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

[Daniel Gallup]

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

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

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

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

If the motorcycle officers said the limo stopped, it is up to the reader to draw his/her own conclusions about the integrity of the Z-film. The reference to Chaney is from MIDP p. 121, item #13. The reference there is to the Houston Chronicle and Chaney's statement to them to the effect that the limo stopped. If that's what he told the Houston Chronicle 11/24/63 that certainly trumps anything he told Gil Toft in the early 70s.

[Pat Speer]

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

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

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

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

If the motorcycle officers said the limo stopped, it is up to the reader to draw his/her own conclusions about the integrity of the Z-film. The reference to Chaney is from MIDP p. 121, item #13. The reference there is to the Houston Chronicle and Chaney's statement to them to the effect that the limo stopped. If that's what he told the Houston Chronicle 11/24/63 that certainly trumps anything he told Gil Toft in the early 70s.

The chronicle article said that the motorcade stopped, not that the limo stopped.

No one disputes that the motorcade stopped.

[Robert Prudhomme]

And, golly gee, Pat, what would make the motorcade stop?

[Pamela Brown]

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

Check out David Mantik's review here.

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

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

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

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

With all due respect, as I have mentioned before, 'the limo stopped' is a non-issue. The actual issue is to ask how fast the limo was going during the time Greer was facing JFK. Needless to say, it was not going anywhere at any speed during that time.

[Daniel Gallup]

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

Check out David Mantik's review here.

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

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

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

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

With all due respect, as I have mentioned before, 'the limo stopped' is a non-issue. The actual issue is to ask how fast the limo was going during the time Greer was facing JFK. Needless to say, it was not going anywhere at any speed during that time.

Non - issue??!!?? I'm sorry if I differ with you, Pam, but it makes a great deal of difference whether the limo stopped or not. It highlights the problem of "fraud in the evidence." And if the limo did stop, what happened during the stop that needed to be hidden? Indeed, what happened on either side of the limo stop that needed to be hidden?

[Pamela Brown]

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

Check out David Mantik's review here.

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

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

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

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

With all due respect, as I have mentioned before, 'the limo stopped' is a non-issue. The actual issue is to ask how fast the limo was going during the time Greer was facing JFK. Needless to say, it was not going anywhere at any speed during that time.

Non - issue??!!?? I'm sorry if I differ with you, Pam, but it makes a great deal of difference whether the limo stopped or not. It highlights the problem of "fraud in the evidence." And if the limo did stop, what happened during the stop that needed to be hidden? Indeed, what happened on either side of the limo stop that needed to be hidden?

With all due respect, I think you are missing my point. There is no question Greer slowed the limo and/or stopped it while he was facing JFK. That is even evident on the Z-film(s). Why did he do that? As he was the driver, supposedly taking orders from Kellerman, it seems difficult if not impossible to put a benign spin on that. What more do you think 'needed to be hidden'?

[Daniel Gallup]

With all due respect, as I have mentioned before, 'the limo stopped' is a non-issue. The actual issue is to ask how fast the limo was going during the time Greer was facing JFK. Needless to say, it was not going anywhere at any speed during that time.

Non - issue??!!?? I'm sorry if I differ with you, Pam, but it makes a great deal of difference whether the limo stopped or not. It highlights the problem of "fraud in the evidence." And if the limo did stop, what happened during the stop that needed to be hidden? Indeed, what happened on either side of the limo stop that needed to be hidden?

With all due respect, I think you are missing my point. There is no question Greer slowed the limo and/or stopped it while he was facing JFK. That is even evident on the Z-film(s). Why did he do that? As he was the driver, supposedly taking orders from Kellerman, it seems difficult if not impossible to put a benign spin on that. What more do you think 'needed to be hidden'?

