Dr. John Costella's new article:

What Happened on Elm Street? The Eyewitnesses Speak 116 pg's. w/quotes
& citations in .pdf form

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/arindex.html

G'day Dave,

It's probably best to go straight to the current issue,

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v5n1.html

I'll be going through it in fair detail next Tuesday, December 11 (US time) on Jim Fetzer's radio show on gcnlive.com.

A special treat will be a brand new Smoking Gun of film alteration (no Physics required!) which should leave even you speechless.

John

Dr. Costella:

I do not agree with you on the film alteration, but I must give you great credit for your hard work in organizing the summary of the witness' statements.

Very well done! A sentiment shared by all researchers, I am sure.

Tim,

Thanks mate. I realised when I was doing it (I actually did it early this year) that it would be of potential use to all researchers, not just those of us who believe the photographic evidence to have been adulterated and fabricated.

Actually, I was originally going to include an introduction and an analysis, but what with a new baby and a new job, the whole thing got shelved after I finished compiling the summary itself. I resurrected it for the current issue of Assassination Research, but I didn't attempt to write those other sections (which could probably make the whole thing as large as a small book).

On that, I realise that there are two points I should highlight, which I meant to cover in the sections that were never written.

Firstly, credit for making the material available in a form that I was able to use goes to Stewart Galanor, who created a list of eyewitnesses on the History Matters site, at

http://history-matters.com/analysis/witness/

Secondly, it seems that Galanor constructed the site specifically to answer two questions: how many shots were fired, and which direction they came from. He covered these questions very thoroughly, so I ignored them completely when compiling my summary -- I concentrated on "everything else". (Actually, I was quite relieved to leave these two vital questions alone, because in my opinion they are the two issues that the FBI and the Warren Commission were most interested in moulding to their preconceived beliefs; hence, one wouldn't expect to find reliable evidence for them in the Warren Commission volumes themselves! But, actually, Galanor collated a remarkable amount of evidence that goes against the WC's own story, despite this obvious bias in the data.)

Anyhow, I encourage you to listen in next week, and I'll take you through the analysis that I originally planned to do in writing. I don't know if there will be enough to convince you that something is amiss with the photographic evidence (I don't know how strongly you believe in its authenticity), but in my humble opinion the evidence is now many times more powerful than anything you would have seen before (including The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, I'm sorry to say ... I now consider that only "Part One" of the story ...)

John

Dr Costella, my colleague Mark Howell and I are teaching an adult education course on the assassination next year. We have already utilized your "essay" and we will be providing a link to it for all of our students.

Congratulations on your new baby! Can you tell us how many children you have? I only have one but most here know she is the joy of my life and very intelligent and creative. (At ten she is now going to start her own kid's newspaper!)

"my colleague Mark Howell and I"


1. Since LHO had the surname "Howell" written in his diary! (as well as the name "Purvis")

2. And being myself a descendent of the "Howell" family line!

3. Ask Mark exactly where he fits into the family tree.

John,

I'm interested to know if there are any reasons to question the authenticity
of the following Dealey Plaza photos and films:

The Houston St. segment of the Nix film

The Towner film

Altgens 5 & 6

Willis 4 & 5

Betzner 3


...Thank you.

Thomas, Mark hales from Wales. He has a twin brother who still lives in the UK. Mark is now a US citizen.

Mark runs a blog about the beats and is somewhat of an authority on Jack Kerouac (sp?).

He spent one some with a friend of his traveling around the US and they both successfully convinced many that they were members of the Rolling Stones!

I am sure he will be surprised to know that "HOWELL" was in LHO's address book. I'll have to check his alibi for November 22nd.

G'day Tim,

Glad to know my stuff is of use. When I first did it, I wondered if it would get buried in the material out there on the assassination. But looking through the net in recent days, the message seems to be getting out there. It's quite flabbergasting to look at YouTube and find that more than half of the clips of the Z film are using my frames ...

Feel free to use me as a real-life (remote) resource, if you like.

I have two sons, Matthew, 9, and Jack, 6, from my first marriage, and my baby daughter, Jayde, is 11 months old.

Actually, just on the weekend I was talking to Matty about the JFK assassination, and he asked, "What's that?" I realised that I'd explained it to probably a thousand students in my years as a teacher, but hadn't gotten around to telling my own son. So I gave him the overview, answering as best I could all the usual "why?" and "how?" questions he had.

I felt a little strange sending him to my website to have a look. Actually, it's strange how kids' minds work sometimes. On Friday he was listening to a replay of my radio interview on Jim's radio show last week, and at the end I was describing the new image format, JPEG-Clear, that I released on the 22nd. He listened to the description of the progressive download for a while, then exclaimed to me, "Hey, that sounds just like JPEG-Clear!" I said to him, "Yeah, it is. That's me, remember!" And he got a sort of embarrassed look on his face when he realised. "Oh yeah!"

