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

Greg Parker · March 5, 2013

Lee,

You are completely misinterpreting an earlier post of mine, in which I expressed disappointment that Jim Fetzer had now even alienated a normally laid back and even tempered poster like Robin Unger. In no way did I state that I was "disappointed" in Robin, or lay any blame on him at all.

Then Don, why didn't you provide a link or use a direct quote so people could see what you mean?

Never mind. I found it. I'll post it for you. I'll even use a different color because I know how much Michael Hogan enjoys my color schemes.

I respect Robin Unger a great deal. Thus, I'm disappointed to see yet another valued researcher at odds with Jim Fetzer. Having read Robin's posts for a long time, I know he's not normally a combative sort of guy. So...once again, we find that Jim Fetzer's personality seems to be able to fire up nearly everyone.

Imho, the animosity so many feel towards Jim Fetzer stems from his initial forays into the world of film alteration.

This is followed by your usual insipid waffle ending with this dithyramb to dolt-hood:

I may be the last one left to say it, but I find Jim Fetzer's contributions to always be interesting. He stimulates discussion like no one else, on this forum and any other he's been a part of. I think that's a very good thing.

You do see now, I hope, that you linked your "disappointment" - not to Fetzer's alienating ways, but to Unger "being at odds" with Fetzer in a "combative" manner because of being "fired up" by Fetzer. Nowhere, no how can what you wrote be construed as any kind of disappointment in Fetzer himself. It is directed at the other person - always.

Here is how you express disappointment in Fetzer's alienating ways. "I am disappointed in Jim's alienating ways." You can add some waffle at either end if you must.

I'm not going to be constantly defending my actions or non-actions as a moderator. As I've said before, the most troublesome posters here never believe they are violating the rules, yet they are the first ones to report other perceived violations, and demand others be taken to task. No moderation team can win in that kind of situation.

You can't defend your actions/in-actions - not in any honest and direct way in response to direct instances as they pointed out to you. You are left to waffle and generalize and point the finger of blame at nameless others.

Since I was no doubt tagged as one of the troublesome here, please show one - just one lousy time I ever lodged a complaint about anyone else. My complaints were limited in breadth and scope and were made direct to those involved. To the moderating team for the inconsistent and hypocritical styles employed. To Jack White for attempting to take over any posts I made about Oswald to shill for that most xxxxty of theories, Harvey and Lee. To the likes of Mike Hogan for butting in and siding with Jack, and for his own hypocrisy.

Instead of these sweeping generalizations, why don't you show a bit of ticker and put names to your accusations?

Face the facts- this subject attracts egotistical, combative personalities. They constantly clash with each other, and thus no coalition can ever be formed, to rally behind a unified platform.

That's here.

I have no such problems at my forum where there is a small, loose coalition of posters putting forward ideas and research which often do coalesce. Nor do I need moderators. I have also been a part of such loose coalitions in private forums and email groups. They work.On top of that, I have a small group of people I can call on to help with any project, or research angle and know all they care about is helping get to the truth. I trust them - they trust me. And they are brilliant at what they do and do it with no fanfare or fuss.

The likes of Fetzer have made this place a joke -- yet you remain the head cheer-leader for these goons.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Greg Parker

March 5, 2013

Lindsay,

Yes, I addressed this in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), specifically in the Epilogue, "Assassination Science and the Language of Proof", where I addressed the meaning of "proof" in abstract contexts, in legal contexts, and in empirical contexts. The phrase, "beyond reasonable doubt", means that, given the evidence and the alternatives, no other hypothesis is reasonable. The case of Doorman illustrates this point appropriately. There is a series of very simple arguments that establish that Doorman was Oswald. I have outlined them:

1) Doorman's was wearing a long sleeved shirt with distinctive features.

Oswald was wearing a long sleeved shirt with similar distinctive features.

Probably, Oswald was the man in the doorway.

(2) Doorman was not wearing a short-sleeved shirt.

Lovelady was wearing a short-sleeved shirt.

Therefore, Lovelady was not Doorman.

(3) Doorman had a shirt that was splayed open.

Checkered Shirt Man's was not splayed open.

Therefore, Checkered Shirt Man is not Doorman.

(4) Doorman was Oswald or Lovelady or Checkered Shirt Man.

But Doorman was not Lovelady or Checkered Shirt Man.

Therefore, Doorman was Oswald.

No other hypothesis is reasonable. In addition, we have multiple proofs that photographs of Lovelady were altered and faked, including with several splices, with one arm significantly shorter than the other, and where an artificial hand from an mannequin appears to have been used to fake it, the reason being, I presume, that the matter was pressing and Billy was not available. It never ceases to astonish me how many of the members of this forum are willing to be led by the nose by others with the refrain, "So who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?"

