New Proof of JFK Film Fakery: "Conclusive Evidence", Experts Claim

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

New Proof of JFK Film Fakery: "Conclusive Evidence," Experts Claim

By Jim Fetzer (about the author) Permalink

OpEdNews Op Eds 2/5/2008 at 10:44:55

opednews.com

Madison, WI (OpEdNews) February 5, 2008 — The editor of Assassination Research, James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., has announced the discovery of new proof that the home movies of the assassination of JFK known as the Zapruder film and a second known as the Nix film are fakes. (The Nix film was taken from the opposite side looking toward “the grassy knoll.”) Both were subject to extensive alteration to fabricate evidence of the crime and keep the truth about the sequence of events in Dealey Plaza from the American people. Fetzer, McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota, observed that the films are authentic only if the visible events they record correspond to the actual sequence of events at the time. “This proof is based upon the convergent testimony of motorcycle patrolmen, members of the Secret Service, and the Dallas Chief of Police. That it contradicts the official account of the assassination recorded in the films qualifies as a major breakthrough."

The evidence emerged as an unexpected outcome of the collation of eyewitness reports in Dealey Plaza conducted by John P. Costella, Ph.D., who co-edits assassinationresearch.comwith Fetzer. Costella earned his Ph.D. in physics with a specialty in electromagnetism, including the physics of light and of moving objects. What he discovered were multiple, consistent and reinforcing reports that James Chaney, a motorcycle patrolman who was to the right rear of the presidential limousine, rode forward to tell Jesse Curry, Dallas Chief of Police—who was in the lead car with the head of the Secret Service in Dallas, Agent Forrest Sorrels, and a second Secret Service Agent, Winston Lawson—that the President had been shot. This led Chief Curry to issue instructions for the limousine to be escorted to Parkland Hospital, where the President would be pronounced dead 30 minutes later. Bobby Hargis, a motorcycle patrolman riding on the left rear, confirmed Chaney’s report. But this sequence is in neither the Zapruder film nor the Nix film.

During the past dozen years, substantial evidence of the Zapruder film’s alteration has accumulated in a research effort that became serious in 1996 during a symposium at the JFK Lancer Conference in November. Fetzer brought together numerous experts on the film, including Jack White, David W. Mantik, and Noel Twyman, the author of Bloody Treason(1997), which includes scientific studies of the film’s authenticity. Twyman, a retired engineer, had noticed that the driver of the President’s limousine, SSA William Greer, had turned to look at JFK and then turned back with preternatural speed. He hired a professional tennis player to study how fast human head turns could be made and determined that Greer’s head turns were approximately twice as fast as humanly possible. That might not sound like much initially, but it would be like converting a 4 minute mile into a 2 minute mile. Based upon this research, Twyman had discovered objective evidence of the removal of frames from the film.

Studies published in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003), provide overwhelming additional proof of alteration, including technical studies by Costella. For example, Frame 232, which had previously been published in LIFE magazine, turned out to have optically impossible features. He also discovered that, in recreating the film, which had to have its frames re-shot using sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects—in order to avoid disclosing the deception via “ghost images” in the sprocket area, which cannot be reproduced—the conspirators had made mistakes during their reinsertion of images of the Stemmons Freeway sign and of a lamppost. Moreover, Erwin Schwartz, an associate of Abraham Zapruder, reported seeing JFK’s brains blown outward to the left and to the rear, while several agents of the Secret Service had reported being nauseated by the blood and the brains splattered across the trunk of the car. Neither is visible today in “the Zapruder film”. A visual seminar of Costella’s research is archived at assasssinationscience.com.

Part of the power of Costella’s new findings is that they can be appraised by anyone with access to the film, which is archived at the same site, and his collation of reports at Assassination Research 5/1 (2007), assassinationresearch/v5n1/v5n1costella.pdf . As illustrations of what he has uncovered, here are some of the reports from the officials who were involved:

* James Chaney (motorcycle patrolman on right rear of the Presidential limousine): “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 Hospital and that Parkland was standing by.”