John

My ten year old daughter has known about my interest in the JFK case for a number of years.

Recently I have trued to expain the importance of the SBT to her.

She finds the SBT to be unbelievable!

Thanks again for all your work on the case, Dr. Costella.

I wouldn't believe anything you trued to explain either, Tim,

BK

BK, it says something about your character that you continuallly desire to belittle me because I disagree with your POV on the case. I think part of it relates to the fact that I have been able to demonstrate errors in your posts, e. g. your demonstrably false claim that it was routine SS protocal to prevent open windows along presidential parade routes. I demonstrated that there were still even open windows when Nixon was president.

Do you even bother to read your posts to correct for your typos, by the way? I assume you meant "tried" not "trued" which I do not think is even a word.

Continuallly? Protocal?

Tim Gratz' post speaks volumes about him and his character.

And how might that be, Michael?

You're a self-professed bright guy. Figure it out yourself.

Here's a clue, Tim...You might check for your OWN spelling errors/typos on posts critical of someone else's spelling errors/typos, lest one come off as a pompous hypocrite.


Is that enough of a clue?

(Pssssst....."continually" is spelled with only TWO "L's", and "protocol" has NO "A's" in it.)

A very good point, Mark. It has happened more than once that when I point out someone's error I discover I have made a similar one myself!

However you should note that in this Forum I am continually subject to ridicule by those who disagree with my POV. It gets rather tiring but that is how intolerant people (who often claim to be champions of tolerance) think.

BK wants to ridicule me because I have on several occasions proven his assertions wrong. E.g. the SS always secured windows on presidential parade rotines, clearly false.

Tim,

My use of ridicule was unintentionally effective, stimulating Tim Gratz to new levels of JFK research, though my assertions regarding Secret Service protocol on open windows along parade route has yet to be shown to be "clearly false."

When JFK asked Ian Fleming how he would deal with Castro, Fleming replied, "ridicule," and proposed infusing Cuba with propaganda and chemical agents would make his beard fall off, and thus suffer the resulting indignity.

Ridicule is a little understood and often effective wrench in the tool box of diplomacy.

And Tim, I would never intentionally ridicule you, in lue of being ridiculed myself.


BK

And I have learnt the hard weight that if I pointed out a misspeling I would no doubt comit a mispeling myself!!

"When JFK asked Ian Fleming how he would deal with Castro, Fleming replied, "ridicule," and proposed infusing Cuba with propaganda and chemical agents would make his beard fall off, and thus suffer the resulting indignity

Ridicule is a little understood and often effective wrench in the tool box of diplomacy"

Castro (see Texan speech database) repetaedly early sixties pre assassination (in latin macho mlieu) ridiculed Kennedy as 'beardless', ie immature.

(To go from there to assassination is a big step.)

Another example of how factual error creeps in to the case.

JFK never spoke to Fleming.

Hi Cliff,

Sorry, I meant to reply to this when I saw it the other day, but got flummoxed when navigating the board, and I only just realised that disjoint subthreads are not shown ... anyway, let me try now.

You probably know that I don't believe the extant Zapruder film or the Elm Street sequence of the Nix or Muchmore films to be genuine. That comes through analysis of the Zapruder film, and the fact that the other two are lock-synched with the Zapruder film. (I'll be talking about the Z and Nix films in particular on Jim Fetzer's gcnlive.com radio show on Tuesday, including the new "smoking gun" of fabrication of these two films in particular.)

You'll understand that I'll discuss this topic from this premise; I understand there are many who believe all the photographic evidence is genuine; but for the sake of argument, I'll take that to be given.

How the other films and photographs fit in is not quite so clear. There were probably photographs that were published quickly (or even not so quickly), that escaped being altered. Let's assume that there were. If you were tasked with ensuring that the photographic evidence showed what you were told it was to be allowed to show, what would these "loose" photographs do to you? Quite simply, they would provide constraints as to what you could do with everything else. Anything that was published in a newspaper was like toothpaste out of a tube: you can't put it back in.

But these "rogue" publications aren't the only constraints on you. LIFE Magazine published "a remarkable and exclusive series of pictures" (31 in all) within days of the assassination. They are black and white and terrible quality. Of course, the story as later told was that these pictures in fact came from a movie film; that this movie film was in fact colour; that this movie was actually very high quality; that it was taken by a Dallas dressmaker; and that LIFE actually bought the film, and was in possession of the high-quality original, at the time they published their terrible black and white, n-th generation copies. I don't believe that LIFE ever uttered the word "Zapruder" in print. Even their Warren Report issue, nearly a year after the assassination, describes it as "an eight-second [sic] strip of 8-mm color movie film taken by a bystander".