James, thanks for the follow-up.

I'm not discouraged as I've been reading the forum for 4 years - Cool down, if its going to happen, will take some time.

I will post back here soon but I am working on a post to the shirts thread which will be completed shortly.

I am hoping for a response from you to the first paragraph of my last post though:

The definitions you provided are helpful as are the examples relating to proof - the formulas themselves are pretty hard to follow. I also know there are differing standards of evidence, such as 'beyond reasonable doubt' and I'm interested to know your opinion of how such standards should be applied to assassination research.

I am not looking for an explanation as to what is meant by Standards of Evidence, but what standards you tend to work with when you refer to having proof or having proved something. I seem to remember a recent post where you refer to scientific / philosophic proof or similar - it was something like, I have made these statements in a forum x, they have been open to peer review, challenge for x years, they have not been successfully challenged or my reasoning otherwise disproved, therefore my theory stands. There is something to this effect on page one of this thread but I seem to remember you expanded on this elsewhere.

I am asking this as, when you say you have proved something, you may be claiming something very different to what others believe you are claiming, leading to immediate hostility. I believe' beyond reasonable doubt' is the standard required to secure a criminal conviction here in the UK, but to work to that standard on assassination research may be beyond even this forum! What can we hope to achieve here?

Secret Service Complicity -

I do have a question for you that I don't think I have seen on the forums but I will watch the video you linked to - it seems a very obvious challenge so it may be obvious to all but me and be explained there. Meanwhile, can I ask you and other CT members reading this if there is anything approaching consensus on the complicity or otherwise of the service - if so what books / research are considered authoritative on the matter?

Edited March 5, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

March 5, 2013

This is very strange. No one, I submit, could read the passages I have highlighted in red and not concluded that this happened when Officer Chaney rode forward to notify Chief Curry that JFK had been shot. Not only that, but there is nothing about the one you happen to quote--repeatedly--that supports your interpretation. I really did not think I would have to spoon feed you about this, but get serious. I asked you to reread the passages in red. It cannot have happened any other time:

James Chaney: I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit.

Bobby Hargis: He immediately went forward, and announced to the Chief that the President had been shot.

[Query: You do know (or perhaps not) that all four of the escort officers confirmed that the limo had come to a stop? YES or NO?

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, and at that time Chief Curry’s car had started to pick up speed, and someone yelled to get to the nearest hospital

[Query: Don't you see that this observation by Forrest Sorrels completely undermines the interpretation that you have offered?]

Winston Lawson: “A motorcycle escort officer pulled alongside our Lead Car and said the President had been shot. Chief Curry gave a signal over his radio for police to converge on the area of the incident.”

[Query: That this one, too, from Winston Lawson, supports what Forrest Sorrels reported and ALSO undermines your interpretation.]

Marrion Baker (speaking about Chaney): “He was on the right rear to the car or to the side, and then at that time the chief of police, he didn’t know anything about this [the shooting], and he [Chaney] moved up and told him [the chief], and then that was during the time that the Secret Service men were trying to get in the car ....

[Query: Do you understand that Secret Service agents had dismounted and had to scramble to get back on when the limo took off?]

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 ....”

[Query: How to you reconcile this report that Chaney told them to get out of the way because the limo was coming through?]

Chief 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 and he said, ‘Yes,’ and I said, ‘Has somebody been shot?’ And he said,‘I think so.’

[Query: Chief Curry is asking if something happened "back there". Where do you suppose he was referring to? Please tell us.]

Forrest Sorrels: in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine), May 7, 1964: “Within about 3 seconds, there were two more similar reports. And I said, ‘Let’s get out of here’ and looked back, all the way back, then, to where the President’s car was, and I saw some confusion, movement there, and the car just seemed to lurch forward."

[Query: How can you maintain that this event did not occur when the limo had come to a stop and Chaney had motored forward?]

Chaney had come to a halt. The limo speed past. The others took off. He regained his composure. When are you suggesting all of this took place? Surely that Chaney was lagging behind is consistent with every report of when and where this happened.

Your reasoning about Doorman is hopeless. We have explained how they took pains to change features of Doorman's face. OF COURSE THERE WOULD BE SOME DIFFERENCES. And even the commission concluded that Oswald had NOT changed his shirt. And if he had, what would have been the probability that A CHANGED SHIRT would match the one Doorman was wearing in so many features? You are OBVIOUSLY closed minded about all of this. I thought you were smarter than this. I was wrong.

