The Law of Unintended Consequences

[Josiah Thompson]

This is a terrific graphic, Pat. I've never seen the point presented before with such clarity. David Wimp and I have been talking about this for some time. The actual motion is even more complicated. Not just down but a kind of corkscrew motion down and counter-clockwise (looking down on JFK's head). Would you agree?

JT

My two cents. The primary motion of the head after the impact at 312.5 was not forward, nor backward, but down. This suggests the bullet impacted towards the top of the head, at the supposed exit, and not low on the head, at the small entrance noted at autopsy.

[Josiah Thompson]

I sure do, Martin. How about you? Do you know of any good counter-arguments to this kind of a scenario? If there are some, I sure would like to know about them. Why? Because if I'm wrong, I'm spending a lot of time chasing windmills.

JT

Martin, He did it right on this forum. Do some search around and you'll find it. Why not simply ask him?

That's a good idea.

After all, asking what he believes is infinitly preferable to either of us putting words in his mouth.

So Tink, if you're reading this, do you still believe there were two shots to the head?

[David Josephs]

Thanks JT...

I did the bottom graphic a while back and to ME it says that the head did not move forward - the ears line up as I used the farthest point to the rear of JFK yet still touching him...

and then he starts his fall backward....

Yet I also believe that multiple shots do hit him at this point, and the back of his head's "blackness" is helped out a little

I messed with this frame a bit... what strikes me is that there is the same darkness caused by the sunlight for the others in the limo

Jackies hair is also in the shadows but does not become what we see on the back of JFK's head...

Now to tackle Jim's post and offered quotes... stay tuned

DJ

[Pat Speer]

This is a terrific graphic, Pat. I've never seen the point presented before with such clarity. David Wimp and I have been talking about this for some time. The actual motion is even more complicated. Not just down but a kind of corkscrew motion down and counter-clockwise (looking down on JFK's head). Would you agree?

JT

My two cents. The primary motion of the head after the impact at 312.5 was not forward, nor backward, but down. This suggests the bullet impacted towards the top of the head, at the supposed exit, and not low on the head, at the small entrance noted at autopsy.

I'd agree. While researching tangential wounds and the possibility the bullet impacted at the supposed exit, I came across the term "slap wound." A slap wound is where the bullet grazes along the surface of the body, and impacts the body (or in this case the skull) with the force of a slap. I also found a reference to "torsion" injuries of the neck found in those receiving a "slap wound" to the skull. A "torsion" injury is one obtained from a sudden twisting. So it all adds up, IMO.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat,

I am going back to see if I can discern what you are talking about, where in the meanwhile you have

created a massive distraction so Tink can evade addressing the issues I have raised. So I have a better

understanding of what you think I am doing wrong, here is one of my posts. Please bold the passages

you regard as offensive--or is pointing out his incoherence forbidden? I find this intervention a bit much.

Jim

Posted Yesterday, 02:58 PM

Why is it so typical of you that, when important issues are at stake, you can focus on the trivial?

Yes, it is "Chaney" and not "Cheney", which is correctly spelled in "New Proof" but misspelled here.

So what? Do you grasp that, in a sly attempt to deflect attention from the importance of what Chaney

did by motoring forward--which is not present in the Zapruder or the Nix--he treats him as a witness?

Do you grasp that, since Chaney's actions in motoring forward are not included in the Zapruder of the

Nix, that the absence of his actions in motoring forward are a powerful proof of Zapruder/Nix fakery?

Do you appreciate that, time after time, Tink has been attempting to subvert powerful evidence of the

existence of conspiracy in the assassination, where this is now his third or fourth OBVIOUS attempt?

(1) He has abandoned his "double-hit" analysis, which was the most important contribution of his book.

Indeed, given that analysis alone, how could he end it by claiming nothing in it proves conspiracy?

(2) He trashed MURDER and praised Aguilar's chapter alone, when Aguilar validates multiple reports of a

massive gaping wound at the back of the head. But that wound is missing from the film, proving fakery.

(3) He endorses Louis Witt as the Umbrella man in Dealey Plaza, implying that his presence there was

innocent. But Witt turns out to be a limo stop witness, which means that he, too, proves film fakery.

