Another proof the Zapruder film has been faked

[Calli Robertson]

The succinctness and precision with which you sink this claim is just a breath of fresh air in a cloud of language. And you were modest and right to also praise Robin with "Robin, your clips and pics say it all." Is there really anything left to talk about with respect to this claim? It looks to me to be as dead as "Moorman-in-the-Street." Nice going!

JT

Yes, Robin is a treasure. Thanks also for your kind words, I agree, there is nothing left to talk about.

The 'Chaney' issue is done. Beaten from the start.

Best of health to you, Josiah.

Calli.

P.S. There are two requirements to be a smart ass, I see a few folk here that have the second part down pat.

[Robin Unger]

Thanks Calli

MPI Stabilized GIF ( Z-312 - Z-330 ) Zoomed Frames

[Robin Unger]

Quote:

The MPI version of the film has reversed the order of frames 331 and 332; does not include what ought to be frames 341, 350, and 486; does not include frames 155 and 156; and does not include frames 208, 209, 210, and 211

does not include frames 155 and 156; and does not include frames 208, 209, 210, and 211 (Yes, i agree)

the film has reversed the order of frames 331 and 332 (Yes, i agree)

does not include what ought to be frames 341, 350 ( Not sure what you mean here Jim ) I have frames 341 and 350

are you saying there are missing frames, and that these frames have been incorrectly numbered. ?

Small MPI GIF with ( Frames 331 & 332 reversed )

Edited January 28, 2012 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Missimg Frames ( Costella Version )

Z-155

Z-156

[Robin Unger]

Z-208

Z-209

[Robin Unger]

Z-210

Z-211

[David G. Healy]

The succinctness and precision with which you sink this claim is just a breath of fresh air in a cloud of language. And you were modest and right to also praise Robin with "Robin, your clips and pics say it all." Is there really anything left to talk about with respect to this claim? It looks to me to be as dead as "Moorman-in-the-Street." Nice going!

JT

Yes, Robin is a treasure. Thanks also for your kind words, I agree, there is nothing left to talk about.

The 'Chaney' issue is done. Beaten from the start.

Best of health to you, Josiah.

Calli.

P.S. There are two requirements to be a smart ass, I see a few folk here that have the second part down pat.

oh-my goodness, ya got something to sell son, just sell it! Don't be offended cause some don't buy what you're peddling....

A "few" facts, there's plenty of websites providing JFK assassination image related imagery, hundreds, thousands even .gif animations, thousands upon thousands, (perhaps a hundred thousand) of assassination (of dubious quality and lineage) images posted, reviewed and opined upon. Unfortunately, most of it, if not ALL of it: a complete waste of time. Why? Ya see dude, these photo-film website "treasures", although put together by thoughtful folks, are a waste of time, not to mention bandwidth when it comes to documenting the actual-provable-legitimate assassination photographic record. They opine, undocumented, unprovable opinion, simple as that!

Now, a case in point, a recent thread concerning a documented, 3rd generation, 35mm blowup of the 8mm Zapruder film, bought and paid for, delivered by NARA to a "professional" Hollywood based group with, and get this, son: a provable and documented lineage DIRECT off of the alleged in-camera original Zapruder 8mm film stored at the National Archives. Now that is something you can sink your research teeth and skills into, yes?

There's all sorts of flash-in-the-pan, DP film-photo commentators around, especially when it's desirous to support the current, 6th floor museum film-photo record... and, I'll add, nor is it the 6th Floor's responsibility to attest to and/or prove the validity of the images in their charge -- not their job...

So my friend.... shell out a grand, get yourself that 3rd generation, 35mm Z-film, get someone competent to analyze the frames, do the work, post your results with affidavits -- no sense whining over spilled milk.

p.s. I suspect Craig found a copy, he's been quiet lately..... brightness-contrast and gamma settings laddie! Dr. Thompson stands on his own... Hi Gary

Edited January 28, 2012 by David G. Healy

[Craig Lamson]

p.s. I suspect Craig found a copy, he's been quiet lately..... brightness-contrast and gamma settings laddie! Dr. Thompson stands on his own... Hi Gary

I can only hope this is your warped idea of a joke.

MONITOR SETTINGS? How utterly lame Dave. If you think this is going to hinge on the condition of a DISPLAY and what someone THINKS they see, well you are more unaware that I even thought possible. Time to step up to the real world Dave....

Grab your spectrophotometer...not that it means anything in this instance...

[David G. Healy]

p.s. I suspect Craig found a copy, he's been quiet lately..... brightness-contrast and gamma settings laddie! Dr. Thompson stands on his own... Hi Gary

I can only hope this is your warped idea of a joke.

MONITOR SETTINGS? How utterly lame Dave. If you think this is going to hinge on the condition of a DISPLAY and what someone THINKS they see, well you are more unaware that I even thought possible. Time to step up to the real world Dave....

Grab your spectrophotometer...not that it means anything in this instance...

