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

And on the basis of such a GROSSLY INFERIOR copy, he wants to insist that a conspicuous feature that's

OBVIOUSLY THERE is not there? Why should anyone take Tink seriously? He has discredited himself.

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

Greetings again Mr. Thompson,

Thank you for your nice and well thought out response. I have to admit that you make me feel a bit nervous. I have a very dog-eared copy of your book, I suppose it is a first edition, and I've read the thing nearly to death.

You are one of the early "2nd generation" of researchers who followed the initial wave of books on the assassination. I grew up reading your book. You exhibited creativity and careful thought in your volume, and while perhaps I didn't agree with everything you wrote, you always made me pause and consider matters further in the case.

Much of your research life has involved this little bit of film. I remember your early writing about the movement of the President's head- and the basic trust of the reliability of the contents of this home movie must be an issue that you care deeply about.

I don't blame you one bit for your being careful about taking that first step into really accepting the notion that this film has been tampered with, but I hope that you are still young enough at heart, and open minded to the possibilities of conspiracy after the fact in the faking of raw evidence in this case.

I quite agree with you on a number of the things you state.

It is indeed confusing trying to sort through the various "versions" of the film. One needs to be cautious. If a person is using images of the Zapruder similar to the image you posted, and trusted all these decades, and the frame shows Governor Connally with a black shirt collar and makes Jackie's roses invisible, naturally it is not a reliable image for looking at the President's hair for an honest evaluation of whether there is alteration or not. All versions that show a similar lack of basic details would need to be avoided. I have a little list of basic things to look for when contemplating newly discovered images- it's just wise to do so and be careful.

You are exactly right about the perennial problem of basic access to the Zapruder Film. You hit the nail squarely on the head. Ever since Mr. Zapruder sold it to Life Magazine, it has been squirrelled away from the American public in a secretive, illusive, and frankly most suspicious way.

Even after the American taxpayers pay millions of dollars for the thing in recent times, the copyright holds it under lock and key in a most un-American spirit. It sits deteriorating and unrestored in the National Archives. We are extremely lucky, in my opinion, that someone with the patriotism and curiosity of Ms. Wilkinson came along and paid the considerable sum to have modern technology preserve the film's content in the best possible manner.

The film, slides, prints are all a part of American History, a history that the American public has paid for using much more than mere dollars. The government should long ago have made excellent copies made available free in libraries, and since 1993, ought to have high quality digital versions online for researchers everywhere.

It's little wonder there is confusion with so very much secrecy. It isn't surprising that public confidence in our government has generally plunged downhill since that day in Dallas. Adding the black patch to the film amounts to treason- as is any alteration to any of the films or photos from the assassination, if the point was to hide the truth from the American people.

It's a big issue. It's important, and I can understand everyone's extreme concern that such things happen here in the USA.

Thank you too, very much, for your well presented four points on the hierarchy of the copies of the Zapruder Films and transparencies, though, you are incorrect about them, which might add some new insights for both you and everyone when considering the accuracy of Ms. Wilkinson's HD neutral scan.

The Wilkinson 35mm dupe negative was declared last year by NARA to be a 3rd generation element.

This, of course, is huge and important news. It destroys the notion of it having later generation problems. It insures this carefully handled HD digital scan of the Zapruder Film, which was created in a professional Hollywood studio using the best equipment by seasoned film pros, is going to be the finest complete record of the details of the assassination- assuming it is someday released!

Someone earlier in the thread mentioned that the discussion wasn't over- that this was the "tip of the iceburg", and, so it is.

I stated earlier at the start of my posting in this thread that I don't expect people to listen to me and change their long held views, I'm just one artist with one opinion.

What I am hoping is that I have piqued your interest in the matter, and that you all- those who think there was alteration and those who are not sure, will look a little harder at that black patch of artwork on the rear of JFK's head, and consider what this means when combined with the other long existing hard evidence of an occipital exit wound on the rear of the President's skull.

To sum up some of that basic evidence-

1. The rear of the President's head in the historical Zapruder film, which was itself hidden from the public for decades, has clear evidence of simple alteration, with a black patch masking the rear of JFK's head after the headshot.