(4) Here he treats Chaney (C-H-A-N-E-Y) as a WITNESS, when what matters were his ACTIONS in motoring

forward, where he doing what he can to obfuscate that his ACTIONS are another proof of film fakery.

Do you discern a pattern here? Do you understand what's going on? Time after time, Tink is doing

what he can to trivialize, minimize or even completely deny the existence of proofs of conspiracy.

So you are going to "wait and see"!? That's like a man whose car is stuck on railroad tracks as he

sees the light of an approaching train coming toward him. How much proof you do need of what's next?

Jim

Jim, the forum has had a series of nasty knock 'em down, drag 'em outs lately, with the net result being that, while the moderators themselves prefer that members police themselves, many forum members are hoping for more moderation. I have proposed a compromise, which may or may not have a positive impact. My compromise is that, when MEMBERS note that another member is in violation of Rule iv of the Forum rules, which reads

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

they should bring it to the member in violation's attention, so that he or she can correct their post, without the involvement of a moderator. As a MEMBER, not a moderator, I am alerting you that you are in violation of Rule iv on several of your posts in this thread, and am asking you to correct these posts. (In essence, you can question Thompson's conclusions, but not his motivation. This makes references to his "pulling the wool" over people's eyes, etc. a violation.) As a MEMBER, you are equally free to invoke Rule iv should you note a violation. Please do so. By invoking Rule iv whenever it is violated, we can restore some level of decorum to the forum, and foster more discussion of the evidence, and less of each other.

This, admittedly, is an experiment. I hope all members will start invoking Rule iv when violated, as opposed to responding tit for tat, or waiting for a moderator to jump in.

Thanks, Pat

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat,

Do you understand that, in frame 312, he is moving forward in response to a shot from behind, but in

frames 313 and 314, he is moving back-and-to-the-left, where your horizontal line is deceptive, since

he is tilting backwards and to the left, which means your claim that he is moving downward is rather

misleading. He is moving downward in response to a shot from the right/front. That is no surprise.

Of course, the film has been altered an none of the witnesses reported back-and-to-the-left motion.

You are confounding different dimensions here, forward/backward, left/right, and up/down. Why am I

not surprised when Tink is congratulating you for committing a blunder, but one that shifts the focus?

Jim

This is a terrific graphic, Pat. I've never seen the point presented before with such clarity. David Wimp and I have been talking about this for some time. The actual motion is even more complicated. Not just down but a kind of corkscrew motion down and counter-clockwise (looking down on JFK's head). Would you agree?

JT

My two cents. The primary motion of the head after the impact at 312.5 was not forward, nor backward, but down. This suggests the bullet impacted towards the top of the head, at the supposed exit, and not low on the head, at the small entrance noted at autopsy.

I'd agree. While researching tangential wounds and the possibility the bullet impacted at the supposed exit, I came across the term "slap wound." A slap wound is where the bullet grazes along the surface of the body, and impacts the body (or in this case the skull) with the force of a slap. I also found a reference to "torsion" injuries of the neck found in those receiving a "slap wound" to the skull. A "torsion" injury is one obtained from a sudden twisting. So it all adds up, IMO.

Edited January 6, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat,

Here's another. Just make bold whatever you find offensive. Would that be my observation he has been

playing members of this forum for "saps"? Is the fact that he is doing this something that cannot be said?

Jim

Do you think this excuses you from failing to acknowledge that something very strange is going on here?

(1) Why is Josiah wondering if Officer Chaney was hit with blood and brains? He was to the right/rear.

(2) The bullet entering JFK's right temple blew his brains out to the left/rear, hitting Officer Bobby Hargis.

(3) Tink is treating Officer Chaney as if he were a WITNESS and as if that is what is important about him.

(4) What matters are the ACTIONS THAT CHANEY TOOK, WHICH ARE NOT FOUND IN THE FILMS.

Tell me what "value" do you find in Chaney's saying he is uncertain but doesn't think the limo stopped?

Do you understand that Chaney's ACTIONS by themselves are proof of film fakery? Do you agree to that?

So what do you think Tink is about here, Don Jeffries? My opinion is that he has played you both for saps.

[Chris Davidson]

Frames 312-314 layered.