And, in the meantime, a motorcycle officer had run up on the right-hand side and the chief yelled to him, ‘Anybody hurt?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ He (the chief) said, ‘Lead us to the hospital.’ And the chief took his microphone and told them to alert the hospital, and said, ‘Surround the building.’ He didn’t say what building. He just said, ‘Surround the building.’ ” [Warren Commission testimony: 7H345]

Follow it thru for us then Jim... take us from this moment in time to the McIntyre photo. There are three lead cyclists... any one of them Chaney? Has he already passed them too?

Chaney motors ahead, tells the lead car and is then asked to lead them to Parkland. THEN what does he do?

Does he shoot ahead to lead as the Chief asks?

Does he just stop... then start again thereby creating his position in McIntyre?

Was he altered OUT of McIntyre? and all the other source films/photos?

Can YOU explain please how Chaney goes from being next to the lead car to being last in the procession in the McIntyre photo?

=================

Now, with regards to Doorman... I've already dissmissed your "probabilities" which is some of the best hocus-pocus you've offerred up.

I also showed you multiple areas that DONT match... which, as I explain 4000 times already - makes the probability ZERO that is was Oswald.

Not to mention if we trust Fritz' notes - which is what you used to conclude what you did - then he was also correct about the changing of his clothes... which renders you position moot.

I am done Jim. We will always appreciate your tireless work... your commitment to exposing....

yet you are starting to sound like the naked emperor... insisting on the acknowledgement of the beauty of your clothes...

while your a$$ remains hanging out for all to see.

Edited March 5, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

March 5, 2013

Don has been doing his job. You have not. So far as I can discern, you have no comprehension

of the evidence and have nothing constructive to contribute--just one ad hominem after another.

Let me test you research integrity with two simple questions that many have refused to answer:

(1) Was Doorman wearing a short-sleeved shirt? YES or NO

(2) Was Doorman's shirt buttoned up to the top? YES or NO

These two questions rule out Billy Lovelady, who was wearing a short-sleeved shirt; as well as

Checkered Shirt Man, whose shirt was buttoned up to the top. Neither was true of Doorman.

What's with you, Greg Parker? Do you care about the truth of the assassination of JFK or not?

If someone is a "cheerleader for goons", you are a much stronger candidate than Don Jeffries.

Lee,

You are completely misinterpreting an earlier post of mine, in which I expressed disappointment that Jim Fetzer had now even alienated a normally laid back and even tempered poster like Robin Unger. In no way did I state that I was "disappointed" in Robin, or lay any blame on him at all.

Then Don, why didn't you provide a link or use a direct quote so people could see what you mean?

Never mind. I found it. I'll post it for you. I'll even use a different color because I know how much Michael Hogan enjoys my color schemes.

I respect Robin Unger a great deal. Thus, I'm disappointed to see yet another valued researcher at odds with Jim Fetzer. Having read Robin's posts for a long time, I know he's not normally a combative sort of guy. So...once again, we find that Jim Fetzer's personality seems to be able to fire up nearly everyone.

Imho, the animosity so many feel towards Jim Fetzer stems from his initial forays into the world of film alteration.

This is followed by your usual insipid waffle ending with this dithyramb to dolt-hood:

I may be the last one left to say it, but I find Jim Fetzer's contributions to always be interesting. He stimulates discussion like no one else, on this forum and any other he's been a part of. I think that's a very good thing.

You do see now, I hope, that you linked your "disappointment" - not to Fetzer's alienating ways, but to Unger "being at odds" with Fetzer in a "combative" manner because of being "fired up" by Fetzer. Nowhere, no how can what you wrote be construed as any kind of disappointment in Fetzer himself. It is directed at the other person - always.

Here is how you express disappointment in Fetzer's alienating ways. "I am disappointed in Jim's alienating ways." You can add some waffle at either end if you must.

I'm not going to be constantly defending my actions or non-actions as a moderator. As I've said before, the most troublesome posters here never believe they are violating the rules, yet they are the first ones to report other perceived violations, and demand others be taken to task. No moderation team can win in that kind of situation.

You can't defend your actions/in-actions - not in any honest and direct way in response to direct instances as they pointed out to you. You are left to waffle and generalize and point the finger of blame at nameless others.

Since I was no doubt tagged as one of the troublesome here, please show one - just one lousy time I ever lodged a complaint about anyone else. My complaints were limited in breadth and scope and were made direct to those involved. To the moderating team for the inconsistent and hypocritical styles employed. To Jack White for attempting to take over any posts I made about Oswald to shill for that most xxxxty of theories, Harvey and Lee. To the likes of Mike Hogan for butting in and siding with Jack, and for his own hypocrisy.