Have you, Craig Lamson ever been in a DaVinci film/video post-production, professional colorist suite? I suspect not. In the meantime, perhaps you can roll-out another grip truck equipment diversion list for us .

Funny how Rollie Zavada kept bringing up the term film gamma properties.... hmm -- yep time for you folks to JOIN the real world, accept reality.

Get your Z-film 8mm-35mm 3rd generation blowup, only a $grand$, be the first in that lone nutter support group to own a copy!

[Craig Lamson]

p.s. I suspect Craig found a copy, he's been quiet lately..... brightness-contrast and gamma settings laddie! Dr. Thompson stands on his own... Hi Gary

I can only hope this is your warped idea of a joke.

MONITOR SETTINGS? How utterly lame Dave. If you think this is going to hinge on the condition of a DISPLAY and what someone THINKS they see, well you are more unaware that I even thought possible. Time to step up to the real world Dave....

Grab your spectrophotometer...not that it means anything in this instance...

Have you, Craig Lamson ever been in a DaVinci film/video post-production, professional colorist suite? I suspect not. In the meantime, perhaps you can roll-out another grip truck equipment diversion list for us .

Funny how Rollie Zavada kept bringing up the term film gamma properties.... hmm -- yep time for you folks to JOIN the real world, accept reality.

Get your Z-film 8mm-35mm 3rd generation blowup, only a $grand$, be the first in that lone nutter support group to own a copy!

Davinci? No. Seems a bit passe Dave, what with Autodesk and Quntel, not to mention Nuke...heck even FCP. See name dropping is really easy Dave. Getting interesting for these guys with Mega Dollar suites these days....

But all of that matters WHY? Please inform us WHY the measurable properties of a STILL image is somehow coupled to a specific tool for motion color grading Dave? Oh yea, ITS NOT. It's just DAVE lost in word games...again.

Film gamma dave? You mean like the problems of taking a PROJECTION ORIGINAL of something as contrasty as KODACHROME, and trying to make a quality THIRD GENERATION negative that somehow mimics the original? Well yea Dave, there is that pesky problem of each films characteristic curve..like I just outlined. And cumulative GAMMA. All of which are MONITOR condition independent. And of course the digital encoding and decoding of gamma can do NOTHING to change the actual values the it was possible for the film chain to record. In this case the amount of shadow detail retained from : Kodachrome projection original>Color Interneg (once again projection passing thru two lens systems)>a Projection Print>and finally yet another Color Internegative.

Davinci is somehow going to restore shadow detail information LOST in the film chain? Not a chance. Interpolate NEW data? You tell us.

No, despite the quality of the people and equipment, these guys are STUCK with a major problem...proving something from this mess. Something that hinges on the gradients in shadow detail at the very TOE of the camera original film.

And of course that's why we get "I see it, just believe me" two years later.

And why oh why would I want to go out and get a THIRD generation Dave? THIRD? ROFLMAO!

Edited January 29, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Daniel,

Excellent addition--and Bernice has posted some fantastic stuff! If anyone would like to discuss any of this with James Norwood,

who taught a course on the assassination at the University of Minnesota, where he was on the faculty for nearly 30 years, here is

his email address: <deleted by moderator> He is a wonderful guy and a great resource. I am going to recommend to John Simkin

that he be admitted as a member. I believe he would have other exceptional contributions to make to this forum. Many thanks!

Jim

James Norwood has asked that I post this here, since he has been unable to obtain membership due to the backlog, which I am please to do. His crucial point is that Abraham Zapruder himself was the first to detect the fact that his film was a fake.

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

Vital testimony included in the Warren Commission exhibits has been ignored by students of the assassination. A close reading of the words of Abraham Zapruder in Volume 7 reveals that he had serious doubts about the authenticity of his own home movie during the testimony given on July 22, 1964.

When Zapruder was asked by Wesley Liebeler to identify still images from his own film, the Dallas dress manufacturer was clearly unable to recognize the photos. The individual numbers refer to the various frames of the Zapruder film. Here is the pertinent testimony on p. 573 of Volume 7:

"Mr. Liebeler: Yes, specifically, I first call your attention to No. 185. This is No. 185 on the back of it and will you look at the whole book and identify it if you can and tell us that those are the pictures that--that those appear to be the pictures or copies of the pictures that you took from your motion picture camera?

Mr. Zapruder: Well, I would say this, they look like--if they were taken from the film I had--these are the ones. I mean, I don't know how to express myself.

Mr. Liebeler: Well, they were.

Mr. Zapruder: Well, it looks like them--that's when they turned in from Elm Street. Is that it? I'm trying to visualize it. This is taking it from the opposite side of me, is it, where I would have been taking it, because I see this structure--I have been around there and--or these this couldn't be here--where did they get this in there--how did they get this in there, if I was taking the pictures where did they get this in there? That shouldn't be there."

