Josiah Thompson

Thanks Craig for this. I should tell you that the semi-circular penumbra in the photo is most likely from an overhead flourescent light fixture that I could not turn off during the copying process. I took the photo to a San Francisco lab and had it scanned as you point out to grain level. I attach a certification from the lab. I think Pat Speer has put the issue correctly. In the LIFE magazine 4" by 5" transparencies that I worked with (close-up shown) and in the 4" by 5" transparencies I studied this June at the 6th Floor Museum, there is nothing remotely odd about the back of JFK's head. The shadow there appears just like all other shadows that we see. If you go downstream in copies, contrast build-up apparently makes the back of his head look odd. The same thing has happened before with people working from inferior copies of the Zapruder film and reaching preposterous conclusions. How many years has it been since the promissory note of the H7 started circulating? Two years? Three? Nothing important can be done until they either come forward with their results or silently fold their tents and fade away. Agreed by everyone, the best copies of the Z film are sitting in Dallas at the 6th Floor Museum. It would have been nice if the National Archives had simply scanned their own copies of the MPI transparencies and released them to the public at a nominal price. They didn't. It would be nice if the 6th Floor Museum would do the same thing and maybe they will. I've urged them to do that. But neither Gary Mack nor I make such decisions. For now, we are at least in the position that the transparencies can be viewed by simply making an appointment. I have seen them. They are glorious and they end this argument definitively. Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., says that David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., has viewed these transparencies and says they confirm a black patch at the back of Kennedy's head. Swell. I say that is simply not the case. I say that either Mantik or Fetzer is just making that up, that the transparencies show the opposite. And it's easy to see who's right... just go and take a look at them. There is one other point I'd like to make. Concerning the back of JFK's head subsequent to Z 313, what you see on the Zapruder film is also what you see in the Moorman photo, Nix and Muchmore. There are frames from the Z film that apparently show some disturbance of hair at the back of the head. It's very difficult to tell what you have. But the Moorman photo is taken from the left side and fairly close-in. It matches what we see in the Zapruder film at the same instant.. Z 315. According to Mr. Block, Z 315 is the frame when efforts were first begun to conceal a massive blow out of the back of JFK's head. If so, how come this is not apparent in the Moorman photo? You want to say that it too was faked up? Good luck. JT Actually the question is should anyone take you seriously? You have NO CLUE what versions of 317 Tink has viewed over the years. You are simply making a baseless assumption. I grabbed my copy of Tinks 317 crop and did a quick Photoshop curve adjustment to it. The file attached is this adjustment. The original image (as seen) was 120mb in size at 16 bit. It was scanned at 4000dpi. It is scanned down to grain level. Clearly this image has faults. The most blatant is the fact that there is a reflection of the camera right over JFK. This is not surprising. Tink made this slide using an improvised copy setup, "on the sly". and he is not a professional photographer. Second the image appears to be made on regular reversal film. Tink states Ektachrome. It appears from the contrast build that this is in fact the case. A professional duplication would have been done on duplication stock which requires tested filtration to achieve proper results. Third the image was scanned to film grain level. This adds level of 'noise' above the image detail that makes measurements difficult. Finally the image appears underexposed. So where does that leave us? Is the image of no value? Of course not. It adds yet another data point to the mix. It shows, as best possible given the faults, what was present in the Life 4x5 color transparencies. And clearly the Davidson image being touted has faults as well. It is FILLED with compression artifacts and it is contrasty. No one in their right mind would say that the 6k scan made by the H7 has no value. Given its lineage it is surely a valuable asset. I for one cant wait to see the presentation of both the scan and the data that attempts to prove the claim that the image is retouched. Sadly all we have now is, "I see it, just believe me."