No matter; LIFE's complicity in the fabrication is well-understood. The point I was making is that these 31 "remarkable pictures" provided further severe constraints on what the photographic evidence could, from that point in time, say.

Now, if you were in control of the photographic evidence, which photos and films would you allow to be published unmodified; which would you modify; and which would you simply suppress?

Motion picture film provided a very difficult situation. Making two films agree with each other, if one has been altered or fabricated, is extremely difficult work: you need to not only ensure that everything lines up in the three dimensions of Dealey Plaza, at one moment in time (as with a photograph), but you need to have this agreement throughout a finite period of time. It takes a lot of work. You need reconstructions and analysis (ok, plenty of that carried out in Dealey Plaza following the assassination), together with a lot of film fabrication. It's very resource intensive (as of 1963).

The net result is that the most work was done in creating the Zapruder film; only small and blurry snippets of two (or three) other films were created for the crucial time of the shots; and all other films were chopped up into smaller sequences that managed to just miss the time of the shots. Of course, even the Zapruder film was cut down in length, to make its creation more logistically manageable, to less than 27 seconds (just 486 photos to create). The turn of the limo onto Elm Street was eliminated. The swerving of the limo to the left, its stop, and associated pandemonium was also deleted (for other reasons as well, of course).

Once the key frames of the Z film were in place, the other snippets of the Nix and Muchmore films (and, a decade later, the Bronson film) were created to agree with it.

I still haven't answered your question! The Houston Street portion of the Nix film: I don't know. There's something strange going on with Houston Street; there is not, to my knowledge, a single extant photograph or film taken by anyone in the crowds along Houston Street between Main and Elm (all the extant footage is either from the corner of Main and Houston; the south-west corner of Elm and Houston; or the Zapruder pedestal). Why? I don't know. Is what has survived genuine? Possibly. Maybe not. I haven't analysed it in any great detail; there are only so many hours in one lifetime to dedicate to this work.

The Towner film? It's difficult to know. If the limo did almost hit the corner on that wide turn, as testified by Roy Truly, then the Towner film would seem to have it rounding the corner a little too smoothly. But there's little or no corroboration for the Truly account, other than a couple of witnesses describing a "wide turn". (I'm not including the statements from people who have seen "other" films of the assassination, not because I don't take that evidence extremely seriously, but simply because there are other, more direct ways to understand alteration and fabrication than that.) And the Towner film, like so many others, conveniently stops right when things get interesting: we don't see the Stemmons sign, or the Zapruder pedestal; we don't see the shots, of course; in fact, we don't see very much at all.

Altgens 5 and 6? Ah, you've hit the most difficult ones here. (I assume you're talking about his 5th and 6th, which are numbered 6 and 7 in the extant negatives.) If you've read my chapters in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, you'd know about the strong evidence (namely, his own!) that Altgens' 4th and 7th photos were not taken by him. So what about the 5th (the Lovelady in the doorway one) and the 6th (with Clint Hill on the back of the limo)? These ones are difficult. I have two copies of the Melbourne Herald, printed just hours after the assassination (picked up from a newsagent, on the day, by a source I trust implicitly), with Altgens' 6th photo (the Clint Hill one). Admittedly, it's heavily altered: the lamp post has been removed, with its base left behind to be the "President's head"; the background has been eliminated; Clint Hill has been retouched; and the whole print is reversed. But it's still powerful evidence that this photograph moved over the wire quickly.

Is it genuine? Did it escape the FBI dragnet? Quite possibly. If so, it provided an immensely important constraint to those in control of the photographic evidence; and indeed this could explain quite a lot about what does remain in the photographic evidence.

What about Altgens' 5th? This one is so famous that it would be close to sacrilege to doubt its authenticity. ... And now we come to an important question.

Can "most" of a photo be genuine?

This is the question that dogs both Altgens' fifth, and the famous Moorman polaroid. In the case of Altgens, it seems likely that most of the photo is genuine. But what about the view through the windscreen of the limo? (It is a curiosity that, in both his 5th and 6th photos, no faces of people in the presidential limousine are visible. Coincidence? Perhaps.) Here we see Jackie's white-gloved hand holding the President's left wrist, as his left arm is in the "chicken dance" position (flaying elbows). But no eyewitness to the assassination described the "chicken dance" at all, before photos showing same were widely published. So what do we make of this photograph, that shows the "chicken dance" immortalised by what we now know as the Zapruder film?