If you have a movie player which will advance individual frames (backward/forward), I suggest viewing it that way also.

http://24.152.179.96:8400/D9688/HeadShot1.gif

chris

P.S.

How does a skull fragment end up past Jackie, against the side of the car, unless the bullet trajectory is coming from a 6th floor southwest window?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat,

Here's another, which is right at the core of the matter. Everything I report here is factual, including that

he went on a rant attacking pathbreaking research in this book as ASSASSINATED SCIENCE. Nothing I

say here is not an obvious consequence of the evidence. So please put in bold where I have gone wrong.

Jim

Jim,

You must have posted this on another thread, because I am looking for the response I put up and cannot

find it here. There are so many proofs that have made it "over for the other side" that I am profoundly

troubled that you are still holding out for something from an inconsistent and unreliable source like Tink.

All that is necessary to know that "it's over" for the other side is to locate the wound to JFK's back, which

was about 5.5" below the collar and to the right of the spinal column, which, as I explain in "Reasoning

about Assassinations", presented at Cambridge and published in an international peer-reviewed journal.

It was "over" for the other side when David Mantik determined that the blow-out to the back of the skull

had been "patched" by using some material that was far too dense to be human bone, where the outline of

the patched area "P" closely corresponds to the wound as described my dozens and dozens of witnesses.

And it was "over" when I discovered that you can actually see the blow out in a later frame of Zapruder,

374, which those who were editing and revising it apparently overlooked in their efforts to conceal the

true causes of his death from the American people, which BY ITSELF refutes authenticity of the film:

Since Mantik's discovery was published in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998) and blew the cover-up out of

the water, what was Tink's response? He referred to the book as "ASSASSINATED SCIENCE", even though

it was presenting the most important developments in the history of the study of the JFK medical evidence.

And what is there not to understand about the blow-out WHEN YOU CAN SEE IT IN FRAME 374? Don't

you understand that this frame, BY ITSELF, proves that the film is a fabrication? How you can continue

to have any lingering faith in Tink Thompson is simply beyond me. You need to give this more thought.

Jim

[Josiah Thompson]

You cite the point that is made and then, obstinately, pay no attention to it.

Your first witness, Chaney, explained in the phone interview that although he did not recall stopping he must have stopped. Why? Because he now recalls being almost stopped when he watched Officer Hargis park his cycle near the south curb of Elm Street and run across the street in front of him. Chaney could have backed your theory but he didn't? Scratch Chaney from your witness list.

Chief Curry has said that the rendezvous with Chaney occurred west of the underpass on the on-ramp to the Stemmons Freeway. Such a meeting is consistent with all the film and photo evidence which shows Chaney lagging seveal hundred feet behind the limousine as it blasts by the lead car under the underpass. What Curry says is most likely what happened and is corroborrated by the quotes you give from Sorrels and Lawson. Scratch Curry, Sorrels and Lawson from your witness list. Your are left with Officer Hargis who said, "He [Chaney] immediately went forward and announced to the Chief that the President had been shot.” Hargis is right. Chaney did go "forward and announced to the Chief that the President had been shot." He just didn't do it "immediately."

Why not surprise everyone, Professor? Instead of launching another diatribe, why not try actually dealing with the evidence as it's presented to you? Who knows you might learn to actually like reasonable debate and discussion.

JT

This guy has a lot of nerve, I have to grant him that. He pulls the wool over this forum again and again. His job is to revise history and to distort evidence. How could Chaney have only motored forward at the entrance to the Stemmons Freeway? Egad! Chief Curry gave the order to move to the hospital at the Triple Underpass AFTER Chaney had told him the president had been shot! The evidence that John discovered and that I have quoted here makes Thompson's interpretation preposterous:

* 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.’”

Moreover, he deliberately commits the methodological blunder--actually, it is the mechanism he employs to discount or suppress the evidence here--by implying that Chaney's recent response when shown the extant Zapruder film--which had to have come as a shock, since it must have been highly discrepant with his memories--has MORE PROBATIVE FORCE than the earlier and contemporaneous reports of Chief Curry, Bobby Hargis, Winston Lawson, Forrest Sorrels AND JAMES CHANEY.