In this riveting testimony, it becomes apparent that Zapruder is completely confused by the images, especially in the early progression of the motorcade. The refrain of Zapruder's testimony is

"If I was taking the pictures where did they get this in there?"

"How did they get this in there?"

"That shouldn't be there."

In viewing frames 185 and 186, Zapruder is confused because he believed the first bullet to strike the President occurred prior to the limousine disappearing behind the Stemmons freeway sign. Long before the limousine is lost from view in the extant Z-film, Zapruder witnessed and recorded on film a shot to the President's back, and he heard the President speak, as he describes on p. 571: "For a moment I thought it was, you know, like you say, 'Oh, he got me,' when you hear a shot--you've heard these expressions and then I saw--I don't believe the preisdent is going to make jokes like this." When questioned about frames 185 and 186, Zapruder responded, as follows:

"Mr. Liebeler: And they are going down Elm Street now?

Mr. Zapruder: "Yes; this is before--this shouldn't be there--the shot wasn't fired, was it? you can't tell from here?...I believe it was closer down here where it happened."

Later in the testimony, on p. 575, Zapruder is shown a photo image of frame 249, and he does not recall the rowing motion of the President lifting his hands to his head. Zapruder: "No. 249--I just wonder if it was the motion that he went back with I don't remember seeing that. Of course the pictures would show." In reacting to the photograph of frame 230, Zapruder clearly did not recall the President's hands held so high in the throat area: "It looks to me like he went like this [holding both hands on the left side of his chest" (p. 574). This testimony reveals how the photographs fool Zapruder and instantly force him to formulate a new visual scenario of the assassination.

For Zapruder, the photos trump the reality of his memory of the event, instantly overriding his first viewing of the film on the weekend of the assassition. Those images have likewise confounded students of the assassination for nearly fifty years. For months after the tragic event of November 22, Zapruder informs us, he replayed the images of the assassination in his mind ("I have seen it so many times. In fact, I used to have nightmares. The thing would come to me every night." [p. 575]). But when shown the photos by Liebeler, Zapruder was being introduced to a completely new visual record of the assassination.

Even a casual reading of Warren Commission hearings reveals that Zapruder recognized at least subconsciously that the photos he was being shown by Wesley Liebeler were NOT replicas of those that Zapruder filmed and viewed in Dallas, prior to selling the film and relinquishing all copies on the weekend of the assassination. This testimony provides critical primary evidence suggesting alteration of the Zapruder film. It is unfortunate that during the hearings, the entire film was not projected in its true medium of a motion picture. In presenting only a set a still photos to Zapruder, he merely became flustered and confused. But it he had seen the film in its entirety with his memory still fresh from the previous November, he might have recognized the full extent of film alteration.

Still, the record of the Warren Commision provides an invaluable perspective into the topic of film fakery. In retrospect, the first person to recognize the alteration of the Zapuder film was Abraham Zapruder himself!

If I recall correctly, there was an account of Zapruder at the showing of the film during the Clay Shaw trial; Zapruder becoming emotional and covering his face looking at the film on the screen. (Sorry I can't recall where I read that -- anyone have anything on that?)

One interesting segment of the "Rush to Judgement" film is Mark Lane asks Orville Nix about his film after showing Lane his personal copy.

LANE: Is that copy the same as the original that you gave to the FBI on December First?

NIX: I would say, No. There is some films maybe missing, some, uh, frames, the, some of the frames were ruined.

LANE:Does the film which you have at the present time have the same number of frames as the film that you delivered to the FBI on December First ?

NIX: I would say no but its cause of losing, maybe a, a frame here and there.

Interesting both that Lane would ask these questions, and Nix's reply with a "no but" as if to apologetically admit the point but minimize it. (Subtext: my film was modified, but nothing sinister here, just some ruined frames or something, move along...) Did Nix expand on the point off camera?

Edited February 14, 2012 by Evan Burton
Removed e-mail address

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Calli,

This is one of those cases where I can say, "Asked and answered". Next you'll be telling us that there really was no LIMO STOP and that the BLACK PATCH in frame 317 is a figment of our imagination. And do you REALLY THINK that they would have REMOVED THE LIMO STOP and CHANEY MOTORING FORWARD from some films BUT NOT OTHERS? You need to give all of this some serious thought, because the superficiality of your reasoning is embarrassing. Bernice, James, and others have posted a lot of evidence you need to study, because your views are not supportable.

Jim

Prof. Fetzer, a couple of questions if you please :

1. As Chaney 'motoring forwards' no doubt happened before the limo reached the triple underpass, according to yourself, then surely an abundance of witnesses, if not each and everyone who were in the Plaza watching the motorcade, should be able to testify to this as fact, wouldn't you agree? If so, i'd appreciate it if you could point me in the direction of any witnesses, EXCLUDING the lead car occupants, who have made any statements, or suchlike, regarding a motorcycle pulling ahead of the limo whilst still in Dealey Plaza?