Mr. Block, you come on in a very polite, very silk-gloved manner. But that silk glove conceals a slippery (even slimy) argument. In 19th Century logic books (just ask Professor James Fetzer, Ph.D. who has used this argument countless times) it is called “poisoning of the wells.” The idea is that if you prejudice your audience by sliming your opponent no one gets a chance to consider the argument and counter-argument on their own merits. Professor Fetzer at least offers this argument with no silk gloves on. When not claiming I’m an “operative” for some shadowy intelligence outfit or about to become a lone-nutter, he claims that my book was so much built on the Zapruder film that any attempt to show its inauthenticity somehow threatens my whole being. With silken gloves you are doing the same thing, only less obviously. Here’s my answer to both you and Fetzer: Six Seconds was about all sorts of things besides the Zapruder film. It was an attempt to lay out and then put together all the evidence that was known in 1967 into a persuasive picture of what really happened. Was the Zapruder film an important part of that reconstruction? Of course, it was. And it is today. That is why discussions of the Zapruder film and what it shows keep appearing on this Forum and others. But because the Zapruder film is an important piece of the evidence picture does not mean that I’m committed to defending it. Kennedy being hit twice between 312 and 314 was a central feature of Six Seconds. As soon as I saw that the measurements underlying that claim were mistaken, I gave it up. The same applies to the Zapruder film. If anyone could persuade me that it has been altered for faked up, I would report that in a heart beat. The problem is no one has. You sum up the basic evidence in three short paragraphs, two of which are mistaken. (1) The first paragraph mentions the non-existent “black patch” at the rear of JFK’s head. You must be kidding. (2) The second mentions the medical professionals at Parkland who reported (not testified to) an exit-sized hole in the rear of the President’s head. You are right that some did. But Pat Speer on this site has shown that many also placed the hole higher up in the parietal. (3) The third mentions the Harper fragment as coming from John Kennedy’s occiput. I myself said exactly that in Six Seconds. I was wrong and you are wrong. It was the opinion of Billy Harper’s uncle that it came from the occiput. However, further study of photos of the fragment by experts for HSAC determined that it was from the parietal area of the skull. A lot of windage is going to get wasted on this topic. The facts are simple. We all know that downstream copies of the Zapruder film introduce artifacts that are not substantial. The whole Greer-shot-the-President brouhaha proved this. Hence the generation of the copy we are looking at is important. Anyone who has seen the MPI transparencies at the 6th Floor Museum and is sophisticated about the Zapruder film recognizes they are glorious. They are available for viewing. Frame 317 is available for viewing. These transparencies are many generations closer to the original than the material used by Wilkinson. Doug Horne, James Fetzer, Ph.D., and everyone else has conceded this. These transparencies trump anything else in existence. Their pedigree is well-known and firm. Why don’t you go and look at them and then report back? Or how about someone quite neutral from this Forum? Anyone. Go to Dallas and tell us what you find? All the rest is just palaver. JT

Hello Mr. Block, May I compliment you on this posting? It is clear, extremely reasonable and deserves a really good answer. I'm only sorry that I don't have the time today to give it the answer it deserves. One thing confuses me and perhaps you could help me. Chris Davidson posted a full-frame of 317 that he got from the National Geographic video. You used it to point out the black spot on the back of Kennedy's head. John Costella posted a close-up of Kennedy in 317 from the same source(see post #211). The Costella close-up looks very much like the close-up I posted (see post #230) and does not show the black spot on the back of Kennedy's head. I'll attach both Costella's close-up and mine below so that you can take a look at them. This seems to be a perennial problem when we begin posting versions of Zapruder frames. Going back to origins, it seems to me almost everyone would agree to the following points: (1) the raw material used by the Hollywood Seven and which you saw begins with a copy of the Zapruder film that is at least a fourth and possibly a fifth generation copy. (2) My own set of transparencies was made from transparencies that were direct copies from the original. These direct copies from the original made by LIFE in the 1960s have apparently been lost. (3) The MPI 4" by 5" transparencies now held by the 6th Floor Museum in Dallas were made from the original film more recently. (4) Everyone agrees that the MPI transparencies are closer to the original than any other copies and they are available for viewing. Because of all this, I traveled to Dallas and spent two afternoons examining extremely closely the MPI transparencies. They are glorious. They show no black spot at the back of Kennedy's head and look very much like the close-up I am attaching below. I understand that Ms. Wilkinson reviewed the MPI transparencies in Dallas and I am not aware if she has said anything about her examination. I can certainly understand why anyone might decline to take my version of the Z film as definitive. Likewise, I hope you would understand why I would not take the Wilkinson copy as definitive. Since everyone agrees that the MPI version is the best version available why not take it as definitive? This was important enough for me to go to Dallas and look at it. If it is important to you, I hope you'd do the same and report back to the rest of us. JT