2. Dozens, perhaps scores of witnesses, most of them medical professionals, all saw and testified to an exit-sized hole on the rear of the President's head- in this same blacked out area. The HSCA tried to hide the testimony of many witnesses at Bethesda who saw the same rearward hole that the Parkland folks did. The ARRB released the testimony for all to read.

3. A piece of bone described as occipital skull bone by 100% of the doctors who handled and described it was found at the scene, studied at the Methodist Hospital, and delivered to the FBI/Admiral Burkley who promptly "lost it" forever. It exists in photos only because the honest doctors who first viewed it took pictures of it that couldn't be ignored.

Each piece of this evidence to a frontal shot that exited from the rear was tampered with in one way or another. The film altered, witnesses influenced to change testimony in later interviews, occipital skull bone destroyed.

To accept this as reality, you do not need multiple film tampering events involved. Zapruder remains virtually alone in clearly visually showcasing the right rear of the President's head after impact.

It is really irrelevant to me whether the car stopped or not. I don't care about the wealth of other accusations about the film- I am neutral when it comes to much of the material claiming various other irregularities in the film.

I'll stick with what is obvious, provable, and deals with matters that I am very experienced in. Paint, celluloid, simple equipment, and a small window of time to work with the film.

Mr. Thompson, I think this evidence only supports your basic premise, found so long ago in your book, that a bullet or bullets hit JFK from the front.

Perhaps you would agree it would be best to view Ms. Wilkinson's 3rd generation element, officially designated so by NARA itself, and compare it directly to the images you have seen at the Sixth Floor Museum before dismissing the neutrally scanned HD footage.

I'd like to see the Sixth Floor material myself, and sniff the roses, as it were. Thank you for that advice. Is it permissible, do you know, to take in materials to make comparisons, that sort of thing? Do I need to make an appointment well in advance, or can one walk in with the request?

I am indebted to Doug Horne's work with the ARRB in introducing me to the zealous and intelligent researchers in Hollywood who decided to do more than talk about the film, and I would like to publicly thank him for his sacrifice in publishing his monumental research book on the medical evidence. At around 100$ for all five volumes, it was the best value of information per dollar of any of the hundreds of books on the assassination I've ever purchased.

Best regards,

Patrick

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

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=23077

http://24.152.179.96:8400/A524C/317.png

The links to the #317 Frames being discussed ^

Hello Mr. Thompson-

I'd like to address your post and the interesting image you've posted. Thanks for sharing this and taking the time to debate with someone brand new here. I think that a lot of the posters on the boards, on both sides of the issue, cause wedges to to be pushed between researchers outside of the facts of the evidence being presented with rudeness and a sort of lack of any kind of respect. A helluva a lot more progress towards resolution on many issues, like this one, would result a lot quicker if people didn't constantly rub things in other parties faces to make them defensive and more willing to consider evidence quietly, rather than causing them to want to brawl with one another.

The board ought to be a place one can come and learn, ask questions, and contribute.

I think your image answers a lot of the questions I've had about how it is people can be puzzled by what seems perfectly obvious to me. You've had this image of yours to study now for decades, and clearly, there is no sign of any black patches in this image. It's no wonder you are perplexed!

The image I used of frame #317 isn't 'mine' as you phrased it. I want to make it clear to begin with that I borrowed it here on this thread. It isn't the HD neutral scan I was discussing-but it is a reasonably clear but much smaller 1.34mb image that poster Chris Davidson offered up. (The HD scan frame is nearly 73mb large so it has way more raw information). I don't want to steal Chris' thunder. It's a very nice image. He said it is from a recent documentary, I think.

I'm re-adding a link to it here so we can all take a close look at both your image, and the other, to see which contains more actual detail and a truer likeness to the reality of the situation.

I am not a scientist or an expert in digital technology, but I am a painter. I work in oils, guache and delicate watercolors, and I expect my eye for details in color- hue, value, that sort of thing, is as good as anyones. I've included a shot of my "full portrait" I sent in for my avatar on the site, so you can see I actually am someone who deals in lines and color, full time, professionally.

I am sure you will agree with me that if a person has two photos, and one shows important details that the other completely loses, that the details on the more complete photo is more accurate...assuming you have a test object to prove these things exist. Everyone agree?