It was impossible to miss your point, since you made it so clearly. And thankfully, you asked a good question: what more needed to be hidden? For one, forward splatter exiting the back of Kennedy's head, which, given the Parkland description of the back of the head, had to have been considerable. Massive forward splatter would have indicated a shooter from the front, Naturally, a stopped limo would have made a mockery of the extant Z-film, and made the government's collusion in the crime obvious. And whatever happened during the stop (see officer Bobby Joe Dale's strange comments) might be of considerable importance in understanding the true nature of the crime.

[David Andrews]

As he was the driver, supposedly taking orders from Kellerman, it seems difficult if not impossible to put a benign spin on that

Pamela - Pardon my ignorance, but I have always wondered if Kellerman was in command of the car, and was authorized to give Greer orders of march. I know who's in charge of the Queen Mary agents, but I'm not versed here. Can you or Vince Palamara educate me? Was Kellerman the quarterback, so to speak?

Edited January 22, 2014 by David Andrews

[Paul Brancato]

Daniel - why would massive forward splatter indicate a shot from the front?

[Daniel Gallup]

Daniel - why would massive forward splatter indicate a shot from the front?

The way the bones were reported to have been sprung open toward the back would indicate a great deal of brain, blood and bone exited the rear. That is the forward splatter from a shot from the front. In the extant Z-film there is no such splatter -- an impossible situation given the magnitude of the loss of brain in the back of the head.

[Paul Brancato]

By forward you mean forward of the bullet, not forward the direction the car was moving. Thanks for clarifying. The Z film I have seen pretty clearly shows that the head shot on the right side came from in front and to the right.

[David Andrews]

I understand all the liabilities of this panoramic presentation of Zapruder below - I can see them, so can you. But perhaps this is of some value to some part of understanding:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqk3sdfXFkc#t=91

Edited January 22, 2014 by David Andrews

[Vince Palamara]

David- Although Kellerman was "the quarterback", so to speak, even then (as Inspector Tom Kelley testified to the HSCA), the drivers were given proper training and instructions on what to do: get the heck out of their pronto (as common sense would dictate). At the same time, the HSCA also noted that the drivers needed to act based on the agent in charge's iinstructions...in that case, Greer is still at fault; no excuses, as Kellerman ordered him to get out of there in time to take evasive action before the fatal head shot.

Greer was remorseful at Parkland, as both Powers and O'Donnell noted (see also Manchester's book and Powers on CBS 11/22/88-on my You Tube channel).

That said, by the night of the autopsy, feelings "changed": Greer seemed to blame JFK for the slow down! Kellerman, for his part, told the FBI that the advance security arragements for Dallas were the most stringent and thorough ever, a totally ridiculous statement, as the Secret Service did nothing to protect JFK whatsoever. Their performance was awful in every respect.

Win Lawson has said that he "did all he could do"--what DID he do?????

Cogent comment a reader left on my You tube channel: “‘The Kennedy Detail’ repeats the legend that Clint Hill was within a split second of saving JFK and taking the fatal bullet. But he’s not even in the Moorman photo (taken at the moment of the fatal head shot) and in the Muchmore film he’s only climbing down from the follow up car AFTER the head shot. Also, in the Altgens photo (which was taken AFTER the second shot), Hill is still on the running board and staring at JFK- but not running towards him.”

As for Clint Hill and Gerald Blaine signing assassination photos, another reader had this comment:

“What an embarrassment! That would be like Bill Buckner signing a picture of the ball going through his legs give me a break!”

“These guys are always whining about “oh we’re traumatized we have nightmares” blah blah blah I know let’s sign pictures of that day what a joke.”

Edited January 22, 2014 by Vince Palamara

[Vince Palamara]

(it's vomit city reading alot of the reviews for Blaine's book- you would think JFK LIVED after reading these moronic "reviews". I weep for the future...)

[Pamela Brown]

(it's vomit city reading alot of the reviews for Blaine's book- you would think JFK LIVED after reading these moronic "reviews". I weep for the future...)

I felt the same way at the JFK Library. On the lower level are all the exhibits, and you can hear JFK's voice booming from each one of them. There is just one wall with little tv screens on it that show a few clips of the assassination. It is as though he is still there. It was eery...