I'm not sure. Maybe it's genuine. Maybe there was an instant in time when JFK's left arm genuinely was in this position -- even though he never did the "chicken dance". Or maybe that portion of the photograph is not genuine. Note that this photo (his 5th) was not published anywhere near as rapidly as his 6th (the one on the front page of the Melbourne Herald hours after the assassination).

Willis 4 and 5. Another difficult set of questions. It would be nice to see a copy of Willis 5 in which the colours were not absolutely washed out and distorted. But apart from that, there isn't much in Willis 5 that disagrees violently with any other evidence that we have, as far as I know. It may be genuine. It may not. This is one of the fundamental uncertainties that makes this work so hard: there are no irrefutable known reference points at all -- apart from a knowledge of what was mass-published and filed away by millions of ordinary citizens.

Betzner 3. Well, this pretty well agrees with Willis 5, so you'd have to take a guess that its authenticity follows that of the other. Again, I'm not aware of anything in it that disagrees violently with all of the other evidence. So I really don't know.

I guess by this point you might be wondering why I keep going on about "violently disagreeing" with other evidence. Well, if you listen in on Tuesday (actually, I think there will be a follow-up interview on another channel, but I will wait for details on that before advising), then you'll get the idea. There are so many discrepancies between the Zapruder film and, to within its bounds, the Nix film (the Muchmore is much too short ... sort of a joke, wasn't it, that the Muchmore shows close to nix and the Nix shows much more ... I'd almost like to have a beer with those film fabricators, just for their sense of humour, if their work were not used for such evil purpose), and what the hundreds of eyewitnesses to the assassination actually saw, that you have to make a fundamental decision as to whether you are going to believe a couple of films with an absolutely broken chain of custody, or the sworn testimony of dozens or hundreds of generally God-fearing and law-abiding Texans, visitors, and law-enforcement officials.

Does that answer your question? If it was a genuine question in the spirit of enquiry -- such as I used to get from my students, when I was a teacher -- then I suspect my ambiguous answer is more useful than a plain set of "yes"es and "no"s. But (no offence intended, Cliff), I don't know you from bar of soap, and I have been popped so many "Dorothy Dixers" during my investigation of the assassination that, in the wrong audience, my answers would create a veritable holy war, ultimately to be drowned out by so much vitriol that one has to wonder whether it is worth answering the question at all.

John

I will agree... most of the photos and films have been doctored to hide the truth of what happened that day.

BK wrote:

My assertions regarding Secret Service protocol on open windows along parade route has yet to be shown to be "clearly false."

I respectfully differ. If each picture is worth a thousand words, I posted references to pictures worth about ten thousand words which destroyed that shibboleth.

BK is as wrong in asserting that windows were normally secured on presidential motorcades as he was in asserting that JFK spoke to Ian Fleming. JFK did not.

In no way do I accuse BK of making intentionally false statements of fact but I am unaware of any historical record that JFK met with Fleming. And BK also misstated the relationship between Alex Rorke and Sherm Billingsley (he states he got that from an FBI record, which must constitute one of the few FBI records he trusts). So I would only credit a BK statement if he provides a source for it. Again, I do not accuse him of posting intentionally false information but these examples indicate to me his research ought to be verified.

John, thank you for your views on the topic.

My area of research is the Dealey Plaza photo evidence up to Altgens/Z255,
specifically relating to the clothing evidence.

I also find no "violent disagreements" between the Dealey Plaza photos
and the eye-witness accounts as to what occurred up to that point.

There is a conflict between the Zapruder film and the consensus witness
testimony as to the movement of the limo after JFK was first shot.

Bill Miller has a "benign" explanation; Jack White (and yourself and others) have
a "sinister explanation."

I remain agnostic on that point, and remain removed from that particular debate.

Otherwise, I subscribe to Tink Thompson's adage -- "The Dealey Plaza films and
photos are the bedrock evidence in the case."

I know that's a conversation-stopper, John, but you've given me no reason to
doubt the authenticity of the films and photos taken at and before Altgens/Z255.

Cliff...apparently:

1. You are not familiar enough with the photo evidence
2. You have not read John's treatise on witness testimony

Looking for John's SMOKING GUN, I read it three times.
There are numerous smoking guns, but the one he has
discovered would convince any jury that the films are
altered, because a half-dozen highly qualified and
unimpeachable witnesses testify uniformly about an
event WHICH HAPPENED, but clearly DOES NOT APPEAR
in any photos. These witnesses testified separately and
had NO REASON TO FABRICATE THE EVENT; it was really
an insignificant moment in the telling of what happened in
the motorcade, and IF IT HAPPENED as these reliable
witnesses describe IT NECESSARILY MUST APPEAR
IN MANY FILMS AND PHOTOS. The event does NOT appear,
therefore the content of such films is necessarily false.

