"Enemy of the Truth" by Sherry P. Fiester [a review]

[Pat Speer]

Although this book's author gets some things right, she also commits several fundamental blunders leaving this work with much to be desired.

Check out David Mantik's review here.

While Sherry made some major mistakes in her book, Mantik's review is much worse, IMO. It is redeemed mainly by his listing of typos and repetitions, which could be of help should Sherry do a re-write or a second printing.

I mean, really, to attack her appraisal of the Z-film as being authentic because she failed to accept the possibility government employed "felons" moved the mist from the head shot from one point in the film to another! That's pretty darned silly. He also cites Joe O'Donnell, a man with no proven connection to the case, who was later proven to have had an ongoing obsession with the Kennedys, whereas he told numerous lies about his connections to them, as a witness Sherry should have taken seriously. Ouch. Pretty embarrassing.

And that's not even to mention the three head-shot theory proposed by Mantik. Oh my! He refuses to believe people thinking the limo stopped could be wrong, and to have confused the limo's slowing with a stop, and yet he thinks these same witnesses--who only noted one head shot--were wrong--and that there were in fact three head shots (with two of them impacting on the front half of the head). Yikes!

Mantik attacks the book in part because of the absurd psychobabble attempt to deny the limo stop, and is to be praised for exposing such nonsense. The lack of forward splatter is also noted, and this too fatally calls the extant film into question. Since her work is founded on the integrity of the film, its value is, well, seriously diminished.

??? Sherry says the Z-film proves the shot was taken from the front. So why would they have faked that?

As far as the limo stop, oh my, we've been through this many times before. MANY of the limo-stop witnesses did not describe a limo-stop but a limo slow-down, and MANY other supposed limo-stop witnesses described a stop further back in the motorcade, which nobody disputes.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Many witnesses also described a swerve to the left, as well.

The author Manchester quotes the limo driver, William Greer, as saying to Jackie at Parkland Hospital, "Oh, Mrs. Kennedy, oh my God, oh my God. I didn't mean to do it, I didn't hear, I should have swerved the car, I couldn't help it. Oh, Mrs. Kennedy, as soon as I saw it I swerved. If only I'd seen it in time!"

Do you see this swerve Greer refers to in the Zapruder film?

Edited January 13, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme

[Pamela Brown]

Although this book's author gets some things right, she also commits several fundamental blunders leaving this work with much to be desired.

Check out David Mantik's review here.

While Sherry made some major mistakes in her book, Mantik's review is much worse, IMO. It is redeemed mainly by his listing of typos and repetitions, which could be of help should Sherry do a re-write or a second printing.

I mean, really, to attack her appraisal of the Z-film as being authentic because she failed to accept the possibility government employed "felons" moved the mist from the head shot from one point in the film to another! That's pretty darned silly. He also cites Joe O'Donnell, a man with no proven connection to the case, who was later proven to have had an ongoing obsession with the Kennedys, whereas he told numerous lies about his connections to them, as a witness Sherry should have taken seriously. Ouch. Pretty embarrassing.

And that's not even to mention the three head-shot theory proposed by Mantik. Oh my! He refuses to believe people thinking the limo stopped could be wrong, and to have confused the limo's slowing with a stop, and yet he thinks these same witnesses--who only noted one head shot--were wrong--and that there were in fact three head shots (with two of them impacting on the front half of the head). Yikes!

Mantik attacks the book in part because of the absurd psychobabble attempt to deny the limo stop, and is to be praised for exposing such nonsense. The lack of forward splatter is also noted, and this too fatally calls the extant film into question. Since her work is founded on the integrity of the film, its value is, well, seriously diminished.

??? Sherry says the Z-film proves the shot was taken from the front. So why would they have faked that?

As far as the limo stop, oh my, we've been through this many times before. MANY of the limo-stop witnesses did not describe a limo-stop but a limo slow-down, and MANY other supposed limo-stop witnesses described a stop further back in the motorcade, which nobody disputes.

As I said in Midnight Blue to Black, the real question about what Greer was doing is to ask who in their right mind would move forward with any speed while they were turned to face the rear? That would be suicidal, of course. So it doesn't matter whether Greer *stopped* the limo or not; we have photographic evidence, to whatever extent we wish to give validity to the Z-film(s) that Greer was facing JFK from a few seconds before and until after the fatal headshot.