Let's look at the image you have trusted for these many decades, and which you have used to initially base your impression that there is no "jet black patch" on JFK's noggin. Let's check out Jackie's red and green stemmed roses. I'm including a link of a regular news type photo of the car that is very clear that includes everything I will discuss for comparison purposes.

In my borrowed version of frame #317, which is as you noted a higher contrast image than the better neutral scanned HD frame, we see a central, larger rose surrounded by green leaves. There are two, or three, very small buds or partial roses, that are quite hard to discern. One near Jackie's shoulder. One directly below the large obvious one, and perhaps one to the right of those, but that is highly debatable. In any case. Flowers visible. Test photo confirms them existing.

In your image, you can't make out the subject are flowers at all, you only know there are flowers existing there at all is because of the frame I borrowed from Chris Davidson's post.

You could make an equally convincing argument, using your frame, that there are "no roses" in frame #317, just as there is "no black patch", because both are invisible in your frame, are they not?

Is this not a fair representation?

What does this say about the quality of your image to judge the President's hair and the black patch?

On Davidson's frame of 317, Connally is clearly and undeniably wearing a white collar and dark jacket. In your frame, no white collar is visible at all. You can see the shape of it at the rear of the jacket, but the white is completely obscured and looks the same as the black jacket because of the muddiness of the overall image overwhelming the true detail of his collar.

Again, look at the good test photo of the motorcade showing which collar is accurate.

If the frame you have been looking at for all these decades shows Connally's white shirt collar to be black, is it fair to judge the President's hair against the black patch? Which of our two frames more fairly depicts the actual reality of Frame #317?

Do you see the problem you have here, and fully understand why you can't see the very real jet black patch in your image?

I honestly can understand your frustration in having to cope with rethinking things you long ago thought resolved.

I hope you will agree with me here that the frame I am using reasonably depicts the red roses, Connally's white collar, the interior blue doorframe between Jackie and Nellie, the nature of the subtle highlights on top of each person's head, and also the state of the President's hair, with it's very real jet black artwork with unnaturally defined edges.

Even without the much clearer and less contrasty Wilkerson HD scan, the obvious nature of the artwork on the President's head stands out vividly in this particular frame. If you look closely at the rear of the back of Kennedy's head at #317 and compare it to #312, they are utterly different in appearance.

This is because JFK has a black painted-in patch starting at frame #315 of the film. His hair on the back of his head is brown before this, jet-black after, if the frame is focused at all.

#317 is unique in that it appears that the black patch has not been integrated into the rest of JFK's hair like it has been in every other frame. In other words, it shows the edges of the physical artwork.

Someone stated earlier that in frame #317 that the patch isn't really black. I can't comprehend how anyone could not see this as the blackest of jet black unless they have serious vision issues. The patch is black.

In the higher definition neutral scan, which hasn't crushed the blacks for aesthetic reasons, like is normally done in a commercial film, the blackest things on the frame are the black patch on JFK's head, and the side of the car. Everything else has degrees of darkness. This makes the artwork more obvious there than here. In this frame I used, Jackie's shadow, and Connally's coat are very black too.

I hope you will give some thought to my posts. I understand perfectly well the shock involved in contemplating this sort of blatant alteration. It is not easy to digest- for any of us.

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, I've got no problem with comparing adjacent frames (and I have no allegiance to the "Hollywood Seven"), but if you're talking about using adjacent frames as a stereo pair (e.g. frame 316 to the right eye, frame 317 to the left eye) then this method is completely useless -- worse, it's absolutely misleading and meaningless.

The only reason it appears to do something useful is because the limo is moving from left to right. Using two different frames puts the limo (as a whole) in front of two different background positions, which approximates the effect of looking at the limo from each of your two eyes. By showing the earlier frame to your right eye, and the later frame to your left eye, you get a "fake 3D" effect because the limo appears to lift out from the background.

One way to understand this: hold your arm out, finger up (yes, you can flip me the bird if you like), and look at it through your right eye, then your left eye. If you concentrate on the background of wherever you are, you'll see that your finger appears to move to the right. Of course, your finger isn't moving at all: it just appears to, because you've broken a single stereo view of it into a time sequence of two individual monocular views of it. (And reversing the order -- doing your left eye then your right -- will make your finger appear to move from right to left.) Making a stereo pair of adjacent Z frames does the converse of this -- it takes a time sequence of two absolutely monocular views of a moving object, and fuses them together to give the illusion of a single stereo view. But, just as your finger wasn't moving in the first example, so too isn't the second example really 3D -- it's just the illusion of 3D.