Let me suggest that, having seen a film that was discrepant with his own personal experience, the enormity of the deception that has been perpetrated by the government--with a little help from its friends--would have stunned and overwhelmed him. Under those conditions, it would hardly be surprising that what he would say in that state of semi-shock would be vague and ambiguous. The very idea that he should have said, "That film is fake!", as Tink suggests, is simply absurd.

Once the limo had taken off, it left Chief Curry and the rest of the motorcade far behind, as we know from the photo showing bystanders waving at the Lincoln while Curry's car is still under the Triple Underpass. I have asked John to take a look at this thread to see if I have anything wrong, but this guy (Thompson) is pulling one of his patented intellectual stunts by attempting to discredit evidence that the film, which he repeatedly cites as "bedrock evidence", has been faked.

Professor Fetzer conveniently fails to mention two important facts that came to light when this issue was discussed three years ago on this Forum as “New Proof of JFK Film Fakery” (February 10, 2008). That’s where Fetzer used the quotes from Chaney, Hargis, Lawson, Sorrels and Chief Jesse Curry that he repeats now.

The first was the discussion of the Mel McIntire still photo that shows the lead car pulled far to the left under the Triple Underpass as the limousine passes it. Officer Chaney can be seen several hundred feet back as this happens.

The second is the report that Chief Curry later explained that Chaney rode up and told him what happened but this occurred “shortly before they drove onto Stemmons.” This location is west of the underpass on the entrance ramp to the Stemmons Freeway. Hence, it seems very likely that Chaney did just as he reported. He almost stopped in his tracks and watched Hargis run across Elm Street in front of him. Then, he trailed the limousine and finally caught up with Chief Curry in the lead car west of the Triple Underpass and told Curry what had happened. This is perfectly consistent with what we see in the Zapruder, Nix, Bell, and Daniels film and the Altgens 6 and Mel McIntire still photos. It is also completely consistent with what Winston Lawson, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Jesse Curry said happened.

This means that all witnesses except Bobby Hargis are scratched from the list of witnesses backing Professor Fetzer’s claim. And Hargis? He was right when he said Chaney “went forward and announced to the Chief that the President had been shot.” It just didn’t happen “immediately.”

JT

Once again you miss the point entirely. Gil Toft and friends apparently sent copies of the Zapruder film and Altgens photo to numerous motorcyclists. Apparently, they were hoping the officers would look at the film and say: "That wasn't the way it happened. I was there and I know what happened. The Zapruder film has been doctored." If Chaney had ridden ahead in front of the limousine to deliver his message to Chief Curry, he could have told Toft just that. He could have said: "This film is fake. I took off like a bare-assed ape after the lead car and ran right by the limousine and nothing like this shows in the Zapruder film." This would have made Toft's and your day. But Chaney didn't do that. On the contrary, he remembered coming almost to a stop and watching Hargis run across the street in front of him. So now you don't believe what Chaney says. Priceless!!

By the way, in Murder from Within Newcomb and Adams back another wacky idea you were enthusiastic about in the 90s... the notion that Bill Greer turned around and shot Kennedy in the head with a chrome handgun!

JT

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.

So what is there here that you do not understand? And simply because I once asked you about Greer--because a friend had shown me a photo with Kellerman sticking his finger into his left ear--you have been making the false claim that I ENDORSED the idea that Greer shot JFK, which I have addressed from time to time and have refuted many times.

In a 4.5 hour documentary, "JFK: The Assassination, the Cover-Up, and Beyond", which I produced in 1994, I explain the evidence on both sides, because it exists and deserves discussion. When logic and evidence are not on your side, alas, you resort to prevarication and fabrication, for which you shall be long remembered. That will be your enduring legacy.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This is very strange, Chris. Have you never reviewed John Costella's study of the film, where one of the proofs

he adduces that the film is a fabrication is the rapid disappearance of the blood spray? I think you should take

a look. It can be found here: http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/ I am astonished at how much readily available

information about the film and proofs of its fabrication seems to become so effortlessly lost in these "debates".

Frames 312-314 layered.

If you have a movie player which will advance individual frames (backward/forward), I suggest viewing it that way also.

http://24.152.179.96:8400/D9688/HeadShot1.gif

chris

P.S.

How does a skull fragment end up past Jackie, against the side of the car, unless the bullet trajectory is coming from a 6th floor southwest window?