[Daniel Gallup]

Although this book's author gets some things right, she also commits several fundamental blunders leaving this work with much to be desired.

Check out David Mantik's review here.

While Sherry made some major mistakes in her book, Mantik's review is much worse, IMO. It is redeemed mainly by his listing of typos and repetitions, which could be of help should Sherry do a re-write or a second printing.

I mean, really, to attack her appraisal of the Z-film as being authentic because she failed to accept the possibility government employed "felons" moved the mist from the head shot from one point in the film to another! That's pretty darned silly. He also cites Joe O'Donnell, a man with no proven connection to the case, who was later proven to have had an ongoing obsession with the Kennedys, whereas he told numerous lies about his connections to them, as a witness Sherry should have taken seriously. Ouch. Pretty embarrassing.

And that's not even to mention the three head-shot theory proposed by Mantik. Oh my! He refuses to believe people thinking the limo stopped could be wrong, and to have confused the limo's slowing with a stop, and yet he thinks these same witnesses--who only noted one head shot--were wrong--and that there were in fact three head shots (with two of them impacting on the front half of the head). Yikes!

Mantik attacks the book in part because of the absurd psychobabble attempt to deny the limo stop, and is to be praised for exposing such nonsense. The lack of forward splatter is also noted, and this too fatally calls the extant film into question. Since her work is founded on the integrity of the film, its value is, well, seriously diminished.

??? Sherry says the Z-film proves the shot was taken from the front. So why would they have faked that?

As far as the limo stop, oh my, we've been through this many times before. MANY of the limo-stop witnesses did not describe a limo-stop but a limo slow-down, and MANY other supposed limo-stop witnesses described a stop further back in the motorcade, which nobody disputes.

The film could not be edited in such a way as to remove evidence of shots from the front. But they did their best to hide the Dallas wound, and excising the limo stop removed any incriminating events associated with it, especially forward splatter that must have dominated the film for several frames near the time of the stop. The limo-stop cannot be evaded by psychobabble or any other subterfuge. Testimony to it from people positioned in different parts of the plaza, but especially those nearest the limo, has to prevail.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hey Daniel

I have to agree with you here. And when the limo driver Greer tells Jackie at Parkland, "Oh, Mrs. Kennedy, as soon as I saw it I swerved. If only I'd seen it in time." and this "swerve" is nowhere to be seen on the Z film, we know it disappeared along with the limo stop.

I have lain awake at nights trying to picture what the "it" was that Greer saw, and how swerving could be a way to avoid "it". The only rational explanation I can come up with is a shooter from the front. But where?

[Malcolm Ward]

Hey Daniel

I have to agree with you here. And when the limo driver Greer tells Jackie at Parkland, "Oh, Mrs. Kennedy, as soon as I saw it I swerved. If only I'd seen it in time." and this "swerve" is nowhere to be seen on the Z film, we know it disappeared along with the limo stop.

I have lain awake at nights trying to picture what the "it" was that Greer saw, and how swerving could be a way to avoid "it". The only rational explanation I can come up with is a shooter from the front. But where?

I often wondered if Greer stayed still to save his own skin.Think about it,shots coming into the car,they were not aiming at Greer.The best way to avoid being collateral damage would be to stay still and let them get the man they wanted,JFK.By moving at speed he would be making it harder for them to hit JFK and possibly accidentaly hit him.

I also go along with the possibility for a shot from the front.It would be stupid driving into the line of fire.But by keep looking back,that could be to ascertain if JFK was finished,then the shooting would stop.He only put the peddle to the metal after JFK was brain dead.

Then there was washing the car at Parkland,that could be to get rid of evidence of a frontal shot.Not forgetting Jackie Jumping out the rear of the car onto the Trunk.It would have been a double tragedy that day if Jackie fell off as the Limo jolted forward at speed.That is in my opinion,Why Clint Hill then got on board,he was not bothered about JFK,but I am sure the whole of the last detail would have been fired if Jackie became a unwitting victim.

[David Andrews]

Malcolm, I think in Nix and Zapruder, Clint Hill is already running for the limo before Jackie starts to exit her seat.

[Pamela Brown]

Then there was washing the car at Parkland,that could be to get rid of evidence of a frontal shot.Not forgetting Jackie Jumping out the rear of the car onto the Trunk.It would have been a double tragedy that day if Jackie fell off as the Limo jolted forward at speed.[...]