Sure--and for every other important aspect of the case, we can EXCLUDE the best witnesses to those events! Pretty soon, we will discover that what was actually going on was a circus parade--except we will have to EXCLUDE the witnesses to those events, too! In this case, the witness list is simply unimpeachable, since it includes persons who may well have been involved themselves!

Why would Secret Service agents, motorcycle patrolmen, and the Chief of Police have been wrong about this? There is no good reason to suppose they would have been. Next you will ask me to prove what Clint Hill has reported saying over the past nearly 50 years--but EXCLUDING CLINT HILL! Too much was going on. There is no reason to suppose everyone there noticed everything.

Anyone who is serious about getting to the truth of these matters has to take to heart what Clint Hill has been telling us for nearly 50 years now. Not only is there unimpeachable testimony of Officer Chaney motoring forward, but Clint Hill's testimony confirms it. That Tink and now Calli SHOULD BE IN SOME STATE OF DENIAL ABOUT ALL OF THIS is utterly beyond belief!

"As I approached the vehicle there was a third shot. It hit the President in the head, upper right rear of the right ear, caused a gaping hole in his head, which caused brain matter, blood, and bone fragments to spew forth out over the car, over myself. At that point Mrs. Kennedy came up out of the back seat onto the trunk of the car. She was trying to retrieve something that had gone off to the right rear. She did not know I was there. At that point I grabbed Mrs. Kennedy, put her in the back seat. The President fell over into her lap, to his left.

"His right side of his head was exposed. I could see his eyes were fixed. There was a hole in the upper right rear portion of his head about the size of my palm. Most of the gray matter in that area had been removed, and was scattered throughout the entire car, including on Mrs. Kennedy. I turned and gave the follow-up car crew the thumbs-down, indicating that we were in a very dire situation. The driver accelerated; he got up to the lead car which was driven by Chief Curry, the Dallas Chief of Police . . .”.

Not only does Clint's description of the wound contradict your characterization, but his account is consistent with what Bobby Hargis, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Jesse Curry have told us about about Chaney, which refutes the film's authenticity.

Tink has repeatedly claimed this happened AFTER the limo had already passed the TUP and that we have simply not been thinking about the temporal relationship here. My three favorites are Bobby Hargis, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Jesse Curry:

(1) Forrest Sorrels: "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, . . ."

(2) Bobby Hargis: "I remembered seeing Officer Chaney. Chaney put his motor in first gear and accelerated up to the front to tell them to get everything out of the way, that he [the President] was coming through, and that is when the Presidential limousine shot off . . . .”

(3) Chief Jesse Curry: "at that time I looked in my rear view mirror and I saw some commotion in the President’s caravan and realized that probably something was wrong, and it seemed to be speeding up, and about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney rode up beside us and I asked if something happened back there . . ."

James Chaney, Bobby Hargis, and Clint Hill WERE NOT OCCUPANTS OF THE LEAD CAR, in case you have not noticed. And citing other alleged reports and later interviews, whose authenticity is open to question, is not a very persuasive way to argue your case. In fact, such a case as you are attempting to contrive appears to be superfluous. WE ALREADY HAVE SUFFICIENT PROOF AT HAND.

Others can address your questions about how the films and photos were faked or altered, but the agency certainly has the ability to do that, where most of the evidence in this case has been fabricated. Since Chief Curry called for the building to be "surrounded" when Chaney told him JFK had been shot, which he did at the TUP, there really is NO POINT in fantasizing about the entrance to the freeway.

If this isn't enough proof for you on this point, I can't imagine what it would take to convince you. Since only Tom Robinson and Ed Reed watched Humes take a cranial saw to JFK's head, I suppose you want me to prove that but EXCLUDING TOM ROBINSON AND ED REED? And then it will be the limo stop but EXCLUDING ALL THE LIMO STOP WITNESSES? How dumb are we supposed to be?

We are doing what we can to solve the case and you are doing something else. But the fact that someone like you has shown up tells me that we are making progress and that Tink has been outgunned. So they needed to send in the cavalry, which is why you are here. We all have better things to do, however, than to construct proofs WITHOUT THE MOST IMPORTANT EVIDENCE THAT PROVES THEM.

The succinctness and precision with which you sink this claim is just a breath of fresh air in a cloud of language. And you were modest and right to also praise Robin with "Robin, your clips and pics say it all." Is there really anything left to talk about with respect to this claim? It looks to me to be as dead as "Moorman-in-the-Street." Nice going!

JT

Due to multiple posts being 'lost' between 5:25~11:25 A.M. 24/01/2012, this post has been re-submitted 26/01/2012 2:32 A.M. GMT

My responses to Prof. Fetzer, in red.

Sure--and for every other important aspect of the case, we can EXCLUDE the best witnesses to those events! Pretty soon, we will discover that what was actually going on was a circus parade--except we will have to EXCLUDE the witnesses to those events, too! In this case, the witness list is simply unimpeachable, since it includes persons who may well have been involved themselves!