* Bobby Hargis (motorcycle patrolman on left rear of the Presidential limousine): “The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward and announced to the Chief that the President had been shot.”

* Winston Lawson (Secret Service Agent in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “A motorcycle escort officer pulled along side our Lead Car and said the President had been shot. Chief Curry gave a signal over the radio for police to converge on the area of the incident.”

* Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service Agent in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “A motorcycle patrolman pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled, ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer responded in the affirmative.”

* Chief Jesse Curry (in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “. . . about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney, rode up beside 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.’”

There are multiple sources for their testimony, which is corroborated by that of others, including, for example, Marrion Baker, a Dallas Police Officer, who immediately thereafter entered the Book Depository and confronted Lee Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom. Costella’s study provides additional citations.

This stunning new proof of the fabrication of the two most important films of the assassination focuses attention on the agency in immediate control of the most important evidence in the assassination, which was the Secret Service. Indeed, there are more than 15 indications of Secret Service complicity in setting up JFK for the hit, including leaving two Secret Service agents at Love Field; ordering the vehicles in the wrong sequence, with the President’s first instead of in the middle of the motorcade; not welding manhole covers; not covering the open windows; allowing the crowd to spill out into the street; ordering the 112th Military Intelligence unit to “stand down”; directing the accompanying motorcycle officers to not ride forward beyond the rear wheels; taking an improper motorcade route; not responding when shots began to be fired; pulling the limo to the left and to a halt to insure he would be killed; using a bucket of water and sponge to clean blood and brains from the back seat at Parkland Hospital; sending the limo back to Ford Motor Company to be dismantled and rebuilt; and removing autopsy photos and X-rays from Bethesda, making them unavailable during preparation of the autopsy report. The fabrication and distortion of the photographic record is the final missing piece of the complex puzzle of the cover-up in the assassination.

These are not the only indications of Secret Service complicity, Fetzer said. In the wake of the enormous resurgence of interest in the assassination following the release of Oliver Stone’s “JFK”, Congress passed a JFK Records Act creating a five-member civilian board entrusted with the responsibility of declassifying documents and records held by the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service, and other government organizations, where the panel’s decisions could only be overridden by the President himself, who was then Bill Clinton. Although Clinton never intervened to stop the release of evidence, when the Secret Service learned that the panel wanted copies of Presidential Protection Records for other motorcades involving President Kennedy, instead of releasing them it destroyed them. “I can’t imagine a more telling indication of consciousness of guilt,” said Fetzer, who has edited three books and chaired or co-chaired four conferences on the death of JFK.

Among the most important proofs of film alteration have been those provided by Doug Horne, who became Senior Analyst for Military Affairs for the civilian board (technically, the Assassination Records Review Board or the “ARRB”), and by Rich DellaRosa, who reports having viewed the unaltered film on three occasions. Horne interviewed Homer McMahon, who was then in charge of the color photo section of the National Photo Interpretation Center, who told him that an agent identifying himself as “William Smith” brought him a copy of the film the night of the assassination, asking him to prepare a briefing board for an unidentified official. He said he had viewed the film at least ten times and determined that there had been six to eight impacts from at least three different directions. Horne’s report appears in Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000) along with studies of the medical evidence demonstrating that JFK was hit four times: once in the throat (from in front), once in the back (from behind), and twice in the head (from behind and from in front). So if Connally was hit as many as three times (from the side), there were as many as seven impacts from three directions.

Another fascinating source of information has come from Rich DellaRosa, who today moderates a research site at JFKresearch.com. He reports having seen what appears to be the original film on three occasions. He observed the limo driver steer to the left. The stop was so sudden that it jostled the occupants. This observation is confirmed by close study of the Zapruder film itself, where frames show passengers being thrown forward immediately after the head shot at Frame 313. This indicates that the sequence of events has been reversed. There were actually two head shots before the vehicle resumed its forward movement. DellaRosa’s report can be found as Appendix E of The Great Zapruder Film Hoax(2003), which includes a color photo section that reveals the massive blow-out to the President’s head, which is visible in Frame 374. It corresponds closely to diagrams from physicians and Mantik’s study of the alteration of the cranial X-rays. These fabrications were used to discount witness reports (at least 40, including at Parkland and at Bethsda) of such a blowout.