[David Josephs]

At 39 seconds in, Chaney says, "2nd shot came and I looked back just in time to see the president STRUCK IN THE FACE by the second bullet"

No wonder they didn't call Ofc Chaney, huh?

* 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.”

Chaney does indeed say this.... yet don't they have radios for those types of communications? This seems eerily similiar to the discrepancies between Baker's affidavit and testimony...

what started as a man on the stairs becomes Oswald in the lunchroom... just sayin.

Chaney would have had to get to the lead car by the time it reaches the overpass.... and I don't believe the LEAD CAR STOPPED - or did it?

Dispatcher 12:30 p.m. KKB 364.

1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Go to the hospital - Parkland Hospital. Have them stand by.

1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there.

1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Have Parkland stand by.

Dallas 1 (Sheriff J.E. "Bill" Decker) I am sure it's going to take some time to get your man in there. Pull every one of my men in there.

Dispatcher Dallas 1, repeat, I didn't get all of it. I didn't quite understand all of it.

Dallas 1 (Sheriff J.E. "Bill" Decker) Have my office move all available men out of my office into the railroad yard to try to determine what happened in there and hold everything secure until Homicide and other investigators should get there.

* 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.”

Well, that's not what NIX shows.... see below... Chaney basically stops... as he says later... "I MUST have stopped"

Mr. BALL. At that time were you with Mr. Hargis?

Mr. MARTIN. No, sir; I don't believe that he went to the hospital with us. I believe he stopped there at the scene of the shooting.

Not Funny that Martin - who went along with the motorcade to Parkland, did not see the CHANEY episode...

Bill Decker says nothing about it either...

* 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.”

Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service agent, in the lead car in front of the Presidential

limousine), November 28, 1963: “I noted that the President’s car

had axcelerated [sic] its speed and was closing fast the gap between us. A

motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled ‘Is anybody

hurt?’, to which the officer replied in the affirmative, and Chief

Curry immediately broadcast to surround the building. By that time we

had gotten just about under the underpass when the President’s car

pulled up alongside, and at that time Chief Curry’s car had started to

pick up speed, and someone yelled to get to the nearest hospital, and

Chief Curry broadcast for the hospital to be ready.” [statement: 21H548]

Jim...

Curry did NOT say anything about "surrounding the building" - here are all Curry's transmissions and their times...

Why would Sorrels make that up ? When he was right there when he directs them to the RR yard?

12:28 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Big crowd, yes.

12:28 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Just crossing Market Street.

12:28 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Approaching Triple Underpass.

12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Go to the hospital - Parkland Hospital. Have them stand by.

12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there.

12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Have Parkland stand by.

12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Looks like the President has been hit. Have Parkland stand by.

12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Headed to Parkland. Something's wrong with Channel 1.

12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Just go on to Parkland Hospital [with me].

12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Get these trucks out of the way. Hold everything. Get out of the way.

12:34 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Keep everything out of this emergency entrance.

12:51 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) It's very doubtful.

12:51 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Not at this time that I know of. I don't know but I feel reasonably sure that he will not.

1:34 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) With as little attention as possible, get up and break traffic ahead of the cars.

1:37 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Yes, but don't put it on the air. (1:37 p.m.)

1:37 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Don't let anyone follow us into the field.

1:37 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) 10-4.

1:51 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) What are the circumstances of J.D. Tippit?

1:51 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Did they get the suspects?

1:51 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) 10-4.

1:52 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) 10-4.

* 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.’”

The McIntyre crop is maybe 2 seconds later... that must be MARTIN at the back right... and maybe Chaney at the back left?

Now someone not mentioned is Baker... and his account adds even more to the notion that CHANEY did go to the lead car... BUT WHEN THE ENTIRE MOTORCADE HAD STOPPED...

AS I keep investingating this there is obviously something amiss with the film around the headshot... with the STOPPING added to the CHANEY accounts... there is something strange here,

yet with Nix and McIntyre, and now these revelations about Chaney being mistaken... (you know Jim, like Hill was mistaken about the automatic rounds at the Tippit scene )

This requires more work... imo.

Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two shots hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor.

Mr. BELIN - Where was he?