Instead of these sweeping generalizations, why don't you show a bit of ticker and put names to your accusations?

Face the facts- this subject attracts egotistical, combative personalities. They constantly clash with each other, and thus no coalition can ever be formed, to rally behind a unified platform.

That's here.

I have no such problems at my forum where there is a small, loose coalition of posters putting forward ideas and research which often do coalesce. Nor do I need moderators. I have also been a part of such loose coalitions in private forums and email groups. They work.On top of that, I have a small group of people I can call on to help with any project, or research angle and know all they care about is helping get to the truth. I trust them - they trust me. And they are brilliant at what they do and do it with no fanfare or fuss.

The likes of Fetzer have made this place a joke -- yet you remain the head cheer-leader for these goons.

Edited March 5, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

March 5, 2013

Lee, you posted a more vicious and unwarranted attack than anything I have ever seen on this forum.

You have disqualified yourself by your despicable conduct. If anyone deserves censure, that is you.

As I've said before, the most troublesome posters here never believe they are violating the rules, yet they are the first ones to report other perceived violations, and demand others be taken to task.

Who would that be?

Edited March 5, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

March 5, 2013

What makes you think you are entitled to criticize me when your conduct has been despicable, not mine.

I am persistent and unrelenting and won't back down when Lamson, Colby, and (now) Unger attempt to

bat me down. I am not going away, but my posts are typically loaded with evidence and argument. That

is not the case with yours, however, which display petty carping and childish whining, as you are doing here.

You are completely misinterpreting an earlier post of mine, in which I expressed disappointment that Jim Fetzer had now even alienated a normally laid back and even tempered poster like Robin Unger. In no way did I state that I was "disappointed" in Robin, or lay any blame on him at all.

No, I am not. You said you think the debate Fetzer brings to the community is a "very good thing" and that you were "disappointed" that Robin was "odds with him" because of his "combative style."

As I said to you yesterday, perhaps you could find time to rewrite your own posts in future rather that rewriting Professor Fetzer's?

As I've said before, the most troublesome posters here never believe they are violating the rules, yet they are the first ones to report other perceived violations, and demand others be taken to task.

Who would that be?

March 5, 2013

NO. Some of us are not joking around and actually want to figure all of this out. That, it has

become clear, does not apply to you. Why you are even bothering to post here is beyond me.

Let me test you research integrity with two simple questions that many have refused to answer:

(1) Was Doorman wearing a short-sleeved shirt? YES or NO

(2) Was Doorman's shirt buttoned up to the top? YES or NO

These two questions rule out Billy Lovelady, who was wearing a short-sleeved shirt; as well as

Checkered Shirt Man, whose shirt was buttoned up to the top. Neither was true of Doorman.

What's with you, Lee Farley? Do you care about the truth of the assassination of JFK or not?

I posted evidence that was on a par, if not superior, to yours. I posted "jaunty hat" Oswald. We know it's not Oswald in the doorway because he is not wearing a "jaunty hat" in the Altgen's photo:

What more do you want from me? This is the best that "pseudo science" can offer and is far simpler to explain than 42 Billy Lovelady's (one being a midget) and the E-N-T-I-R-E photographic record being faked.

Please provide your evidence that the "jaunty hat" theory is inferior to your own.

In Altgen's 6 is Doorway Man wearing a "jaunty hat" - YES or NO? It's a simple question...

Edited March 5, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

Greg Parker · March 5, 2013

I posted evidence that was on a par, if not superior, to yours. I posted "jaunty hat" Oswald. We know it's not Oswald in the doorway because he is not wearing a "jaunty hat" in the Altgen's photo:

Prof. Farley,

I have been unable to locate the JH study here.

It seems it was "disappeared" sometime after Prof. Fetzer expressed outrage that his work was about to be ditched in favor of this in your Royal Society presentation.

To say now that the study is a joke is a classic case of sour grapes. As noted here by others when the thread was in progress, Prof Fetzer took the JH study very seriously back then.

This of course,increased his stocks with serious students of the case while putting untold pressure on his standing within the OIP. He has obviously buckled under that pressure.

Dr. Parker (Frraccass)

Robin Unger · March 5, 2013

Quote:

Forrest Sorrels: in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine), May 7, 1964: “Within about 3 seconds, there were two more similar reports. And I said, ‘Let’s get out of here’ and looked back, all the way back, then, to where the President’s car was, and I saw some confusion, movement there, and the car just seemed to lurch forward."