The procedure described is valid and it's validity has been shown on numerous occasions. It's validity will be shown once again when the much-vaunted "Hollywood Seven" come out of hibernation and give us scans to deal with. Until then, I have better things to do than to continue a discussion with you about a procedure that has to remain hypothetical until we have something real to work with. You may enjoy discussing every thing that comes up with respect to your claim of Zapruder film forgery. I don't. JT

Sorry John, but I don't think we can get agreement here. I really don't have enough interest in the point to continue discussing it. This point is something basic to photo interpretation work and the experts in photo interpretation will decide whether your gloss on the procedure is correct. Perhaps one or more of them will take up the discussion. JT Tink, what do you mean by "3D"? You mean of the "camera original" film itself? Or are you referring to a "fake stereo" using two different frames? (Just trying to figure out which you are referring to.) John

Sure Chris. Back in November 1966, the 4" by 5" transparency was put on a light table under a homemade copying stand containing my 35 mm Nikon. There were a lot of frames to do and only limited time. Hence, I did not take up any time making sure the transparency was aligned perfectly under the copying stand. I would expect there would be variation from frame to frame and from a perfect vertical as the copying process proceeded. Perhaps you could let me know if this is significant and why. JT

Sorry, Chris, but I can't. I think the reason I can't you might find interesting. This all came up two years ago in January 2010. I took my Ektachrome slides to a commercial scanning outfit in San Francisco and had a series from about 310 scanned by their super equipment. But it was expensive. Real expensive. I think I ended up spending $600 or $700 on this. When we did the scan I limited down the area to be scanned largely to reduce the cost. Hence, I have the full-frame as an Ektachrome slide but not as a scan. So I have nothing in digital form to send you. Your full frame version of 317 from the National Geographic Program shows a lot of contrast buildup that certainly makes the back of JFK's head look like something has been patched there. Neither my close-up from 317 nor the close-up posted by John Costella from the same program shows this contrast buildup and oddity at the back of JFK's head. Apparently, there is a regular version of this program on DVD and then a HD definition program. I take it your posting came from the DVD and hence the regular version. Am I right? JT Hi Josiah, Can you please post the full frame version "sprocket holes included if possible" of your cropped 317 frame. thank you, chris

Sure John. The camera-original is in NARA’s deep freeze and hence not available. I'm not sure what you mean by "fake stereo." However, surely you know that photo interpretation experts have known for a long time that the sure way to catch fakery in a movie film is to compare adjacent frames. Since this has been kind of elementary knowledge in that field, I'm curious as to why the much vaunted "Hollywood Seven" haven't tried it. Or maybe they have and got the wrong result. We don't know since all they've produced is a deafening silence that now stretches for several years. Tink, what do you mean by "3D"? You mean of the "camera original" film itself? Or are you referring to a "fake stereo" using two different frames? (Just trying to figure out which you are referring to.) John

Mr. Block, your post of Z317 seems to be quite contrasty. I wonder is that isn't because (as far as I know) the scan was made from a fourth generation copy. If everything goes well with this and I don't screw up the attachment process, I'll be posting my own version of frame 317. I made this transparency from the LIFE magazine 4" by 5" transparencies in November 1966. It has been in my custody ever since. it is a 35 mm transparency in Ektachrome. The 4" by 5" transparencies were made from the original film by LIFE's photolab. It has none of the contrast buildup that your scan shows. In addition, my series of transparencies do not show anything of the changes that you describe. The back of JFk's head looks the same in both Z312 and Z317. We keep going back to the problem of how successive copying of the film introduces artifacts or appearances that aren't there in the original. Since it has been agreed for several years that the MPI transparencies in the 6th Floor Museum are far superior to the forensic edition of the film, why didn't you take a look at that? I did last June and found the results stunning. Like my own copy that I'm posting as an attachment,Z317 in the MPI transparencies has none of the contrast buildup that your scan shows. These discussions have been going on for years. I am certainly no photo expert but I am told that a 3D study of Z 317 would disclose immediately and definitively whether anything had been painted in on the back of JFK's head. Am I right about this? If so, wouldn't a 3D study be the quickest,easiest and cheapest way to resolve the question? You folks are down in Hollywood where this kind of a study could be pretty easily arranged. The rest of us have our hands tied because we don't have the scans you folks keep talking about and are using as evidence. JT