Mr. BAKER - He was on the right rear of the car or to the side, and then at that time the chief of police, he didn't know anything about this, and he moved up and told him, and then that was during the time that the Secret Service men were trying to get in the car, and at the time, after the shooting, from the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped.

Mr. BELIN - The President's car?

Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. Now, I have heard several of them say that, Mr. Truly was standing out there, he said it stopped. Several officers said it stopped completely.

Mr. DULLES - You saw it stop, did you?

Mr. BAKER - No, sir; I didn't see it stop.

Mr. DULLES - You just heard from others that it had stopped?

Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; that it had completely stopped, and then for a moment there, and then they rushed on out to Parkland.

[Josiah Thompson]

Yes, I noticed the same thing, David. Last June I spent two afternoons studying the MPI 4" by 5" transparencies at the 6th Floor Museum. They are glorious. Looking at Z317, it struck me that the shadow on the back of JFK's head is exactly like the shadows that appear at other places in the frame. This is what you noticed and it is even clearer in the MPI transparencies.

What ever happened to the much-vaunted "Hollywood Seven." We don't even know who they are supposed to be and all we've heard from them is a deafening silence? And for how many years has their silence been deafening?

Thanks JT...

I did the bottom graphic a while back and to ME it says that the head did not move forward - the ears line up as I used the farthest point to the rear of JFK yet still touching him...

and then he starts his fall backward....

Yet I also believe that multiple shots do hit him at this point, and the back of his head's "blackness" is helped out a little

I messed with this frame a bit... what strikes me is that there is the same darkness caused by the sunlight for the others in the limo

Jackies hair is also in the shadows but does not become what we see on the back of JFK's head...

Now to tackle Jim's post and offered quotes... stay tuned

DJ

[David Josephs]

Yes, I noticed the same thing, David. Last June I spent two afternoons studying the MPI 4" by 5" transparencies at the 6th Floor Museum. They are glorious. Looking at Z317, it struck me that the shadow on the back of JFK's head is exactly like the shadows that appear at other places in the frame. This is what you noticed and it is even clearer in the MPI transparencies.

What ever happened to the much-vaunted "Hollywood Seven." We don't even know who they are supposed to be and all we've heard from them is a deafening silence? And for how many years has their silence been deafening?

Not sure if I understand the post... "like the shadows that appear at other places in the frame" suggests that you think the BOH shadow is consistent with the others.

What I noticed was the shadow at the back of JFK's head do not change as other similiar shadows do and in fact looks to ME like it floats over the head...

I happen to do a z317 analysis just to see how these shadows behaved... as well as a gif at high contrast to see how that area changes... that area stays VERY dark comparitively...

yet I of course view it with suspicious eyes...

and I agree with you again JT... been hearing about these glorious 35mm Hollywood frames that make it obvious... maybe saving it for the 50th?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Then why don't you explain away the inconsistencies in your position. We both know that you disavowed

the "double-hit" theory found in your book--and you did that on this forum. So I am a bit puzzled why

you are now claiming that you actually support it, where I suspect that you are trading on an ambiguity

(because, while you HAVE disavowed it, you can still find some wiggle room to claim more than one shot

to the head). I am certain I am not the only one who would like to have your answers to these questions.

Here they are, in case you have lost track of them, where I have added a couple of graphics to them:

(1) If you are now reaffirming the "double-hit" analysis, which was the most important contribution of

your book and PROVES conspiracy, how could you end it by claiming nothing in it proves conspiracy?

(2) You trashed MURDER apart from Aguilar's chapter, yet Aguilar validates multiple reports of a massive

gaping wound at the back of the head. But, apart from frame 374, that wound is missing, proving fakery.

(3) You endorse Louis Witt as the Umbrella man in Dealey Plaza and imply that his presence there was

innocent. But Witt turns out to be a limo stop witness, which means that he, too, proves film fakery.

(4) You are treating Chaney as a WITNESS, when what matters were his ACTIONS in motoring forward,

where Curry, Sorrels, Hargis, Lawson--and CHANEY HIMSELF--support his having motored forward.

Some of us discern a pattern here, Tink, so we would welcome any light you can shed on your having

taken positions that are not only inconsistent but appear to obfuscate the evidence. Please explain.

You cite the point that is made and then, obstinately, pay no attention to it.