That Greer pulled the limo to the left and stopped was such powerful proof of Secret Service complicity that it had to be taken out. Jack White, a legendary photo-analyst, has detected dozens and dozens of anomalies in the photos and films from the assassination and has been the most consistent critic of the presumption of authenticity of the film in the history of its study. “The Zapruder film was a necessary part of the plot so the conspirators could control the official story,” White observed. “The motorcade stopping and anything associated with that sequence had to be removed. The lead car pulled to the curb, along with the other cars, and Chaney rode forward to advise Curry. Any actual film of the motorcade at that moment would show chaos—conflicting with the needs of the official story. It had to be massively edited to keep control.”

Earlier studies of the film’s authenticity have included disagreements between eyewitnesses and the film; disagreements between early viewers of the film in November 1963 versus what is currently available; disagreements between the film and other photographs and movies; disagreements between the film and the first two reenactments; and internal inconsistencies in the film. In Assassination Science (1998), David W. Mantik, Ph.D., M.D., laid out a summary of the evidence then available of Zapruder alteration. He observed that Milicent Cranor, an independent investigator, had noticed reports that Chaney had traveled to the lead car, which is not present in the Nix film in PROBE (November-December 1997). Costella's independent research thus substantiates and corroborates earlier studies by Mantik and Cranor, which were not fully appreciated at the time.

In The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003), Mantik, who earned a Ph.D. in physics from Wisconsin and an M.D. from Michigan, demonstrated that an early study by Luis Alvarez, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, often cited in support of the film’s authenticity, involved the selective use of evidence, and that an analysis of the Muchmore film­—another of perhaps a half-dozen most important films covering various parts of the assassination—showed that it, too, had been subjected to alteration and could not be taken to be authentic. Those who attempt to defend the authenticity of the Zapruder film by contending that its alteration would have required alterations to these other films have lost their presumption that the other films have not been altered. Costella’s proof not only demonstrates the alteration of the Zapruder film in a fashion that even non-experts can see with their own eyes, but also adds the Nix film to the list of those whose authenticity has been impeached.

“The official account presented in The Warren Report (1964) and in Gerald Posner’s Case Closed (1992),” Fetzer said, “is predicated upon the ‘magic bullet’ theory and the authenticity of the films and photographs." The "magic bullet" theory, however, is not only provably false but not even anatomically possible as his study, “Reasoning about Assassinations” (2005), assassinationscience.com/ReasoningAboutAssassinations.pdf , explains. "I have been stunned by the lengths to which some have gone in their attempts to defend the Zapruder film from criticism. Josiah Thompson, author of Six Seconds in Dallas (1967), an analysis based on the film, recently appeared in ‘Oswald’s Ghost,’ an obvious work of disinformation, and asserted, ‘The Zapruder film is the basic evidence in this case’! That is not only an abuse of language—since, as David Lifton, author of Best Evidence (1980), has emphasized, the body is the best evidence—but we have conclusive evidence that the film has been faked.”

Fetzer also expressed disillusionment with Noam Chomsky, who has dismissed the very idea that JFK was taken out by a conspiracy. “Major policy issues were involved here, including withdrawing our advisors from Vietnam, reforming or abolishing the Fed, cracking down on organized crime, and cutting the oil depletion allowance. LBJ wanted to be ‘President of all the people’ and his chance was slipping through his fingers. Even Nixon was quoted in the Dallas paper that morning speculating that he would not be on the ticket in 1964. Discoveries like these indicate high-level complicity by elements of various agencies, including the Secret Service and the FBI. I hope that skeptics like Chomsky and zealots like Thompson finally come to their senses. Not only is the Zapruder film a fake but other films and photographs, such as the Nix and Muchmore, have been altered to conform to it.”

Reference: http://www.opednews...._of_jfk_fil.htm

[Craig Lamson]

The Fetzering continues...everything has been altered except that which Fetzer needs so that must be authentic...

