a time when anyone would believe his first statement.  Anyone would have thought he simply wanted his 15 minutes of fame.  He cared deeply about the safety of his family and DID NOT want to be involved.  We do know that by January (if I remember correctly) he had an "accident" in which his eyes were damaged and that probably was the end of his telling the truth again.

*  My own personal opinion, having known a few men of similar temperament and character, is that if the situation only involve HIS safety, he would have pressed on and told EXACTLY what he saw, but the family involvement flipped that scenario on it's head.  There are many ways to be brave, but unlike in the movies, most men of his generation will weigh the cost of whatever decisions they make against the cost/peril to their family and ALWAYS choose that which protects their family.  Even this choice was difficult for him, because of the ongoing interest/investigations of the assassination.  He had to keep digging the hole deeper to avoid being brought back into the spotlight and endangering his family all over again.  His bravery was in seeing his own character assassinated - which I think, he endured gladly that his family might be safe from threats.  He was a very religious man, pretty much non-political and did not want to be the focus of a spotlight nor threats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2021 at 5:07 AM, Joseph McBride said:

I wanted to see how Thompson dealt with those issues

and thought he would in his book, since he is a leading

dissenter from them and they affect any study of the

evidence. So I was surprised he doesn't address them in what

evidently is his final book.

Dr. Thompson has addressed both of these issues repeatedly over the past 30+ years -- both in print and in lectures. So what else is there to say about them? I'm more surprised that his work on the Dictabelt evidence is not generating more discussion here and in the research community, as it makes the strongest case yet for the recordings having actually captured the gunfire in Dealey Plaza.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tracy, this is about as incisive and candid as your review of Litwin's POS book about Garrison.

Right off the bat, Girdler is misrepresenting Thompson.  Tink does allow for the orientation of JBC, see pp. 94-95.

And in his interviews with Shaw and Gregory they both said the bullet that hit JBC hit nothing prior to that. (pp. 84-85)

So right at the beginning, the guy's claims of confirmation bias are unfounded.

This is what we expect from something at McAdams's site, which is where it is. And you have to drag it over here? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Tracy, this is about as incisive and candid as your review of Litwin's POS book about Garrison.

Right off the bat, Girdler is misrepresenting Thompson.  Tink does allow for the orientation of JBC, see pp. 94-95.

And in his interviews with Shaw and Gregory they both said the bullet that hit JBC hit nothing prior to that. (pp. 84-85)

So right at the beginning, the guy's claims of confirmation bias are unfounded.

This is what we expect from something at McAdams's site, which is where it is. And you have to drag it over here? 

 

Jim,

First, I am a member in good standing here and I can post whatever I like as long as it doesn't violate forum rules. I post here (and on other forums) infrequently as the case is solved to my satisfaction. And I find that as I get older I don't enjoy debate like I used to.

Second, we have a nine page thread here which consists of mostly (if not all) comments that are supportive of Thompson. I check this forum every day and I have found that there are several individuals who represent themselves as CTs that are at least open to opposing opinions. I provided the link to Girdler's article for their information. And if the article raises some valid points (which I feel is the case) what is the difference where it is hosted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference between the people who are critics of the commission and people like John McAdams, is that those on the critical side do cross referencing and double checking.  

The thing you did not do with Litwin.  While I spent 50 pages, using many primary source documents and interviews, showing that virtually every aspect of that book was faulty.

And now, just going through the opening of this guy's work, its more of the same.

Fine, you are a member in good standing.   Keep up the good work.

PS There are two more reviews of Thompson upcoming at K and K, they will both have mixed views of the book.  But these will be grounded on facts, not Mr.  Girdler's ignoring the text he does not like, so he can unfairly and unjustifiably skew TInk with "confirmation bias".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Jim,

First, I am a member in good standing here and I can post whatever I like as long as it doesn't violate forum rules. I post here (and on other forums) infrequently as the case is solved to my satisfaction. And I find that as I get older I don't enjoy debate like I used to.