Your first witness, Chaney, explained in the phone interview that although he did not recall stopping he must have stopped. Why? Because he now recalls being almost stopped when he watched Officer Hargis park his cycle near the south curb of Elm Street and run across the street in front of him. Chaney could have backed your theory but he didn't? Scratch Chaney from your witness list.

Chief Curry has said that the rendezvous with Chaney occurred west of the underpass on the on-ramp to the Stemmons Freeway. Such a meeting is consistent with all the film and photo evidence which shows Chaney lagging seveal hundred feet behind the limousine as it blasts by the lead car under the underpass. What Curry says is most likely what happened and is corroborrated by the quotes you give from Sorrels and Lawson. Scratch Curry, Sorrels and Lawson from your witness list. Your are left with Officer Hargis who said, "He [Chaney] immediately went forward and announced to the Chief that the President had been shot.” Hargis is right. Chaney did go "forward and announced to the Chief that the President had been shot." He just didn't do it "immediately."

Why not surprise everyone, Professor? Instead of launching another diatribe, why not try actually dealing with the evidence as it's presented to you? Who knows you might learn to actually like reasonable debate and discussion.

JT

This guy has a lot of nerve, I have to grant him that. He pulls the wool over this forum again and again. His job is to revise history and to distort evidence. How could Chaney have only motored forward at the entrance to the Stemmons Freeway? Egad! Chief Curry gave the order to move to the hospital at the Triple Underpass AFTER Chaney had told him the president had been shot! The evidence that John discovered and that I have quoted here makes Thompson's interpretation preposterous:

* 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.’”

Moreover, he deliberately commits the methodological blunder--actually, it is the mechanism he employs to discount or suppress the evidence here--by implying that Chaney's recent response when shown the extant Zapruder film--which had to have come as a shock, since it must have been highly discrepant with his memories--has MORE PROBATIVE FORCE than the earlier and contemporaneous reports of Chief Curry, Bobby Hargis, Winston Lawson, Forrest Sorrels AND JAMES CHANEY.

Let me suggest that, having seen a film that was discrepant with his own personal experience, the enormity of the deception that has been perpetrated by the government--with a little help from its friends--would have stunned and overwhelmed him. Under those conditions, it would hardly be surprising that what he would say in that state of semi-shock would be vague and ambiguous. The very idea that he should have said, "That film is fake!", as Tink suggests, is simply absurd.

Once the limo had taken off, it left Chief Curry and the rest of the motorcade far behind, as we know from the photo showing bystanders waving at the Lincoln while Curry's car is still under the Triple Underpass. I have asked John to take a look at this thread to see if I have anything wrong, but this guy (Thompson) is pulling one of his patented intellectual stunts by attempting to discredit evidence that the film, which he repeatedly cites as "bedrock evidence", has been faked.

Professor Fetzer conveniently fails to mention two important facts that came to light when this issue was discussed three years ago on this Forum as “New Proof of JFK Film Fakery” (February 10, 2008). That’s where Fetzer used the quotes from Chaney, Hargis, Lawson, Sorrels and Chief Jesse Curry that he repeats now.

The first was the discussion of the Mel McIntire still photo that shows the lead car pulled far to the left under the Triple Underpass as the limousine passes it. Officer Chaney can be seen several hundred feet back as this happens.

The second is the report that Chief Curry later explained that Chaney rode up and told him what happened but this occurred “shortly before they drove onto Stemmons.” This location is west of the underpass on the entrance ramp to the Stemmons Freeway. Hence, it seems very likely that Chaney did just as he reported. He almost stopped in his tracks and watched Hargis run across Elm Street in front of him. Then, he trailed the limousine and finally caught up with Chief Curry in the lead car west of the Triple Underpass and told Curry what had happened. This is perfectly consistent with what we see in the Zapruder, Nix, Bell, and Daniels film and the Altgens 6 and Mel McIntire still photos. It is also completely consistent with what Winston Lawson, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Jesse Curry said happened.

This means that all witnesses except Bobby Hargis are scratched from the list of witnesses backing Professor Fetzer’s claim. And Hargis? He was right when he said Chaney “went forward and announced to the Chief that the President had been shot.” It just didn’t happen “immediately.”

JT

Edited January 6, 2012 by James H. Fetzer