The way I see it, is there is no 'best' witnesses to your version of events, other than the lead car occupants. There is not one person watching the motorcade who states that a bike passed the limo before the underpass. No matter how you slice it. Quoting witnesses and then saying that these were the guys who may have been involved, works both ways. Why would you assume Curry, Lawson, and Sorrells were truthful?

Why would Secret Service agents, motorcycle patrolmen, and the Chief of Police have been wrong about this? There is no good reason to suppose they would have been. Next you will ask me to prove what Clint Hill has reported saying over the past nearly 50 years--but EXCLUDING CLINT HILL! Too much was going on. There is no reason to suppose everyone there noticed everything.

In regards to Chaney, I've got every reason to suspect everyone there noticed nothing.

They would have been wrong if the chain of events made them look inadequate, or negligent, or just plain slow, in their actions. This is why Sorrells says he was worried about the limo passing, that he knew they should have been in front. Unfortunately, the limo did pass them (Daniels, McIntyre). This is stated by Lawson in his testimony :

Mr. Lawson.

"When the Presidential car leaped ahead" (emphasis mine), although there was quite a distance, not quite a distance but there was some distance between the two cars, they came up on us quite fast before we were actually able to get in motion. They seemed to have a more rapid acceleration than we did.

Mr. Dulles.

Did they actually pass you?

Mr. Lawson.

No, sir; they never did. We stayed ahead of them.

Daniels and McIntyre show Lawson, still under oath, was 'economical' with the truth. Lead car occupants playing CYA.

Anyone who is serious about getting to the truth of these matters has to take to heart what Clint Hill has been telling us for nearly 50 years now. Not only is there unimpeachable testimony of Officer Chaney motoring forward, but Clint Hill's testimony confirms it. That Tink and now Calli SHOULD BE IN SOME STATE OF DENIAL ABOUT ALL OF THIS is utterly beyond belief!

There is NO 'unimpeachable testimony' that unequivocally states Chaney passed the limo before the underpass. What Clint Hill has to say about the wound(s), has nothing to do with the Chaney issue. Interestingly, neither himself (Hill), Greer, Kellerman, or any of Halfbacks agents mention a bike pulling forwards either. The 'unimpeachable testimony' you keep citing, is vague, almost to the point of being cryptic.

"As I approached the vehicle there was a third shot. It hit the President in the head, upper right rear of the right ear, caused a gaping hole in his head, which caused brain matter, blood, and bone fragments to spew forth out over the car, over myself. At that point Mrs. Kennedy came up out of the back seat onto the trunk of the car. She was trying to retrieve something that had gone off to the right rear. She did not know I was there. At that point I grabbed Mrs. Kennedy, put her in the back seat. The President fell over into her lap, to his left.

"His right side of his head was exposed. I could see his eyes were fixed. There was a hole in the upper right rear portion of his head about the size of my palm. Most of the gray matter in that area had been removed, and was scattered throughout the entire car, including on Mrs. Kennedy. I turned and gave the follow-up car crew the thumbs-down, indicating that we were in a very dire situation. The driver accelerated; he got up to the lead car which was driven by Chief Curry, the Dallas Chief of Police . . .”.

No mention of motorcycle.

Not only does Clint's description of the wound contradict your characterization, but his account is consistent with what Bobby Hargis, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Jesse Curry have told us about about Chaney, which refutes the film's authenticity.

My characterisation of what? I'm not talking about Clint Hill, or what he proclaimed to see of the President's wounds, Jim. Curry is vague. Sorrells, imo, is misremembering, or covering his ass.

Tink has repeatedly claimed this happened AFTER the limo had already passed the TUP and that we have simply not been thinking about the temporal relationship here. My three favorites are Bobby Hargis, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Jesse Curry:

(1) Forrest Sorrels: "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, . . ."

See above reply.

(2) Bobby Hargis: "I remembered seeing Officer Chaney. Chaney put his motor in first gear and accelerated up to the front to tell them to get everything out of the way, that he [the President] was coming through, and that is when the Presidential limousine shot off . . . .”

Unless Hargis actually stopped to talk to Chaney, how does he know what Chaney is going to do, or say? Recall the statement of DPD motorcyclist Jackson, whose passage I posted previously. Jackson wrote his account of what happened the night of the 22nd, specifically for the reason that he did not want his recollections muddied by the passing of time. It is, in essence, a first day report. Jackson states that he spoke to Chaney 'Let's go after them'

Meaning : The limo has gone, we better go after them'. Hence Hargis stating he watched Chaney slam his bike into first gear, then motor off. Why would Chaney need to slam his bike into first gear, if he was already gone?

(3) Chief Jesse Curry: "at that time I looked in my rear view mirror and I saw some commotion in the President’s caravan and realized that probably something was wrong, and it seemed to be speeding up, and about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney rode up beside us and I asked if something happened back there . . ."

Vague. The 'speeding up' is the limo now catching, and soon to pass, Curry's car. The 'about this time' is a generalisation with no specific location given.