Never mind all of this has been debunked many times over Fetzer regurgitates it.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Lamson loves to make false assertions about what has and hasn't been proven (or, in this case, refuted) he can't back up.

There are dozens of arguments embedded in this article, the most obvious being the proof that Chaney motored forward:

Part of the power of Costella’s new findings is that they can be appraised by anyone with access to the film, which is archived at the same site, and his collation of reports at Assassination Research 5/1 (2007), assassinationresearch/v5n1/v5n1costella.pdf . As illustrations of what he has uncovered, here are some of the reports from the officials who were involved:

* James Chaney (motorcycle patrolman on right rear of the Presidential limousine): “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 Hospital and that Parkland was standing by.”

* Bobby Hargis (motorcycle patrolman on left rear of the Presidential limousine): “The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward and announced to the Chief that the President had been shot.”

* Winston Lawson (Secret Service Agent in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “A motorcycle escort officer pulled along side our Lead Car and said the President had been shot. Chief Curry gave a signal over the radio for police to converge on the area of the incident.”

* Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service Agent in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “A motorcycle patrolman pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled, ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer responded in the affirmative.”

* Chief Jesse Curry (in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “. . . about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney, rode up beside 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.’”

There are multiple sources for their testimony, which is corroborated by that of others, including, for example, Marrion Baker, a Dallas Police Officer, who immediately thereafter entered the Book Depository and confronted Lee Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom. Costella’s study provides additional citations.

The reckless disregard for evidence is the signature of Lamson's posts. If he could refute my arguments, he would; but

he can't, which leads him to make OBVIOUSLY FALSE ASSERTIONS about how all this has been previously debunked.

I think we are making progress as it becomes increasingly apparent who does and doesn't care about the truth re JFK.

In addition, he ignores the appropriate dictionary definition of a key term and perverts its meaning beyond recognition:

THE DICTIONARY OF PROPER DEFINITIONS:

Fetzering =df showing obsessive dedication to establishing the truth about JFK, 9/11, Wellstone and Sandy Hook; or,

the display of determination in ferreting out the truth about complex and controversial cases, especially ones involving

complicity by the government, including especially the CIA, the NSA, the Joint Chiefs and the FBI. Alternatively, being

unwilling to put up with fallacious arguments by refuting them again and again and again, as shown here with Lamson.

[Craig Lamson]

been there, done that, got the tee shirt...

No one with a even bit of sense thinks you have anything of substance to offer.

[Len Colby]

Am I missing something? What is the new development being pimped pushed here? Costella did his analysis months if not over a year ago and there was at least one thread on the subject. It seems the only purpose of the press release and this thread were to satisfy the OP's narcissism. And how is a particle physicist any more of an expert than a plumber in matching film footage to eyewitness accounts? The points raised on this thread have been replayed more than most Seinfeld episodes.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Is anyone taken in by the rubbish posts of Lamson and Colby? There have to b

some serious students of JFK on this forum. I would like to hear from them, not

the repeated carping and ad hominems from the usual suspects. THIS IS PROOF

THAT THE FILM IS A FABRICATION--ONE OF A DOZEN MOST IMPORTANT. IF

Lamson or Cobly could refute any of them, they would. They can't--so they don't.

[Robin Unger]

OpEdNews Op Eds 2/5/2008

That article is over 4-years old

Nothing new here.

[Steve Kober]

^{I think Jim is just compliling the long list of reasons that shows the obvious differneces with the Z-Film to eyewitness testimony. To those who dismiss Jim, I would challenge you to answer each of his points concerning the films discrepancies with your "alternate" explanations. I think a single explanation is more believable and logical than a dozen or so " coincidences".}

Edited February 22, 2013 by Steve Kober

[Craig Lamson]

Is anyone taken in by the rubbish posts of Lamson and Colby? There have to b

some serious students of JFK on this forum. I would like to hear from them, not

the repeated carping and ad hominems from the usual suspects. THIS IS PROOF

THAT THE FILM IS A FABRICATION--ONE OF A DOZEN MOST IMPORTANT. IF

Lamson or Cobly could refute any of them, they would. They can't--so they don't.