Another way of recognizing this is to look at not the limo, but the bystanders. If you try this trick (adjacent Z frames into a fake stereo pair) with Mary and Jean, then you'll find it doesn't work at all: even though they are almost as far in front of the background (peristyle etc.) as the limo, they won't give you the same fake-3D effect. Why? Because they're not moving to the right like the limo is. This tells you that what you're looking at isn't true 3D -- if it were, it would work on Mary and Jean and everything else just as well as it does for the limo. It's just an illusion of 3D.

Likewise, if you apply this technique to the limousine and its occupants, then you get a really misleading result. The limo seems to float out in front of the background, because of the 3D illusion described above. That tricks your brain into believing that you're truly looking at something with true stereo vision. You then add on top of this the motion of the occupants (or parts of them) relative to the limousine, and you get another layer of fake 3D. If something inside the limo were moving to the left, relative to the limo, then it would appear to be behind the limo. (For example: if something were moving to the left at the same rate that the limo is moving to the right -- i.e., would be stationary above the pavement of Elm Street if viewed from a satellite camera from above -- then it would appear to be part of the background, not inside the limo at all.) Likewise, something moving to the right relative to the limo (i.e. moving faster relative to the pavement of Elm Street than the limo) would appear to be closer to you than the limo.

This is not to say that you couldn't get really interesting (in a psychedelic sense -- you'll have to help me here; you and Jim were around for the '60s; I was only being born) effects by looking at adjacent frames of the Z head shot through a Disney 3D-View-Master. I believe some "researchers" have put serious effort into this meaningless pastime. But the results have nothing to do with three-dimensional reality. At best, this technique might be useful for detecting motion (in the same way that astronomers used to flip between two different photos of the night sky to look for comets, planets, etc.). But in the case we have here -- a film in which the motion of objects (i.e. the President, and parts of his head) is as plain as day -- all it gives you is a 3D Rorschach Test.

(I'm stating all this independently of our differing opinions on some topics -- like Z alteration -- even though we agree on others -- like the extant Moorman's camera position. I'm hoping we can get agreement on this point, similarly independent of its consequences re the Z film.)

John

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

Kathy,

Thanks, I've read this before and I use a couple of different blurring programs myself.

Costella is clearly proficient in the math required to do this work....I'm not. I just use it.

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

I encourage David Josephs to review the witness testimony to determine whether or not Josiah Thompson is correct in claiming that this event did not happen before the limo reached the Triple Underpass. It can be found collated as compiled by John Costella. This is a nice test case to assess our relative degrees of credibility. In the process, David will be learning more about what the witnesses had to day and can make more contributions here. Needless to add, neither Tink nor I should be conducting this research but David Josephs, Pat Speer, and others are appropriate to sort this one out.

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

..Nor is Office Chaney's motoring forward, for which we have evidence from Chief Curry, Winston Lawson, Forrest Sorrels, Bobby Hargis, and Chaney himself!

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

..Nor is Office Chaney's motoring forward, for which we have evidence from Chief Curry, Winston Lawson, Forrest Sorrels, Bobby Hargis, and Chaney himself!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks JT...

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

and then he starts his fall backward....

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

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

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

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

DJ

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

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

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

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

JT

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

* James Chaney (motorcycle patrolman on right rear of the Presidential limousine): “I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. And then he instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hospital and that Parkland was standing by.”

* Bobby Hargis (motorcycle patrolman on left rear of the Presidential limousine): “The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward and announced to the Chief that the President had been shot.”

* Winston Lawson (Secret Service Agent in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “A motorcycle escort officer pulled along side our Lead Car and said the President had been shot. Chief Curry gave a signal over the radio for police to converge on the area of the incident.”

* Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service Agent in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “A motorcycle patrolman pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled, ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer responded in the affirmative.”