HiCraig, Are there any blurring programs that might possible work on the Zapruder film... say frames 312 and 313? Costella's remarks on the theory of blur removal are from 2001. With the development of digital technology since then I would expect some real advances here. Have there been such advances? JT

I checked the full quotes and it is clear that the remarks of Forrest Sorrels are not consistent with the scenario I outlined. With respect to Sorrels, you are right and I was wrong. I regret the error. With respect to the others, I think they are all consistent with the report from Chief Curry that the exchange with Chaney took place west of the Triple Underpass on the on-ramp to the Stemmons Freeway. This would be at a time after the limousine had cleared the scene and at a time when Chaney could have caught up to Chief Curry in the lead car. JT

Claims of Zapruder film alteration come and go. This particular claim has been on life-support since it was discussed in 2008 as “New Proof of Zapruder Film Fakery.” Like earlier claims, it is usually announced by Professor Fetzer as some sort of world-shaking breakthrough and remains so until the leaks are discovered and it sinks. The 2008 discussion showed that the recollections of Chief Curry, Agent Lawson and Agent Sorrels are all probably correct. After hanging back and almost coming to a stop, Officer Chaney guns his cycle and catches up with the lead car containing Curry, Lawson and Sorrels. The films of Zapruder, Nix, Bell and Daniel all are consistent with this scenario as are the still photos of Altgens and McIntire. The McIntire photo, for example, shows two motorcyclists, Chaney and Martin trailing the limousine as it blasts by the lead car at the Triple Underpass. As Chief Curry explained, Officer Chaney caught up with the lead car west of the Triple Underpass on the on-ramp to the Stemmons Freeway and told them what had happened. Hence, the photo evidence and the reports of Curry, Lawson and Sorrels all form a compact package describing what happened. Chaney was never deposed by the Warren Commission and never submitted reports to DPD as to what he observed on November 22nd. He was interviewed by the FBI on November 28, 1963 (25H284), but, oddly enough, was only asked about his chance encounter with Jack Ruby in Dealey Plaza on November 23rd. On the night of November 22nd, Chaney was interviewed by Bill Lord of ABC News at DPD headquarters. During this interview, Chaney said: “I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit.” Since all the films and photos show that Chaney did not do this, Professor Fetzer and Jack White claimed that all the films and photos have been altered (apparently to conceal this rather trivial fact). Through a lot of work, I finally obtained the mp3 of an interview Chaney did with Gil Toft posing as “John Whitney” sometime between 1971 and 1973. Toft was helping Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams with their book Murder from Within. Chaney was important to this effort because Newcomb and Adams were backing the notion that Agent Bill Greer turned around in his seat and shot Kennedy with a chrome hand-gun. On page 55, Newcomb and Adams write: “The President was facing forward and slightly to his left when he was struck by the fatal bullet fired by the driver.” In an Appendix on page 311, they even provide a detailed diagram of the limousine showing Greer turning around in his seat and shooting Kennedy. Since Greer is in the driver’s seat and Kennedy is in the rear seat on the right corner, the trajectory of the shot is from left to right with debris blown to the right rear over Officer Chaney. Clearly, Toft hoped to get confirmation for this theory by having Chaney tell him he was hit with impact debris. Chaney did not oblige and said nothing about being hit by any impact debris. Chapter Four of Murder from Within is entitled “The Filmed Assassination: How the Key Movie of the Murder Was Altered.” Newcomb and Adams describe various ways in which the Zapruder film was altered not the least being retouching of Z 313 to conceal the fact that Greer shot Kennedy in the left temple and the bullet and brain debris exited from the right rear of Kennedy’s head. They devote all of page 99 to showing graphically how this was done. With part of their thesis the claim that the Zapruder film had been altered, they sent copies of the film to Officer Chaney, to Officer Douglas Jackson, to Officer Bobby Hargis and to Sgt. Stavis Ellis. As the transcript posted on this thread makes clear, Toft was obviously hoping Chaney would provide grist for the Zapruder fakery theory and his questions to Chaney show this. Had Chaney really “went ahead of the President’s car,” he could have made Toft’s day by simply telling him this. This was just what Toft was fishing for. Yet Chaney would not oblige. Instead, he said he did not remember stopping but must have stopped because he recalled watching Officer Bobby Hargis dump his cycle by the south curb and run across the street in front of Chaney. This is not something Chaney got from watching the Zapruder film because it’s not there. It’s something he got from remembering the event and knowing what his memory entailed. In a delicious irony, by trying to get evidence for Zapruder alteration in the early 1970s, Toft ended up depriving Professor Fetzer of a witness statement he attempted to use for the same purpose forty years later! JT