They HAVE been refuted time and time again, and you keep 'hair balling them"...

[Craig Lamson]

^{I think Jim is just compliling the long list of reasons that shows the obvious differneces with the Z-Film to eyewitness testimony. To those who dismiss Jim, I would challenge you to answer each of his points concerning the films discrepancies with your "alternate" explanations. I think a single explanation is more believable and logical than a dozen or so " coincidences".}

Aside from Chaney, which one those statements is a discrepancy?

[Thomas Graves]

OpEdNews Op Eds 2/5/2008

That article is over 4-years old

Nothing new here.

bump

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Thanks to Steve Kober for making a sensible post. Yes, the article was

first pubished more than four years ago, but the arguments it presents

are still sound, which means that their premises are true and reasoning

valid. If anyone can show there is anything wrong with them, please do

that. This endless beating around the bush and trivial ad hominems is

insulting to the members of this forum and the search for truth. Since

Lamson CLAIMS to have refuted them--when that is IMPOSSIBLE,

since they have true premises and valid forms--I can't wait to see his

REFUTATIONS. But they do not exist and won't be forthcoming here.

It never ceases to astonish me how many members of this forum run

like scared puppies with their tails between their legs when HONEST

TO GOODNESS EVIDENCE OF ZAPRUDER FILM FAKERY SHOWS

UP ON THIS FORUM. Surely there are more serious students of the

assassination here than Lamson, Colby, and Unger. Where are they?

[Pamela Brown]

As I have stated from time to time, my position is that everyone acknowledges there were at least two splices in the "camera original" of the Z-film(s). Thus, the question is not whether or not the film(s) were altered but to what extent and with how much malevolent intent were they altered.

At the same time, I must say that the most vicious arguments seem to between those who believe the film(s) were altered and those who do not. Making a plea to authority or a plea to the masses is simply a fallacy and anyone who needs to use them is demonstrating that they do not find their own position strong enough to argue on a level field. The same with ad homs. The result of trying to bully a discussion one way or another is that everyone goes around the same circle again.

Why not try something different? :-0

[Craig Lamson]

It never ceases to astonish me how many members of this forum run

like scared puppies with their tails between their legs when HONEST

TO GOODNESS EVIDENCE OF ZAPRUDER FILM FAKERY SHOWS

UP ON THIS FORUM. Surely there are more serious students of the

assassination here than Lamson, Colby, and Unger. Where are they?

Another hairball...there is no "honest" evidence that shows the film fake. Fetzer beats a very dead horse.

Otherwise know as Fetzering.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Lamson just can't bring himself to cope with the arguments I have presented, for

the obvious reason that they are valid with true premises and have conclusions

that cannot be false. It is all BLUFF AND FAKERY. This guy has more moves

than a magician. Pamela has made the very sensible suggestion that Lamson,

Cobly and Unger (not by name) try something different, namely: TRY TO COME

TO GRIPS WITH THE ARGUMENTS THAT I HAVE PRESENTED. That would

be novel, but of course it does not suit their purpose, which is to make serious

discussion of this central issue in JFK research SO UNPLEASANT THAT MOST

MEMBERS OF THE FORUM WILL SHY AWAY FROM THE STENCH. Compare

my posts with their posts. One side is presenting evidence and arguments that

demonstrate--conclusively, I maintain--that the film is a fabriation. The others

are posting one nasty ad hominem after another and doing their level best to

drive anyone with a serious interest in advancing our understanding away from

the discussion. And of course he cannot resist introducing an abusive attack in

the form of a "definition", which displays the extent of their intellectual incapacity

to actually come to grips with arguments and necessity to resort to childish ploys.

THE DICTIONARY OF PROPER DEFINITIONS:

Fetzering =df showing obsessive dedication to establishing the truth about JFK, 9/11, Wellstone and Sandy Hook; or,

the display of determination in ferreting out the truth about complex and controversial cases, especially ones involving

complicity by the government, including especially the CIA, the NSA, the Joint Chiefs and the FBI. Alternatively, being

unwilling to put up with fallacious arguments by refuting them again and again and again, as shown here with Lamson.