How is that unimpeachable proof? They were tring to play CYA because they were caught napping!

James Chaney, Bobby Hargis, and Clint Hill WERE NOT OCCUPANTS OF THE LEAD CAR, in case you have not noticed. And citing other alleged reports and later interviews, whose authenticity is open to question, is not a very persuasive way to argue your case. In fact, such a case as you are attempting to contrive appears to be superfluous. WE ALREADY HAVE SUFFICIENT PROOF AT HAND.

I had noticed, I wasn't under the impression they were lead car occupants. I am aware that their recall of events is being twisted to suit your theory though. I was hoping for witnesses like Altgens, Moorman, Hill, anyone on the overpass, etc. You are cherry picking witnesses who are favourable to your outcome. Whilst i'm trying to find corroborating evidence for all of this, i'm coming up short. I'm trying to be impartial, believe it or not, but the evidence is against this happening as you posit.

Others can address your questions about how the films and photos were faked or altered, but the agency certainly has the ability to do that, where most of the evidence in this case has been fabricated. Since Chief Curry called for the building to be "surrounded" when Chaney told him JFK had been shot, which he did at the TUP, there really is NO POINT in fantasizing about the entrance to the freeway.

Understood, i'll await their input. I'm not denying the 'agency' (whoever that refers to, CIA?) have the ability to alter photographs. They would have needed a time machine for Daniels and McIntyre though.....

If this isn't enough proof for you on this point, I can't imagine what it would take to convince you. Since only Tom Robinson and Ed Reed watched Humes take a cranial saw to JFK's head, I suppose you want me to prove that but EXCLUDING TOM ROBINSON AND ED REED? And then it will be the limo stop but EXCLUDING ALL THE LIMO STOP WITNESSES? How dumb are we supposed to be?

No, it's not enough proof for me. Nothing will convince me Jim, because I know for a fact you are wrong. How many of your 'limo stop' witnesses can claim Chaney 'motoring forwards'? I don't want you to prove anything, Jim. I'll just shut up and take your word for it, shall I?

We are doing what we can to solve the case and you are doing something else. But the fact that someone like you has shown up tells me that we are making progress and that Tink has been outgunned. So they needed to send in the cavalry, which is why you are here. We all have better things to do, however, than to construct proofs WITHOUT THE MOST IMPORTANT EVIDENCE THAT PROVES THEM.

The fact that I have 'shown up' here, should tell you that it is going to take a bit more than your blatant misinterpretation of events to pass as fact.

Thanks.

Calli.

P.S. Robin, your clips and pics say it all......

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Calli,

You really need to find yourself another client, because this guy has turned into a joke. He long

ago sold his soul for a mess of pottage. If you are unfamiliar with our history, here's a sketch:

First I defeated him over Gary Aguilar's chapter in MURDER, which he endorsed even while he was

trashing the book, by pointing out that, if Aguilar was right, then the Zapruder film was FAKED.

Then I defeated him over the Umbrella Man, where, after he had gone out of his way to endorse

Louis Witt as the Umbrella Man, I pointed out that Louis Witt was also a LIMO STOP witness.

And I defeated him over his abandonment of the "double-hit" account in SIX SECONDS (1967),

by noting that Richard Feynman, Nobel-Prize winning physicist, had independently confirmed it.

And I defeated him again over Clint Hill's testimony of nearly 50 years, of pushing Jackie down,

lying across their bodies, peering into the fist-sized wound, and "tumbs down" before the TUP.

And I defeated him again about Chaney's motoring forward, which was confirmed by Chief Curry,

Forrest Sorrels, Bobby Hargis, James Chaney, Clint Hill, and even Roy Kellerman. Unbelievable!

And again about the black spot on frame 317, observing that it is present on 3rd generation copies

of the film and in MPI's own motion picture, which means it should be on The 6th Floor slides, too.

And now he comes here again to insist that the small, white spiral nebula is NOT THERE when it

OBVIOUSLY is there, right where JFK's left ear would be if his left ear were visible. (See below.)

Where Doug Weldon, in his brilliant chapter on the Lincoln limousine, explained how perfectly

the hole aligns with a trajectory from the above-ground sewer opening and the throat wound.

Where Jim Lewis has fired high-velocity rounds through junked cars and found that they not only

make a spiral nebula of the kind in the Altgens but the sound of a firecracker as they pass through.

But Tink will admit NONE OF THIS. He seems to believe his silver-tongue is sufficient to undo any

quantity of evidence. Whom should we believe: Tink or our lying eyes? That's his on-going refrain.