Yes, David, I guess I misunderstood you. The MPI transparencies confirmed what I had earlier seen in my own copy of frame 317 from 1966, in a copy of the frame that I got from Robert Groden and in a copy of the frame posted by Jack White. In all these, I detected no discernible difference in the shadow on the back of JFK's head and other shadows in the frame (on Connally, on JFK's back, etc.) If the back of JFK's head was doctored, it ought to show, don't you think? I found nothing unusual about the shadow. JT Not sure if I understand the post... "like the shadows that appear at other places in the frame" suggests that you think the BOH shadow is consistent with the others. What I noticed was the shadow at the back of JFK's head do not change as other similiar shadows do and in fact looks to ME like it floats over the head... I happen to do a z317 analysis just to see how these shadows behaved... as well as a gif at high contrast to see how that area changes... that area stays VERY dark comparitively... yet I of course view it with suspicious eyes... and I agree with you again JT... been hearing about these glorious 35mm Hollywood frames that make it obvious... maybe saving it for the 50th?

Yes, I noticed the same thing, David. Last June I spent two afternoons studying the MPI 4" by 5" transparencies at the 6th Floor Museum. They are glorious. Looking at Z317, it struck me that the shadow on the back of JFK's head is exactly like the shadows that appear at other places in the frame. This is what you noticed and it is even clearer in the MPI transparencies. What ever happened to the much-vaunted "Hollywood Seven." We don't even know who they are supposed to be and all we've heard from them is a deafening silence? And for how many years has their silence been deafening?

You cite the point that is made and then, obstinately, pay no attention to it. Your first witness, Chaney, explained in the phone interview that although he did not recall stopping he must have stopped. Why? Because he now recalls being almost stopped when he watched Officer Hargis park his cycle near the south curb of Elm Street and run across the street in front of him. Chaney could have backed your theory but he didn't? Scratch Chaney from your witness list. Chief Curry has said that the rendezvous with Chaney occurred west of the underpass on the on-ramp to the Stemmons Freeway. Such a meeting is consistent with all the film and photo evidence which shows Chaney lagging seveal hundred feet behind the limousine as it blasts by the lead car under the underpass. What Curry says is most likely what happened and is corroborrated by the quotes you give from Sorrels and Lawson. Scratch Curry, Sorrels and Lawson from your witness list. Your are left with Officer Hargis who said, "He [Chaney] immediately went forward and announced to the Chief that the President had been shot.” Hargis is right. Chaney did go "forward and announced to the Chief that the President had been shot." He just didn't do it "immediately." Why not surprise everyone, Professor? Instead of launching another diatribe, why not try actually dealing with the evidence as it's presented to you? Who knows you might learn to actually like reasonable debate and discussion. JT Part of the power of Costella’s new findings is that they can be appraised by anyone with access to the film, which is archived at the same site, and his collation of reports at Assassination Research 5/1 (2007), assassinationresearch/v5n1/v5n1costella.pdf . As illustrations of what he has uncovered, here are some of the reports from the officials who were involved: * James Chaney (motorcycle patrolman on right rear of the Presidential limousine): “I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. And then he instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hospital and that Parkland was standing by.” * Bobby Hargis (motorcycle patrolman on left rear of the Presidential limousine): “The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward and announced to the Chief that the President had been shot.” * Winston Lawson (Secret Service Agent in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “A motorcycle escort officer pulled along side our Lead Car and said the President had been shot. Chief Curry gave a signal over the radio for police to converge on the area of the incident.” * Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service Agent in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “A motorcycle patrolman pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled, ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer responded in the affirmative.” * Chief Jesse Curry (in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “. . . about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney, rode up beside us and I asked if something happened back there and he said, ‘Yes,’ and I said ‘Has somebody been shot?” And he said, ‘I think so.’” There are multiple sources for their testimony, which is corroborated by that of others, including, for example, Marrion Baker, a Dallas Police Officer, who immediately thereafter entered the Book Depository and confronted Lee Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom. Costella’s study provides additional citations. So what is there here that you do not understand? And simply because I once asked you about Greer--because a friend had shown me a photo with Kellerman sticking his finger into his left ear--you have been making the false claim that I ENDORSED the idea that Greer shot JFK, which I have addressed from time to time and have refuted many times. In a 4.5 hour documentary, "JFK: The Assassination, the Cover-Up, and Beyond", which I produced in 1994, I explain the evidence on both sides, because it exists and deserves discussion. When logic and evidence are not on your side, alas, you resort to prevarication and fabrication, for which you shall be long remembered. That will be your enduring legacy.