In the face of indisputable evidence, remaining agnostic
is not an option.

Jack

TRUST BUT VERIFY.

I'M GETTING TIRED OF HAVING TO CORRECT GRATZ'S POSTS. MAYBE IF HE DIDN'T POST SO MUCH HE WOULDN'T BE WRONG SO MUCH.

BK

I'm familiar enough with the evidence I cited.

In fact, the question I put to John was one I put to you, Jack, some time ago.

You expressed the conclusion that any photo showing Zap and Sitz had been
altered. You also expressed doubt about Altgens 5 (the Houston St photo),
since apparently Ike Altgens doesn't remember taking it.

Well, I don't buy the Zap/Sitz Dance, and maybe Ike Altgens simply forgot.

Other than that, you expressed no suspicions concerning the films/photos I cited.

When, in an earlier post, John said he had a more powerful argument for alteration,
I asked him just as I asked you (see above).

Apparently, John's analysis doesn't include arguing for alteration in the films/photos
I cited above.





Apparently, these films to which you refer do not include the Houston St.
segment of the Nix film, or the Towner film.




Okay, I'll ask again: other than the Zap/Sitz Dance and the Houston St. photo
maybe/maybe-not taken by Ike Altgens -- what evidence of alteration do you
find in the following:


1) The Houston St. segment of the Nix film
2) The Towner film
3) Willis 4 & 5
4) Altgens 5 & 6 (Houston St/Elm St.)
5) Betzner 3

And a bonus round!

6) Croft 3



That's what the Sunday school teacher used to tell me.

All the photos and films I cited occurred at and prior to Z255.

What's missing from them, Jack?

I don't want to spoil your fun. Read Costella's list of witnesses.
If you do, you will discover MANY things described by witnesses
which simply are not shown in any films/photos.

However, I will give you just ONE which I found, that John had
not noticed (IT IS NOT HIS SMOKING GUN, WHICH IS EVEN
BETTER). I will wait until later to discuss HIS smoking gun;
you can listen to him and Fetzer discuss it tomorrow night.

Read the testimony of motorcop Cheney, who is seen in Altgens
looking DIRECTLY AT JFK, who has just been hit by the first
shot. He testified HE IMMEDIATELY SPEEDED UP and A MOMENT
AFTER HE SPEEDED UP and AFTER PASSING THE LIMO, he LOOKED
BACK, over his shoulder AND SAW THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD EXPLODE.

In other words, Cheney was in front of the limo at the time
of the head shot. He is very explicit about looking BACK at
the time of the head shot. Please show me films and photos
which show this. Zapruder does not. Nix does not.

So your view is that he is lying or mistaken? Why would he
make this up? Why would he lie? How could he be mistaken?
How could he forget what he saw?

(I think that Cheney was one of the first police witnesses
to die, as I recall.)

There are others. Read for yourself. These are witness
statements, no embellishments. Dispute them, not me.

Jack

Jack, you are describing the actions of Cheney after Z255/Altgens6.

My area of interest is at Z255 and earlier.

If that's Cheney in Altgens6 then he clearly was behind the limo at that point.

If you guys can't impeach the authenticity of the films/photos I cited, you're
throwing the baby out with the bath water, imo.

Why limit the authenticity of photos ONLY to those BEFORE the Altgens
SIX photo? Altgens himself said he did not take Altgens FIVE and EIGHT.
FIVE is on Houston Street. EIGHT is after the event is over. So you are
willing to talk about FIVE, but not EIGHT. Based on Cheney's statement,
ALTGENS SEVEN CANNOT BE GENUINE EITHER, since it does not show
Cheney ahead of the limo, as he testified. CHENEY SAID HE SPEEDED
UP IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE FIRST SHOT (Altgens SIX). Please argue
with Cheney, not me.

Jack

Because that is the crucial sequence which shows:

1) The drop of JFK's jacket on Houston St. and the continued drop
on Elm St. Couple this readily observable phenomenon with the
location of the holes in the clothes and any further discussion of the
"Lone Assassin Theory" is moot.

The holes in the clothes and the Dealey Plaza photo evidence corroborate
the T3 back wound recorded in the death certificate.

We can dispense with discussion about the NAA and other black hole
"debates" about the "question of conspiracy."

2) It shows JFK reacting to a shot to the throat from the front and
becoming paralyzed in less than 3 seconds. This event finds much
corroboration in the witness testimony.




I thought Altgens said he did not remember taking #5. Not the same
as a flat-out denial, eh?

The Houston St. segment of the Nix film appears to agree with Altgens #5 -- I
have no reason to suspect its authenticity.






Correct. Utter waste of time in my opinion.