And what of the arguments presented? What about Lady #8 and the perfect alignment of her tan purse with what you have been calling the "nebula?" What about the photo posted that showed Billy Lovelady wearing a shirt on the afternoon of November 22nd that matched the shirt shown in the Altgens photo? What of your inability to answer Craig's question about Lovelady's purported v-neck T-shirt? What about Pat Speer's point that you mistook a shadow on Lovelady for a v-neck T-shirt? What of the point that Oswald's supposed v-neck T-shirt is just an ordinary T-shirt that had been grabbed by the cops? You claim incorrectly that the "nebula" blocks Kennedy's left ear from sight. Nonsense. When you're called on it, you can't defend it. So what do you do? You retreat to la-la land? The people who point out your errors are part of some grand conspiracy. And the photos... the photos that show clearly you're wrong... they've been messed with. You keep using the same escape hatch. They're conspiring against me, Mommy, and the photographs have been faked up!!

JT

I always love it when the troops show up in force. It didn't matter which scan of the Altgens

we began with, since Robin has provided even better, which reinforce the point. Thompson

even congratulated him for posting these superior photographs. But look at what they show!

Tink doesn't like our starting point. So what? Who cares? I knew this would be examined in

detail. And, as in the case of the bullet hole in the windshield, what Robin has been posting

affords a closer look at the images, WHICH CONFIRM THE HOLE AND THE ALTERATIONS.

I love these arguments about how something could not have happened WHEN IT OBVIOUSLY

DID HAPPEN. Does anyone looking at this scan have any doubt that one or even more of

the figures who were to DM's left/front (our right/front) have had their images obfuscated?

The ops were tracking Lee and knew where he was every moment of them. How could they

do otherwise? So when they saw the Altgens, THEY KNEW THEY HAD A PROBLEM, which

the accommodated by altering the images. That they could do it follows from THEY DID!

Robin has made a number of highly useful contributions here, including his observation,

in response to Gary Mack--they REALLY ARE pulling out all the stops on this one!--that

an expensive image he had obtained WAS NOT WELL-DEFINED IN THE DOORWAY AREA.

How much proof do we need that the Altgens has been altered? And what other reason

could they have had for doing that than that someone was in the photograph who wasn't

supposed to be there? I know we aren't all rocket scientists, but this situation is obvious.

And having a lot of unworthy sources support a bad argument does not turn it into a good

one. That Tink, Glenn Vilkund, Craig Lamson, and Steve Duffy are here singing from the

same song book does not inspire my confidence in their dedication to the search for truth.

[Josiah Thompson]

Professor Fetzer, Ph.D.'s, self-proclamations of "victory" are about as reliable as a Newt Gingrich stump speed (nor does the resemblance end there!). With respect to his ever-mountiing series of claims, eternal vigilance is the price of knowledge. For weeks, he has been claiming that the ordinary version of the MPI video offers some confirmation for the claimed 317 "black patch." For example, among the specious self-congratulations Fetzer sends himself below is this: "And again about the black spot on frame 317, observing that it is present on 3rd generation copies of the film and in MPI's own motion picture, which means it should be on The 6th Floor slides, too." You can go to Robin Ungar's very excellent web site and check out frames from the MPI video by clicking on: http://www.jfkassass...5804&fullsize=1 Right around there you can also find other Zapruder frames from the MPI video. What does the back of JFK's head look like in Z 317? Exactly like what the back of JFK's head looks like in 312, 313, 314, 314, 315, 316... there's a big old shadow there that matches other shadows in the frames.

Confronted with the actual frames, Fetzer can now argue either (1) Robin Ungar has messed with the frames. OR (2) The frames don't show what they clearly show. OR (3) It doesn't matter becuase the version of 317 in LA trumps all this. Most likely, we will not hear this claim made again.

JT

Calli,

You really need to find yourself another client, because this guy has turned into a joke. He long

ago sold his soul for a mess of pottage. If you are unfamiliar with our history, here's a sketch:

First I defeated him over Gary Aguilar's chapter in MURDER, which he endorsed even while he was

trashing the book, by pointing out that, if Aguilar was right, then the Zapruder film was FAKED.

Then I defeated him over the Umbrella Man, where, after he had gone out of his way to endorse

Louis Witt as the Umbrella Man, I pointed out that Louis Witt was also a LIMO STOP witness.

And I defeated him over his abandonment of the "double-hit" account in SIX SECONDS (1967),

by noting that Richard Feynman, Nobel-Prize winning physicist, had independently confirmed it.

And I defeated him again over Clint Hill's testimony of nearly 50 years, of pushing Jackie down,

lying across their bodies, peering into the fist-sized wound, and "tumbs down" before the TUP.

And I defeated him again about Chaney's motoring forward, which was confirmed by Chief Curry,

Forrest Sorrels, Bobby Hargis, James Chaney, Clint Hill, and even Roy Kellerman. Unbelievable!

And again about the black spot on frame 317, observing that it is present on 3rd generation copies

of the film and in MPI's own motion picture, which means it should be on The 6th Floor slides, too.

And now he comes here again to insist that the small, white spiral nebula is NOT THERE when it

OBVIOUSLY is there, right where JFK's left ear would be if his left ear were visible. (See below.)