As I mentioned in Midnight Blue to Black, it is irrelevant whether or not the limo was *washed out* at PH. The limo was only there for about 1/2 hour, during which time the top was put up. Some of the washing undoubtedly had to do with wiping off the areas where the grommets would attach the roof pieces to the frame of the limo. But the fact is, the SS had SS100X in their possession for over twelve hours after the assassination, before they finally turned it over to the FBI for a late forensic exam at 1 a.m. 11.23.63. Were there no buckets of water on the C-130 in which the limo sat for two hours at Love Field waiting to leave for AAFB? Would there not be water and towels at the WHG, where the SS conducted its own *exam* from 9 pm until 1 am? It is my thinking that the SS could have done just about anything they wanted during all that time.

[Thomas Graves]

Hey Daniel

I have to agree with you here. And when the limo driver Greer tells Jackie at Parkland, "Oh, Mrs. Kennedy, as soon as I saw it I swerved. If only I'd seen it in time." and this "swerve" is nowhere to be seen on the Z film, we know it disappeared along with the limo stop.

I have lain awake at nights trying to picture what the "it" was that Greer saw, and how swerving could be a way to avoid "it". The only rational explanation I can come up with is a shooter from the front. But where?

Robert,

Maybe "it" was a bullet hole through the windshield or a shooter somewhere.

Or did Greer make "it" up because he felt like he had to say something to Mrs. Kennedy?

--Tommy

Edited January 15, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Robert Prudhomme]

Well, as Jackie was an occupant of the limo, and might very well recall if the limo swerved or not, he might really be taking a chance by telling her he swerved, if he actually hadn't swerved.

[David Lifton]

Although this book's author gets some things right, she also commits several fundamental blunders leaving this work with much to be desired.

Check out David Mantik's review here.

While Sherry made some major mistakes in her book, Mantik's review is much worse, IMO. It is redeemed mainly by his listing of typos and repetitions, which could be of help should Sherry do a re-write or a second printing.

I mean, really, to attack her appraisal of the Z-film as being authentic because she failed to accept the possibility government employed "felons" moved the mist from the head shot from one point in the film to another! That's pretty darned silly. He also cites Joe O'Donnell, a man with no proven connection to the case, who was later proven to have had an ongoing obsession with the Kennedys, whereas he told numerous lies about his connections to them, as a witness Sherry should have taken seriously. Ouch. Pretty embarrassing.

And that's not even to mention the three head-shot theory proposed by Mantik. Oh my! He refuses to believe people thinking the limo stopped could be wrong, and to have confused the limo's slowing with a stop, and yet he thinks these same witnesses--who only noted one head shot--were wrong--and that there were in fact three head shots (with two of them impacting on the front half of the head). Yikes!

Mantik attacks the book in part because of the absurd psychobabble attempt to deny the limo stop, and is to be praised for exposing such nonsense. The lack of forward splatter is also noted, and this too fatally calls the extant film into question. Since her work is founded on the integrity of the film, its value is, well, seriously diminished.

??? Sherry says the Z-film proves the shot was taken from the front. So why would they have faked that?

As far as the limo stop, oh my, we've been through this many times before. MANY of the limo-stop witnesses did not describe a limo-stop but a limo slow-down, and MANY other supposed limo-stop witnesses described a stop further back in the motorcade, which nobody disputes.

Yes, we've been through this many times before. So let me remind those interested of my own experiences.

I went to Dallas in November, 1971, with the specific purpose in mind of interviewing 5 people who I suspected (or knew, from their previoius statements) might be (or would be) car stop witnesses. They were Bill and Gayle Newman, Mr. Chism, Mary Moorman, and Jack Franzen.

There was then--and is now--no question in my mind that the JFK limo stopped (which means that "the Kennedy assassination" was not a six second event, at all, but two or three times that much, from the standpoing of elapsed time.)

Perhaps the two most dramatic accounts came from Bill and Gayle Newman, and especially Bill Newman.

The car stopped right in front of them--there was NO question about it. (And remember: there was no Internet back then, and the Zapruder film had not been broadcast in the mass media). When I told Bill Newman, after he provided his description (with the car-staop), that the Zapruder film at the National Archives showed no stop, he immediately responded along the lines of "I don't care what the film at the Archives shows. I was there. It stopped" etc.