Since Cheney doesn't say anything that impeaches the authenticity of
Altgens #6, my argument potentially remains with you and other
alterationists, but I'm still waiting for the argument that the photos
I cited are not authentic.

Clarification: the Fox 5 autopsy photo has been proven to be faked, just
as the HSCA suspected.

I resist being put into any one "camp" in the alteration debates, most
of which I've managed to avoid.

Cliff,

I share Jack's frustration that you would want to restrict your attention to the photographic evidence prior to the shots. It's almost like focussing your attention on the Main Street part of the motorcade, or Love Field. I doubt that those have any alterations.

However, that is your choice, and it is an interesting one.

I agree with you that there is far less direct proof (perhaps no direct proof to this point in time) for alteration prior to the shots. (Jack may disagree, in terms of the discrepancies in bystanders on Houston and on Elm that he has documented; I have not spent the time to check his analyses on that.) (I'm also excluding the evidence of the Z film as a whole being faked, such as the incorrect Stemmons sign; the frames in question occur before Z255, but I don't think you're talking about the fixtures in Dealey Plaza, but rather actions before a particular point in time.)

There is much in Z that is circumstantial, such as the non-reactiveness of the bystanders on the north side of Elm; the two bystanders on the south side of Elm (including the man that flops his arms down) that keep looking up to the corner and ignore the presidential limousine completely; and so on.

It's an interesting point. To tell you the truth, there has not been nearly as much work done on the time prior to the shots as during the shots. Which makes sense, when you only have a finite amount of time available ... but it does show that more might need to be done.

John

Cliff,

Me old Harriman sparring partner, might be worth checking the Houston Chronicle interview with Chaney published in the paper's edition of 24 November 1963. According to Mark Lane's testimony to the WC, citing that interview, Chaney said he was 6 feet to the right and front of the President’s car, moving about 15 miles an hour…when the first shot was fired” (2H43).

Anyone got a copy of that Chronicle interview to confirm or refute Lane's version?

And is Chaney really behind the presidential limo at the moment of Altgens #5? Looks very like he's alongside it to me, looking to his left!

He died, incidentally, reportedly of a heart attack, in 1976.

Paul

John,

I think we're both convinced that our respective approaches are the
most effective way to attack the cover-up of John F. Kennedy's murder.

The vast differences (and perhaps even conflicts) in our methodologies
do not deter from our common goal.



Prior to the throat shot and 3.4 seconds after.

From the Adolphus Hotel on Main St. to Altgens #6.

After Z255 -- have at it, my friends, and may the Goddess bless.




That's the start -- just west of the Adolphus.




Music to my ears, John.



Everything we need to know about "how" JFK was murdered can be
found in that sequence. Main St. to the kill zone.

The "how" strongly indicates the "who," from whom we can readily deduce
the "why."




Correct. JFK's actions in the limo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3uH7FHjCeQ

Z225-237.

Nellie was right there and described the hand motions at the throat.




With all due respect -- do you have to?

I'm a big fan of Dealey Plaza witness testimony, John. This is a great work you
have produced.

I'm also a big fan of the photo evidence I have cited, as well as contemporaneous
documents at Parkland and Bethesda, and near-contemporaneous documents such
as the death certificate and the FBI autopsy report (but NOT the final autopsy report,
which was a political document!)

One of the great myths of the JFK assassination is that there was absolutely
NO legitimate official investigation into the crime on 11/22/63.

This is not true.

"Somewhere between 11pm and midnight," the autopsists huddled and
speculated that JFK was struck in the back with a round that dissolved
in his body. The FBI men took this speculation seriously enough that one
of them called the firearms unit at the FBI Lab to inquire as to the existence
of blood soluble rounds -- the Magic Bullet was presented, instead. Because
the FBI guy gave it a corny name -- "ice bullet" -- this scenario is roundly
pooh-poohed.

That's a mistake.

The historical record shows the CIA with such a weapon in '63, the Dealey Plaza
films and photos show JFK turning paralyzed within 3 seconds -- all according to the
CIA playbook -- and the throat x-ray shows an "air pocket" at the very back of the
neck but no exit. Nellie described the motions at the throat and Jackie described
a "quizzical look" and asked: "What are they doing to you?"

They were paralyzing him for the head shot -- obvious to me.

I'm not a Co-Incidence Theorist.

Paul, I hold out the possibility that the first shot Chaney heard was not necessarily
the first shot fired or the first shot to hit JFK.

I see nothing in Altgens #6 (Elm St) in conflict with Chaney's testimony, no matter
how we may characterize his location.

Cliff, you are not paying attention.

I said in Altgens 6, Cheney is in the expected location; I am not disputing that.