* Chief Jesse Curry (in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “. . . about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney, rode up beside us and I asked if something happened back there and he said, ‘Yes,’ and I said ‘Has somebody been shot?” And he said, ‘I think so.’”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JT

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

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

JT

Part of the power of Costella’s new findings is that they can be appraised by anyone with access to the film, which is archived at the same site, and his collation of reports at Assassination Research 5/1 (2007), assassinationresearch/v5n1/v5n1costella.pdf . As illustrations of what he has uncovered, here are some of the reports from the officials who were involved:

* James Chaney (motorcycle patrolman on right rear of the Presidential limousine): “I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. And then he instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hospital and that Parkland was standing by.”

* Bobby Hargis (motorcycle patrolman on left rear of the Presidential limousine): “The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward and announced to the Chief that the President had been shot.”

* Winston Lawson (Secret Service Agent in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “A motorcycle escort officer pulled along side our Lead Car and said the President had been shot. Chief Curry gave a signal over the radio for police to converge on the area of the incident.”

* Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service Agent in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “A motorcycle patrolman pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled, ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer responded in the affirmative.”

* Chief Jesse Curry (in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “. . . about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney, rode up beside us and I asked if something happened back there and he said, ‘Yes,’ and I said ‘Has somebody been shot?” And he said, ‘I think so.’”

There are multiple sources for their testimony, which is corroborated by that of others, including, for example, Marrion Baker, a Dallas Police Officer, who immediately thereafter entered the Book Depository and confronted Lee Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom. Costella’s study provides additional citations.

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

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

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

Heartbreaking news this morning. Doug Weldon passed away overnight.Doug has been entrenched in a nightmare health battle since early September 2010. It all started with a sore on a toe after a long bike ride. Doug was diabetic. From there it progressed to amputations, infections, and multiple incidences of pneumonia ... one thing after another putting him back in intensive care, or at least back into the hospital, every time it would seem like he was making some progress. I can only recall about 3 very short spans of time (days) over the last 15 months that Doug was not in a hospital or a rehab/nursing facility.

Doctors have been amazed at how strong and determined Doug was able to stay. I was amazed for the physical doggedness, but not the mental. He was so mentally strong and determined. Please keep his family in your thoughts and in any prayers you may be able to offer.

As details become available, including which address to use for cards, flowers, etc, I will post that information.

Miss talking to you already, Doug!

Barb

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

JT

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

That's a good idea.

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

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

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

JT

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

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

Josiah Thompson's position is not even coherent. He is on both sides of every issue. Consider the following:

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

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

The double-hit BY ITSELF established there were at least two shooters in Dealey Plaza. So unless he has

lost all capacity to reason, his book PROVED A CONSPIRACY, yet he disavowed having proven conspiracy.

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

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

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

JT

Part of the power of Costella’s new findings is that they can be appraised by anyone with access to the film, which is archived at the same site, and his collation of reports at Assassination Research 5/1 (2007), assassinationresearch/v5n1/v5n1costella.pdf . As illustrations of what he has uncovered, here are some of the reports from the officials who were involved:

* James Chaney (motorcycle patrolman on right rear of the Presidential limousine): “I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. And then he instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hospital and that Parkland was standing by.”

* Bobby Hargis (motorcycle patrolman on left rear of the Presidential limousine): “The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward and announced to the Chief that the President had been shot.”

* Winston Lawson (Secret Service Agent in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “A motorcycle escort officer pulled along side our Lead Car and said the President had been shot. Chief Curry gave a signal over the radio for police to converge on the area of the incident.”

* Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service Agent in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “A motorcycle patrolman pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled, ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer responded in the affirmative.”

* Chief Jesse Curry (in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “. . . about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney, rode up beside us and I asked if something happened back there and he said, ‘Yes,’ and I said ‘Has somebody been shot?” And he said, ‘I think so.’”

There are multiple sources for their testimony, which is corroborated by that of others, including, for example, Marrion Baker, a Dallas Police Officer, who immediately thereafter entered the Book Depository and confronted Lee Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom. Costella’s study provides additional citations.

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

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

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

David,

As I am not the only one to observe, this guy sent Chenay a copy of the extant Zapruder film, which (I am quite certain) must have shaken him up, since it does not represent what happened while he was there. Not to fault you, specifically, but why have you not followed the link I provided about Cheney specifically in post #4. It was originally published on February 5, 2008.