I'm really sorry to hear this. Although we were on opposite sides of many issues, Doug could always be counted on to play fair. This is really too bad. JT

I sure do, Martin. How about you? Do you know of any good counter-arguments to this kind of a scenario? If there are some, I sure would like to know about them. Why? Because if I'm wrong, I'm spending a lot of time chasing windmills. JT That's a good idea. After all, asking what he believes is infinitly preferable to either of us putting words in his mouth. So Tink, if you're reading this, do you still believe there were two shots to the head?

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

Thanks Martin for catching this. How long has this article been sitting out there? Years. Yep, this still seems to me the most reasonable explanation of the evidence we have. JT Jim, As far as I know, Tink has not abandoned the "double-hit" scenario. Obviously I could be wrong but the last thing he wrote on the subject (as far as I know) was in his essay Bedrock Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination: "If the President was struck in the head by a bullet from the rear, when did this happen? As we see, there is no longer any evidence that it happened between Z312 and Z313. Did it happen before Z312? The film indicates "No." Did it happen after Z313? By Z333 Kennedy's body is so low in the limousine that his head could not have been hit by a bullet from the rear. Hence, if Kennedy's head was hit by a bullet from the rear it must have occurred in the twenty frames that succeeded Z313. Once again, the Zapruder film may help us answer the question. By a close study of the film, Keith Fitzgerald has observed a number of clues in the sequence of frames following Z327 that a second hit to the head occurred here. It is too early to say that this has been confirmed but this may well be the case. The observational studies mentioned above show what still can be learned from a careful examination of the films and photos from Dealey Plaza. A shot at Z313 from the right front and a second shot from the north end of Elm Street at Z328 would match exactly what the acoustics evidence tells us. By combining the acoustics evidence with the self-authenticating record of the films and photos taken in Dealey Plaza, we may be on our way to laying down a time-line for the event."

Professor Fetzer conveniently fails to mention two important facts that came to light when this issue was discussed three years ago on this Forum as “New Proof of JFK Film Fakery” (February 10, 2008). That’s where Fetzer used the quotes from Chaney, Hargis, Lawson, Sorrels and Chief Jesse Curry that he repeats now. The first was the discussion of the Mel McIntire still photo that shows the lead car pulled far to the left under the Triple Underpass as the limousine passes it. Officer Chaney can be seen several hundred feet back as this happens. The second is the report that Chief Curry later explained that Chaney rode up and told him what happened but this occurred “shortly before they drove onto Stemmons.” This location is west of the underpass on the entrance ramp to the Stemmons Freeway. Hence, it seems very likely that Chaney did just as he reported. He almost stopped in his tracks and watched Hargis run across Elm Street in front of him. Then, he trailed the limousine and finally caught up with Chief Curry in the lead car west of the Triple Underpass and told Curry what had happened. This is perfectly consistent with what we see in the Zapruder, Nix, Bell, and Daniels film and the Altgens 6 and Mel McIntire still photos. It is also completely consistent with what Winston Lawson, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Jesse Curry said happened. This means that all witnesses except Bobby Hargis are scratched from the list of witnesses backing Professor Fetzer’s claim. And Hargis? He was right when he said Chaney “went forward and announced to the Chief that the President had been shot.” It just didn’t happen “immediately.” JT Part of the power of Costella’s new findings is that they can be appraised by anyone with access to the film, which is archived at the same site, and his collation of reports at Assassination Research 5/1 (2007), assassinationresearch/v5n1/v5n1costella.pdf . As illustrations of what he has uncovered, here are some of the reports from the officials who were involved: * James Chaney (motorcycle patrolman on right rear of the Presidential limousine): “I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. And then he instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hospital and that Parkland was standing by.” * Bobby Hargis (motorcycle patrolman on left rear of the Presidential limousine): “The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward and announced to the Chief that the President had been shot.” * Winston Lawson (Secret Service Agent in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “A motorcycle escort officer pulled along side our Lead Car and said the President had been shot. Chief Curry gave a signal over the radio for police to converge on the area of the incident.” * Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service Agent in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “A motorcycle patrolman pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled, ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer responded in the affirmative.” * Chief Jesse Curry (in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “. . . about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney, rode up beside us and I asked if something happened back there and he said, ‘Yes,’ and I said ‘Has somebody been shot?” And he said, ‘I think so.’” There are multiple sources for their testimony, which is corroborated by that of others, including, for example, Marrion Baker, a Dallas Police Officer, who immediately thereafter entered the Book Depository and confronted Lee Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom. Costella’s study provides additional citations. So what is there here that you do not understand? And simply because I once asked you about Greer--because a friend had shown me a photo with Kellerman sticking his finger into his left ear--you have been making the false claim that I ENDORSED the idea that Greer shot JFK, which I have addressed from time to time and have refuted many times. In a 4.5 hour documentary, "JFK: The Assassination, the Cover-Up, and Beyond", which I produced in 1994, I explain the evidence on both sides, because it exists and deserves discussion. When logic and evidence are not on your side, alas, you resort to prevarication and fabrication, for which you shall be long remembered. That will be your enduring legacy.