So What ?

What does that have to do with Chaney ?

QUOTE:

Winston Lawson: “A motorcycle escort officer pulled alongside our Lead Car and said the President had been shot. Chief Curry gave a signal over his radio for police to converge on the area of the incident.”

Quote:

Emory Roberts: Upon seeing the president shot, i radioed Lawson to escort us to the nearest hospital fast but at a safe speed

If Roberts was in radio contact with Lawson in the lead car, from the moment the president was shot.

and then told Lawson to escort him to the nearest hospital

this begs the question, why did the occupants of the lead car play dumb, and say that the first they heard the details about the president being shot.

was when Chaney road up beside them. ?

Lawson was in radio contact with Roberts, why the hell would he be relying on some motorcycle cop to tell him what was happening

Edited March 5, 2013 by Robin Unger

Robin Unger · March 5, 2013

Click on image to view FULL SIZE

McIntire 2 showing Roberts still talking into the RADIO microphone.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Robin Unger

Robin Unger · March 5, 2013

Kellerman was also in contact with Lawson immediately the president and Connally were shot.

Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes. Good. There was enough for me to verify that the man was hit. So, in the same motion I come right back and grabbed the speaker and said to the driver, "Let's get out of here; we are hit," and grabbed the mike and I said, "Lawson, this is Kellerman,"--this is Lawson, who is in the front car. "We are hit; get us to the hospital immediately." Now, in the seconds that I talked just now, a flurry of shells come into the car. I then looked back and this time Mr. Hill, who was riding on the left front bumper of our followup car, was on the back trunk of that car; the President was sideways down into. the back seat.

http://jfkassassinat...ny/kellerma.htm

So once again i ask

why did the occupants of the lead car play dumb, and say that the first they heard the details about the president being shot.

was when Chaney road up beside them. ?

Edited March 5, 2013 by Robin Unger

Robin Unger · March 5, 2013

So even after being told by Kellerman & Roberts to get there act together and ESCORT them immediately to the nearest hospital.

Curry admmited in a phone conversation with Gary Mack in 1980 that the lead car was only travelling at 3 mph

If true, and i have no reason to believe it isn't, that would be an act of gross negligence on behalf of the occupants of the lead car, when they were requested URGENT assistance by Roberts & Kellerman to find the nearest hospital to try and save the lives of the president and Governor Connally

March 5, 2013

This is very strange. Robin Unger continues to add to a flurry of posts that reflect one ad hoc argument after another

in a (to me, astonishing) effort to defend the indefensible. He wants us to consider these reports as though they were

made independently of being occupants of the same car at the same time. Consider this quote taken out of context:

Forrest Sorrels: in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine), May 7, 1964: “Within about 3 seconds, there were two more similar reports. And I said, ‘Let’s get out of here’ and looked back, all the way back, then, to where the President’s car was, and I saw some confusion, movement there, and the car just seemed to lurch forward."

So What ?

What does that have to do with Chaney ?

No one, I submit, could read the passages I have highlighted in red and NOT CONCLUDE that this happened when Officer

Chaney rode forward to notify Chief Curry that JFK had been shot. Not only that, but there is nothing about this quote that

is inconsistent with any of the others. Just read the ones in red. Maybe Robin has forgotten that Chief Curry, Forrest Sorrels,

and Winston Lawson were all in the lead car TOGETHER when Office Chaney rode up to tell Chief Curry JFK had been shot.

This is not the only unbelievable argument he poses. Consider this one, which is at least equally bad, all things considered:

If Roberts was in radio contact with Lawson in the lead car, from the moment the president was shot.

and then told Lawson to escort him to the nearest hospital

this begs the question, why did the occupants of the lead car play dumb, and say that the first they heard the details about the president being shot.

was when Chaney road (sic) up beside them. ?

Lawson was in radio contact with Roberts, why the hell would he be relying on some motorcycle cop to tell him what was happening

Office Chaney was taking appropriate action by riding forward to inform Chief Curry. That did not preclude occupants of the

lead car having other possible sources of information. Why anyone would make this argument is beyond me. And that Curry

late admitted they were only moving at about 3 mph further confirms that the limo had been brought to a stop and they were

attempting to watch the assassination as it took place. Had the limo NOT STOPPED, they would have been moving at least

ten times as fast. So even this very strained argument backfires on its author. This cannot have happened at any other time:

James Chaney: I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit.

Bobby Hargis: He immediately went forward, and announced to the Chief that the President had been shot.

[Query: You do know (or perhaps not) that all four of the escort officers confirmed that the limo had come to a stop? YES or NO?]