Second, we have a nine page thread here which consists of mostly (if not all) comments that are supportive of Thompson. I check this forum every day and I have found that there are several individuals who represent themselves as CTs that are at least open to opposing opinions. I provided the link to Girdler's article for their information. And if the article raises some valid points (which I feel is the case) what is the difference where it is hosted?

Excellent piece Tracy, well laid out in detail. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/3/2021 at 4:37 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

Hi David, I don't mind going over this again.

SS SA Glen Bennett wrote up an accurate description of the back wound on AF1.  The next day he wrote a more full official report.

Bennett wrote that after the turn onto Elm St. he was looking to his right.  Willis #5 (Z202) shows him facing to his right. 

Bennett wrote that he heard a firecracker-type sound, then turned to check out the President when he saw a bullet strike about four inches down on the shoulder right before the head shot.

Altgens 6 (Z255) shows Bennett with blurred features, consistent with his head moving.

The bullet holes in the clothes are four inches below the bottom of the collars.

Bennett described a "bang...bang bang" shooting sequence.  So did 55 other ear witnesses.

Glen Bennett's contemporaneous reports are the most thoroughly corroborated individual account in the entire case.

DSL COMMENT:

Two points: Willis Slide 5 --showing the JFK limo on Elm Street, and at a location that corresponds to Zapruder frame 202--specifically shows Glen Bennet looking off to the right 9towards the sidewalk, and a bot above); so that significantly diminishes the probability that he actually observed, what his SS report claims.  But much more important is this: that if a Secret Service coverup took place (i.e, was ordered) in this case (and I believe that to be the case), GB'S report can simply not be replied upon; i.e., as valid and truthful evidence. In other words: Glen Bennett's report --about what he claims to have seen (and which was witnessed by no one else) --cannot possibly overturn the credibility of all the medical reports and testimonies of the Dallas medical observers (i.e., at Parkland)  which constitute a solid and credible medical record -- a record of what they did not see; a record of what they did not observe:  a rear entry (or bullet strike)  in the back of JFK's shoulder.  

Yes, there was a time --decades ago, and when I first studied this case--that I took seriously what Glen Bennett wrote in his SS report (See, for example, "The Case For Three Assassins," written in July 1966, and published in RAMPARTS magazine, January 1967).  But not after I made the discovery of pre-autopsy "surgery of the head area"  (10/23/66)  along with pre-autopsy bullet removal, as laid out carefully, and in detail, in Best Evidence.  

As I have written --and spoken of, on many  occasions-- the key to understanding the JFK case is that there was fraud in the evidence.  Deliberate fakery (e.g., bullet 399, planted on the Dallas stretcher, or the two "found fragments," found in the limo at about 10 P.M., when parked in the White House garage).  Unfortunately, GB's account (in the official SS reports) of witnessing a bullet strike JFK's dark jacket about "4 inches below" the top of JFK's collar constitutes just such an example. It should--and must be--recognized as a "joker in the deck".  A deliberately false eyewitness account. And one must not play cards when there are such "jokers in the deck."  (DSL, 4/13/21; 1:15 AM PDT)

Edited by David Lifton
Improved clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Does anyone know where the Dave Wimp /Joe Durnavich Zapruder film blur analysis article is stored today?

I cannot find it.

 

Sadly I can't find it anywhere either.  However, back in 2004 David Wimp did give a presentation, at about 40 minutes into this video:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?183565-1/warren-report-lone-assassin-theory-part-1

I found this presentation to be very persuasive, and LSID chapter 14 "The Blur Illusion" is a very important correction to Thompson's 1967 book.  The forward movement of JFK's head during Z313-Z314 is no more than an illusion, and JFK's exact head movements during that time can never be known due to the blurring and the explosion debris in the film (which both make any proper measurement impossible).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Does anyone know where the Dave Wimp /Joe Durnavich Zapruder film blur analysis article is stored today?

I cannot find it.

 

JFK assassination conference: "The Lone Assassin Theory - Photographic Evidence" 2004 - YouTube

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...