Where Doug Weldon, in his brilliant chapter on the Lincoln limousine, explained how perfectly

the hole aligns with a trajectory from the above-ground sewer opening and the throat wound.

Where Jim Lewis has fired high-velocity rounds through junked cars and found that they not only

make a spiral nebula of the kind in the Altgens but the sound of a firecracker as they pass through.

But Tink will admit NONE OF THIS. He seems to believe his silver-tongue is sufficient to undo any

quantity of evidence. Whom should we believe: Tink or our lying eyes? That's his on-going refrain.

And what of the arguments presented? What about Lady #8 and the perfect alignment of her tan purse with what you have been calling the "nebula?" What about the photo posted that showed Billy Lovelady wearing a shirt on the afternoon of November 22nd that matched the shirt shown in the Altgens photo? What of your inability to answer Craig's question about Lovelady's purported v-neck T-shirt? What about Pat Speer's point that you mistook a shadow on Lovelady for a v-neck T-shirt? What of the point that Oswald's supposed v-neck T-shirt is just an ordinary T-shirt that had been grabbed by the cops? You claim incorrectly that the "nebula" blocks Kennedy's left ear from sight. Nonsense. When you're called on it, you can't defend it. So what do you do? You retreat to la-la land? The people who point out your errors are part of some grand conspiracy. And the photos... the photos that show clearly you're wrong... they've been messed with. You keep using the same escape hatch. They're conspiring against me, Mommy, and the photographs have been faked up!!

JT

I always love it when the troops show up in force. It didn't matter which scan of the Altgens

we began with, since Robin has provided even better, which reinforce the point. Thompson

even congratulated him for posting these superior photographs. But look at what they show!

Tink doesn't like our starting point. So what? Who cares? I knew this would be examined in

detail. And, as in the case of the bullet hole in the windshield, what Robin has been posting

affords a closer look at the images, WHICH CONFIRM THE HOLE AND THE ALTERATIONS.

I love these arguments about how something could not have happened WHEN IT OBVIOUSLY

DID HAPPEN. Does anyone looking at this scan have any doubt that one or even more of

the figures who were to DM's left/front (our right/front) have had their images obfuscated?

The ops were tracking Lee and knew where he was every moment of them. How could they

do otherwise? So when they saw the Altgens, THEY KNEW THEY HAD A PROBLEM, which

the accommodated by altering the images. That they could do it follows from THEY DID!

Robin has made a number of highly useful contributions here, including his observation,

in response to Gary Mack--they REALLY ARE pulling out all the stops on this one!--that

an expensive image he had obtained WAS NOT WELL-DEFINED IN THE DOORWAY AREA.

How much proof do we need that the Altgens has been altered? And what other reason

could they have had for doing that than that someone was in the photograph who wasn't

supposed to be there? I know we aren't all rocket scientists, but this situation is obvious.

And having a lot of unworthy sources support a bad argument does not turn it into a good

one. That Tink, Glenn Vilkund, Craig Lamson, and Steve Duffy are here singing from the

same song book does not inspire my confidence in their dedication to the search for truth.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Josiah Thompson

[David Josephs]

Josiah,

Cheers for your acceptional sparing efforts... but he aint gonna learn what he dont wanna know....

Not really sure why the discussion must center on z317 when z323 is the most obvious representation of this black-out...

and if deep in shadow, what is that white spot on his jacket collar where there should be nothing but shadow?

Does it not seem obvious that if we see the back of the head avulsed in 335/337... that this was present at 323?

At the bottom left of this black area is a portion of JFK's skull which has been blown out yet not in deep shadow...

Z337 makes the blow out to the back of the head obvious and also makes the xrays offered useless... his face and forehead where not affected yet the xrays show massive defects in these areas...

This was why Jackie's statement was removed... "from the front, nothing"

Professor Fetzer, Ph.D.'s, self-proclamations of "victory" are about as reliable as a Newt Gingrich stump speed (nor does the resemblance end there!). With respect to his ever-mountiing series of claims, eternal vigilance is the price of knowledge. For weeks, he has been claiming that the ordinary version of the MPI video offers some confirmation for the claimed 317 "black patch." For example, among the specious self-congratulations Fetzer sends himself below is this: "And again about the black spot on frame 317, observing that it is present on 3rd generation copies of the film and in MPI's own motion picture, which means it should be on The 6th Floor slides, too." You can go to Robin Ungar's very excellent web site and check out frames from the MPI video by clicking on: http://www.jfkassass...5804&fullsize=1 Right around there you can also find other Zapruder frames from the MPI video. What does the back of JFK's head look like in Z 317? Exactly like what the back of JFK's head looks like in 312, 313, 314, 314, 315, 316... there's a big old shadow there that matches other shadows in the frames.

Confronted with the actual frames, Fetzer can now argue either (1) Robin Ungar has messed with the frames. OR (2) The frames don't show what they clearly show. OR (3) It doesn't matter becuase the version of 317 in LA trumps all this. Most likely, we will not hear this claim made again.

JT