I realize that people like Pat Speer (and others) are into the business of using statistics, and linguistics, and semantics in an attempt to modify, if not nullify, the reality.

But they are wrong.

I'm well aware that proving that the film was altered--opitically--is different than asserting it stopped, based on eyewitness accounts; so be it.

But I was one of "history's first responders"--if you will. I went to Dallas, with a good friend of mine, and a SONY TC-800 reel-to-reel recorder--- specifically to explore this point, and --with the assistance of Pat Valentino--have placed my audio recordings in the Kennedy collection at the National Archives.

If the car stop witnesses accounts are valid, then the Zapruder film (and other films) have been falsified.

And that leads to an entirely different view of the Kennedy assassination than the one published in the Warren Report.

DSL

1/17/14 - 9:40 PM PST

Los Angeles, California

[Pat Speer]

Although this book's author gets some things right, she also commits several fundamental blunders leaving this work with much to be desired.

Check out David Mantik's review here.

While Sherry made some major mistakes in her book, Mantik's review is much worse, IMO. It is redeemed mainly by his listing of typos and repetitions, which could be of help should Sherry do a re-write or a second printing.

I mean, really, to attack her appraisal of the Z-film as being authentic because she failed to accept the possibility government employed "felons" moved the mist from the head shot from one point in the film to another! That's pretty darned silly. He also cites Joe O'Donnell, a man with no proven connection to the case, who was later proven to have had an ongoing obsession with the Kennedys, whereas he told numerous lies about his connections to them, as a witness Sherry should have taken seriously. Ouch. Pretty embarrassing.

And that's not even to mention the three head-shot theory proposed by Mantik. Oh my! He refuses to believe people thinking the limo stopped could be wrong, and to have confused the limo's slowing with a stop, and yet he thinks these same witnesses--who only noted one head shot--were wrong--and that there were in fact three head shots (with two of them impacting on the front half of the head). Yikes!

Mantik attacks the book in part because of the absurd psychobabble attempt to deny the limo stop, and is to be praised for exposing such nonsense. The lack of forward splatter is also noted, and this too fatally calls the extant film into question. Since her work is founded on the integrity of the film, its value is, well, seriously diminished.

??? Sherry says the Z-film proves the shot was taken from the front. So why would they have faked that?

As far as the limo stop, oh my, we've been through this many times before. MANY of the limo-stop witnesses did not describe a limo-stop but a limo slow-down, and MANY other supposed limo-stop witnesses described a stop further back in the motorcade, which nobody disputes.

Yes, we've been through this many times before. So let me remind those interested of my own experiences.

I went to Dallas in November, 1971, with the specific purpose in mind of interviewing 5 people who I suspected (or knew, from their previoius statements) might be (or would be) car stop witnesses. They were Bill and Gayle Newman, Mr. Chism, Mary Moorman, and Jack Franzen.

There was then--and is now--no question in my mind that the JFK limo stopped (which means that "the Kennedy assassination" was not a six second event, at all, but two or three times that much, from the standpoing of elapsed time.)

Perhaps the two most dramatic accounts came from Bill and Gayle Newman, and especially Bill Newman.

The car stopped right in front of them--there was NO question about it. (And remember: there was no Internet back then, and the Zapruder film had not been broadcast in the mass media). When I told Bill Newman, after he provided his description (with the car-staop), that the Zapruder film at the National Archives showed no stop, he immediately responded along the lines of "I don't care what the film at the Archives shows. I was there. It stopped" etc.

I realize that people like Pat Speer (and others) are into the business of using statistics, and linguistics, and semantics in an attempt to modify, if not nullify, the reality.

But they are wrong.

I'm well aware that proving that the film was altered--opitically--is different than asserting it stopped, based on eyewitness accounts; so be it.

But I was one of "history's first responders"--if you will. I went to Dallas, with a good friend of mine, and a SONY TC-800 reel-to-reel recorder--- specifically to explore this point, and --with the assistance of Pat Valentino--have placed my audio recordings in the Kennedy collection at the National Archives.

If the car stop witnesses accounts are valid, then the Zapruder film (and other films) have been falsified.

And that leads to an entirely different view of the Kennedy assassination than the one published in the Warren Report.