Once again you miss the point entirely. Gil Toft and friends apparently sent copies of the Zapruder film and Altgens photo to numerous motorcyclists. Apparently, they were hoping the officers would look at the film and say: "That wasn't the way it happened. I was there and I know what happened. The Zapruder film has been doctored." If Chaney had ridden ahead in front of the limousine to deliver his message to Chief Curry, he could have told Toft just that. He could have said: "This film is fake. I took off like a bare-assed ape after the lead car and ran right by the limousine and nothing like this shows in the Zapruder film." This would have made Toft's and your day. But Chaney didn't do that. On the contrary, he remembered coming almost to a stop and watching Hargis run across the street in front of him. So now you don't believe what Chaney says. Priceless!! By the way, in Murder from Within Newcomb and Adams back another wacky idea you were enthusiastic about in the 90s... the notion that Bill Greer turned around and shot Kennedy in the head with a chrome handgun! JT

Thanks David. If you come up with anything, please let me know. As far as I can discern, Chaney was interviewed by the FBI in November/December 1963. However, the FBI's only interest was Chaney's chance encounter with Jack Ruby in Dealey Plaza on November 23rd. He was never even asked about what he observed on November 23rd. Nor did he ever submit a report to DPD. That's the way things stood until August 1975 when one of the Dallas FBI agents encountered Lt. Jack Revell on a streetcorner in downtown Dallas. Revell told the agent that Chief Curry had always thought that more than one person was shooting at Kennedy because of the blood and brain debris that had hit one of motorcyclists. Revell also told the agent that Officer Chaney and Officer Douglas Jackson had never been interviewed about what they observed on November 22nd. The agant's report made its way up to Washington and a directive came down to interview Jackson and Chaney. Both were interviewed about November 22nd. Jackson got blood on his pants when he climbed into the limousine at Parkland to help remove Kennedy and Connally from the back seat. But he was not splattered with blood or brain matter at the time JFK was hit in the head. Oddly enough, Chaney is quizzed about November 22nd but never asked by the FBI whether he was splattered with blood. This is curious given the fact that the inquiry by the Bureau began when it learned that Chief Curry was saying two guys were shooting at the President because Hargis got hit with blood and brain debris and he was riding to the left rear. Very soon, I will be getting access to the out-takes from the Lord interview of Chaney on the evening of November 22nd. When that's done, I figure I will have touched every base. Can you think of anything else I might have missed? Once again, please alert me if you find anything. Right now I have no evidence that Chaney himself ever said he was hit with debris to anyone. JT