In his testimony, he said that immediately after Altgens 6, he accelerated and passed
the limo, and LOOKED BACK and saw the head shot. This is contrary to
Zapruder and Nix. WHY DO YOU DISBELIEVE HIS TESTIMONY? Why do you say
that it is unimportant?

Jack

Great! Then we appear to have little conflict. I have yet to see any argument
that the films and photos I cited are anything but authentic.

I wish you the best in your research, Jack.





Why do you ascribe to me a belief I have never, ever stated?

I have not disputed any part of ANYONE's testimony, and as an avid
defender of the witness testimony and the witnesses, I urge you to
cease characterizing my arguments as such.





I think 95% of what is said and written about the case is utter bollocks.

And that includes 9 years of my own work on the usenet groups.

This is not meant to be taken personally, Jack.

SO...YOU DO BELIEVE CHENEY? Then how can you characterize it as unimportant?
(I assume that is what you mean by UTTER BOLLOCKS)

Jack

You assume correctly.

Allow me to quote a friend of yours. This is an e-mail exchange I had with
Jim Marrs back in 2002.

I wrote (emphasis added):




Jim wrote back (emphasis in bold added):




The physical evidence in the case establishes a 4+ shot certainty.

The fact of conspiracy is thus driven home most efficiently, effectively,
irrefutably.

We go right from there to Bill Kelly's "Way Back Machine" -- the time line
of historical fact.

Everything else is utter bollocks, meaningless controversy. In my opinion,
fwiw...

Perfectly conceivable, agreed.



1) I don't know the full extent of Chaney's testimony, which is why I asked if some better informed soul could reproduce, for all of our benefits, his interview in the Houston Chronicle. It is amazing - to me, at least - that the full texts of Chaney's various radio, TV, and newspaper interviews are not readily available. It is an omission that needs rectifying.

2) That's uncharacteristically lawerly of you: Does Altens #5 concur with Z255? If Chaney is where he appears to be in the former, Z255 is a blatant fake, as are the frames prior to it, which should capture Chaney's movement to the position captured in that frame/Altgens #5.

And if the Altgens photo is genuine, and Chaney's position is alongside the limo, we now have a very good explanation - the best - for the otherwise inexplicable: why the WC failed to call him as a witness. In other words, he had to be omitted to protect the second version of the Z film.

Paul

I have known Jim Marrs for more than thirty-five years, and talk to him
frequently. His email to you was a polite "Texas brush-off"...essentially
agreeing with you THAT ONLY ONE PROOF IS NEEDED to prove the
conspiracy. The single bullet theory is a good one to choose; if you
can prove it, nothing else is necessary. Jim agrees with you on that.
But he does NOT believe that in studying the case. He has studied
EVERY ASPECT OF THE CASE since it happened. HE WILL NOT AGREE
WITH YOU THAT HE COULD HAVE STOPPED WITH THE SINGLE BULLET
THEORY. You present one email from Jim. I present knowing him
nearly forty years.

Jack

Jack, I had taken a similar view as Jim Marrs' on the clothing evidence
at the beginning of my internet research back in 1997.

That was the starting point. It has nothing to do with "stopping
research in the case." It has everything to do with investing one's
time in areas more fruitful than others.

I find the NAA controversy a pernicious waste of time.

The acoustics evidence is a national joke, since the T3 back wound
establishes 4+ shots.

The controversy over the head wounds is probably the biggest black
hole discussion in the entire case.

Jim Garrison set the JFK investigation back several years.

And this is just to name the major areas I regard as a waste of time.

Alteration post-Z255 is a rabbit hole I choose not to go down.

Thanks, Bill, you proved my point. This also demonstrates that you need to read more carefully before you draw sweeping generalizations.

You claimed it was the protocol to check every window on presidential parade routes. My photographs demonstrate that was NOT the case--even after JFK was killed. Did you know that even his brother rode around in open convertibles both when he was campaigning for senator and when he was campaigning for president? I'll post the pictures if you insist.

Look at what Howard said: "every floor and window in a tall building facing the parking lot where the President was to speak on Friday morning was thoroughly checked. [My emphasis.]

That is far different than checking every window on a parade route, isn't it? It may very well be that windows would be checked if JFK was going to speak in an outside venue and would be exposed for at least a somewhat extended period of time. Should someone have thought that an assassin could shoot at a president in a moving vehicle? Well, one would think so, but obviously they did not do so in all the cities I showed, and in Key West, so Dallas was no different. But incredibly even years after Dallas RMN rode through Cairo in a convertible and with windows open.

********************************************************************************


Your source is wrong on Bond, Bill. Don't read Bond books by popular writers--read Kennedy bios by historians. More on that later.