DSL

1/17/14 - 9:40 PM PST

Los Angeles, California

I don't doubt that you are correct on this, David, in that I have no problem believing Bill Newman thought the car stopped, etc. But he most definitely never signed a sworn statement, or gave an interview with a government investigator, in which he swore the limo stopped and said he thought the films are fake.

And that's what one needs to get the limo stop argument beyond the "ain't that interesting" stage. Numerous witnesses, including Clint Hill and Mary Moorman, have viewed the film and either discussed it as if it were authentic or come right out and said it was authentic.

In order to convince an unbiased jury they were incorrect, you'd need some credible witnesses saying they were there and that the film absolutely positively does not show what happened.

Edited January 18, 2014 by Pat Speer

[Robert Prudhomme]

Amen, David.

[Daniel Gallup]

Tell me Pat, because my memory falters here: was Bill Newman ever called by a government panel to give his account of the shooting? Tell me again, Pat, because my memory falters here as well: was Bill Newman asked by a government panel if the limo stopped? From the FBI report on Mary Moorman: "and when she heard the shots, and has the impression that the car either stopped momentarily or hesitated and then drove off in a hurry." 22H838-839 as reported on p. 126 in MIDP. Note also experienced motorcycle officers Bobby Hargis, James Courson, Bobby Joe Dale (whose testimony is particularly striking), Earl Browne, James Chaney, Billy Joe Martin, J. W. Foster all testify to the limo stop. I have to think it matters little if Clint Hill or anyone else thinks the film is authentic. There has to be a great deal of CYA going on -- very strong motives to accept the extant film, as it minimizes the culpability of the Secret Service, to which Clint Hill belonged.

[Pat Speer]

Tell me Pat, because my memory falters here: was Bill Newman ever called by a government panel to give his account of the shooting? Tell me again, Pat, because my memory falters here as well: was Bill Newman asked by a government panel if the limo stopped? From the FBI report on Mary Moorman: "and when she heard the shots, and has the impression that the car either stopped momentarily or hesitated and then drove off in a hurry." 22H838-839 as reported on p. 126 in MIDP. Note also experienced motorcycle officers Bobby Hargis, James Courson, Bobby Joe Dale (whose testimony is particularly striking), Earl Browne, James Chaney, Billy Joe Martin, J. W. Foster all testify to the limo stop. I have to think it matters little if Clint Hill or anyone else thinks the film is authentic. There has to be a great deal of CYA going on -- very strong motives to accept the extant film, as it minimizes the culpability of the Secret Service, to which Clint Hill belonged.

I don't believe a single one of the "witnesses" you've named has ever said they thought the film was fake. Most of the officers, in fact, have at one point or another said they believe the official evidence and think conspiracy theorists are loons. The Newmans and Moorman are non-committal as to the question of conspiracy, but have never once stated that they thought the film was fake.

P.S. Where did Chaney say the limo stopped?

(Taped interview of Chaney with researcher Gil Toft, 1971-1973, as transcribed by Josiah Thompson and posted on the Education Forum, 1-4-12) (When asked if Kennedy's limousine came to a stop during the shooting) "I don’t know whether the lead car ever stopped or not. I know that... I mean Kennedy’s car. The one behind them apparently did because an officer could run from the left hand side in front of me. I know I stopped. Whatever happened there. I know Hargis, one of the officers riding escort on the other side, run across in front of me...Whether or not the lead car stopped... I don’t believe that it did. It slowed down though. What was this agent’s name? Clint Hill?" (Continuing his thought) "Slowed down enough that he did get on that car. Now whether he was on there or not on... Several different times during the procession there he would run up and jump on those little steps and ride there for a couple of seconds and jump off. It all depended on how fast it was going along and where we were at. So whether... I don’t believe that it actually stopped. It could have but I just don’t... The second car... cause I recall it was Officer Hargis jumped off his motor and run across in front of me... I don’t recall myself stopping but as I stopped--to think of it I must have come almost to a stop for Hargis to have got off his motor over on the left-hand side and run between those two cars and run in front of me. Apparently, I did too. I don’t recall stopping but I must have." (When asked if Kennedy's brain matter sprayed everywhere) "Well, it was all over with as soon as you see it. It did splatter everything."

Edited January 19, 2014 by Pat Speer