The point here is incredibly simple and Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., is obstinately missing it. Chaney is saying in the simplest terms that he did not motor forward as Fetzer believes. Read his lips: "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 it, I must have come almost to a stop for Hargis to have got off his motorcycle 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." Instead of dealing with what Chaney is actually saying, Fetzer continues to repeat his mantra: "Chaney rode forward." Okay, perhaps Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., teacher of many courses in logic and critical thinking for a long, long, very long time, perhaps Professor Fetzer can explain how Chaney rode forward and, at the same time, has a memory of coming "almost to a stop" so that he could see Officer Hargis get off his cycle near the south curb of Elm Street and run across the street in front of Chaney. What Chaney recalls is completely consistent with exactly what we seen in all the films and photos of these moments. The photo scenario painted by the Zapruder, Nix, Bell and Daniels films ends with Chaney trailing the limousine by several hundred feet as the limousine pulls alongside the lead car under the triple underpass. So given the various films, given what Chaney is actually saying, given what Chief Curry and the others are actually saying, what is the evidence that supports the mantra, "Chaney rode forward?" JT It's C-H-A-N-E-Y, Jim. C-H-E-N-E-Y, unfortunately, lives on. Even without a heart. As far as Thompson, you've bet the farm he's gonna pull some orchestrated about face on the 50th. Time will tell if you're right. If he does, I'll admit you were right about him all along. I hope this makes you happy. But in the meantime, can't you step back and thank him for tracking down a basically forgotten interview with one of the closest witnesses? I mean, odds are there is something on the tape you'll find interesting or useful. Why not wait till you hear or see the transcript of the whole tape before you denounce it? P.S. I asked you a question on the thread you started on your recent presentation.

Pat, Why don't you ask Fetzer to put some real money on the table? Bet him $1,000. or $5,000. that he's wrong. Then, on November 22, 2013, you and I will have a great meal on Fetzer at the Cattlemen's Steak House in Dallas. It would be a supreme pleasure. JT It's C-H-A-N-E-Y, Jim. C-H-E-N-E-Y, unfortunately, lives on. Even without a heart. As far as Thompson, you've bet the farm he's gonna pull some orchestrated about face on the 50th. Time will tell if you're right. If he does, I'll admit you were right about him all along. I hope this makes you happy. But in the meantime, can't you step back and thank him for tracking down a basically forgotten interview with one of the closest witnesses? I mean, odds are there is something on the tape you'll find interesting or useful. Why not wait till you hear or see the transcript of the whole tape before you denounce it? P.S. I asked you a question on the thread you started on your recent presentation.

First off, some reading therapy for Professor James Fetzer, Ph.D. He writes: “Even Chaney acknowledges that there were "at least between 60 and 75 people that day who claimed the car stopped." You got it wrong. It wasn’t Chaney who said that but his questioner, Gil Toft. Check the transcript. Like many of his failed attempts to prove the Zapruder film inauthentic, Fetzer anchored his claim here by opposing what the Zapruder film shows to what Officer Chaney said. On the night of the shooting, Chaney was interviewed by Bill Lord of ABC News. Chaney said, “Then, when the second shot came, I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the face by the second bullet. He slumped forward into Mrs. Kennedy’s lap. And uuh, apparently.. [unintelligible].. I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. And he instructed us over there to take him to Parkland Hospital and he had Parkland Hospital stand by. I rolled up ahead.. to notify the officers who were leading the escort that we had been hit.” When it was pointed out that the Bell and Nix films show exactly what the Zapruder film shows, Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., claimed that all three films had been faked. Finally, it was pointed out that the Daniels film shows the limousine coming even with the lead car underneath the Triple Underpass with Officer Chaney’s cycle trailing by hundreds of feet. Since the Daniel’s film was never in government possession, it became difficult to claim it had been altered. About this time, Professor Fetzer, Ph.D’s, claim appeared to flame out. Not so, says Professor Fetzer, Ph.D. Yet he fails to even read what Chaney says in this tape-recorded interview. Check out the transcript. Chaney says that he still does not recollect stopping his cycle but he must have. Why? Because he does recollect Officer Bobby Hargis getting off his cycle and crossing Elm Street in front of Chaney. Just as the film evidence demonstrates, Chaney did not accelerate his cycle and pass the limousine to meet with the lead car. On the contrary, he slowed (perhaps even stopped) while watching Hargis run from left to right in front of him. This is what the film evidence showed and what Chaney now says happened. Will Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., say, “You know, I guess I was wrong?” I’m not holding my breath. Just as he’s done with earlier failed attempts to prove the Zapruder film a fake, he’ll find ever more ingenious ways to cover up the fact that his evidence just went ‘poof.’ JT