MORE ON THAT NOW, TIM.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Fleming


In March 1960, Fleming met John F. Kennedy through Marion Oates Leiter who was a mutual friend and invited to dinner. Leiter had introduced Kennedy to Fleming's books during his recovery from an operation in 1955. After dinner Fleming related his ideas on discrediting Fidel Castro; these were reported to Central Intelligence Agency chief Allen Welsh Dulles, who gave the ideas serious consideration.^[3]

Chancellor, Henry James Bond the Man and His World (2005)


Marion Oates "Oatsie" Leiter Charles, who was with Fleming when she introduced him to Kennedy, invited JFK to dinner at her Georgetown home, which was recently sold:

Socialite sells in D.C.

Washington hostess Marion Oates “Oatsie” Charles has sold her Georgetown home of more than 50 years for $7 million.

Located on R Street, the 1850s Italianate brick house on 0.8-acre had been listed at $8.3 million. It was decorated with photos of the socialite with several U.S. presidents including John F. Kennedy, says Jamie Peva, of Washington Fine Properties, co-listing broker along with A. Michael Sullivan Jr., of the same firm. In an interview, the 88-year-old Charles, who has hosted Nancy Reagan among others, shrugged off her reputation as a party-giver: “My reputation as a hostess was due to the fact that I did it so seldom.”

Across the lawn from the three-story, five-bedroom house is a guest studio with a kitchen. Charles, whose grandfather was Alabama governor William C. Oates, is a trustee of the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, a roughly $1.8 billion foundation. She now lives in Newport, R.I.

Kimberly Casey and Daryl Judy, both of Tutt, Taylor & Rankin Sotheby’s International Realty, represented the buyer, whose name couldn’t be learned.


"OATSIE" IS QUITE A CHARACTER, NOW LIVING FULL TIME AT NEWPORT AND A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF THE DORIS DUKE FOUNDATION, WHICH DISTRIBUTES THE FORTUNE OF THE LATE (AND POSSIBLY MURDERED) TOBACCO HIERESS TO VARIOUS CHARITIES, INCLUDING JAZZ AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION.

WHILE I HAVE YET TO FIND OUT ANYTHING ABOUT HER PREVIOUS HUSBAND, JOHN LEITER, EXCEPT THAT I THINK HE WAS A TEXAS OIL MAN, OATSIE IS A GRAND DAUGHTER OF CONFEDERATE GENERAL OATES, WHO LOST THE BATTLE OF LITTLE ROUND TOP AT GETTESBURG TO CHAMBERLAINE, AND LATER BECAME GOVERNOR OF ALABAMA.

OATSIE ALSO SERVED IN THE OSS DURING WORLD WAR II.

HERE'S AN ARTICLE ABOUT HER CURRENT NEWPORT LIFESTYLE AND PIX:



http://www.projo.com/specials/newportsummer/chapter2.htm


Marion Oates Charles, at a cocktail party at the home of Ruth Buchanan Wheeler, is an Alabaman by birth and was a long-time confidante of the late Doris Duke.

Bill, my book (and I will check who wrote it) states that Fleming dined with Dulles and (cannot remember) and it was at that dinner that Fleming made his suggestions directly to Dulles re how to deal with Castro. (My book says his real suggestion was to have some patsy linked to Castro assassinate the next President (whomever it might be, blame it on Castro and force an invasion, a plan the CIA employed after the BOP failed--hey I'm kidding!!)

The next morning, then Sen. JFK who was as we all know a James Bond fan found out that Fleming was in town and desperately wanted to meet him but Fleming had already left town.

The man who wrote that book is a much more respected journalist or historian than Henry Chancellor. There is no doubt that Chancellor's version of the story is more interesting, of course.

By the way, I am surpised you failed to mention the name of James Bond's friend in the CIA, Felix Leiter. Since William King Harvey was America's James Bond, can there be any doubt that Fleming modeled Leiter after Harvey? They just got the wrong people to play Leiter in the Bond flicks!

********************************************************************************
********************

Back to the more serious issue of windows & parades later.

Clarification:

Removing Chaney from the Z-film - and its supporting filmlets - is of considerable utility to anyone trying to sell the grassy knoll as a fall-back position: Chaney in his true position, moving beyond the presidential limo as it stopped, interposes himself between limo and knoll. Perhaps the knoll bullet bent round him, giving us a second "magic bullet"?

I cannot even remember how this thread started but we are no longer discussing the DP eyewitnesses.

Instead, we have three different topics under way, and all at the same time:

(1) Whether there was security stripping in Dallas.

(2) Whether the Z film was altered.

(3) Whether JFK ever met Ian Fleming.


We have now a marvelous but messy morass!

There must be some way to keep these threads on topic.