This is very bad. Typical Thompson, he doesn't even dare identify the source of the story. It originated John Costella and was published in my "New Proof of JFK film fakery", hhttp://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jim_fetz_080205_new_proof_of_jfk_fil.htm Do any of you think Chaney motoring forward is seen in the film? Here is a summary:

The evidence emerged as an unexpected outcome of the collation of eyewitness reports in Dealey Plaza conducted by John P. Costella, Ph.D., who co-edits assassinationresearch.com with Fetzer. Costella earned his Ph.D. in physics with a specialty in electromagnetism, including the physics of light and of moving objects. What he discovered were multiple, consistent and reinforcing reports that James Chaney, a motorcycle patrolman who was to the right rear of the presidential limousine, rode forward to tell Jesse Curry, Dallas Chief of Police—who was in the lead car with the head of the Secret Service in Dallas, Agent Forrest Sorrels, and a second Secret Service Agent, Winston Lawson—that the President had been shot. This led Chief Curry to issue instructions for the limousine to be escorted to Parkland Hospital, where the President would be pronounced dead 30 minutes later. Bobby Hargis, a motorcycle patrolman riding on the left rear, confirmed Chaney’s report. But this sequence is in neither the Zapruder film nor the Nix film.

This is just what I have come to expect from Josiah Thompson. Offer an atrophied and simplistic account of the evidence for Chaney's having motored forward, act as though I don't know what I am talking about, cite Chaney's response after having received a copy of the extant film--and then pretends that's all there is too it! He plays all of you for saps and you fall for it.

Jim

As we watch Zfilm the limo speeds off and no motorcycles follow them... NONE.

the rest of Chaney also makes sense...

Mr. STERN - You were clear that the sounds were sounds of shots?

Mr. HARGIS - Yes. sir: I knew they were shots.

Mr. STERN - All right, what did you do then? You say you parked your motorcycle?

Mr. HARGIS - Yes, uh-huh----

Mr. STERN - Where?

Mr. HARGIS - It was to the left-hand side of the street from---south side of Elm Street.

Mr. STERN - And then what did you---

Mr. HARGIS - I ran across the street looking over towards the railroad overpass and I remembered seeing people scattering and running and then I looked.

Jim F....

rather than attacking JT, can you offer anything other than CHANEY's own words that he went up ahead to the lead car?

Does anyone in the car corroborate the story?

Are any of the three motocycle men in McIntyre CHANEY?

and finally... in SUPPORT of the frontal shot... I offer this look at CHANEY and his mate as the shots are fired...

WHERE ARE THEY LOOKING?

(Note: FWIW, Chaney, the man closest to JFK outside the vehicle is NOT on the WCR witness list or is listed as the author of ANYTHING in the dallas archive.... but I'll keep looking)

Jim, where did CHANEY say he motored forward to the lead car? Sorry if I missed the reference - an interview with you?

DJ

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

As we watch Zfilm the limo speeds off and no motorcycles follow them... NONE.

the rest of Chaney also makes sense...

Mr. STERN - You were clear that the sounds were sounds of shots?

Mr. HARGIS - Yes. sir: I knew they were shots.

Mr. STERN - All right, what did you do then? You say you parked your motorcycle?

Mr. HARGIS - Yes, uh-huh----

Mr. STERN - Where?

Mr. HARGIS - It was to the left-hand side of the street from---south side of Elm Street.

Mr. STERN - And then what did you---

Mr. HARGIS - I ran across the street looking over towards the railroad overpass and I remembered seeing people scattering and running and then I looked.

Jim F....

rather than attacking JT, can you offer anything other than CHANEY's own words that he went up ahead to the lead car?

Does anyone in the car corroborate the story?

Are any of the three motocycle men in McIntyre CHANEY?

and finally... in SUPPORT of the frontal shot... I offer this look at CHANEY and his mate as the shots are fired...

WHERE ARE THEY LOOKING?

(Note: FWIW, Chaney, the man closest to JFK outside the vehicle is NOT on the WCR witness list or is listed as the author of ANYTHING in the dallas archive.... but I'll keep looking)

Jim, where did CHANEY say he motored forward to the lead car? Sorry if I missed the reference - an interview with you?

DJ

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

Josiah Thompson's position is not even coherent. He is on both sides of every issue. Consider the following:

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

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

The double-hit BY ITSELF established there were at least two shooters in Dealey Plaza. So unless he has

lost all capacity to reason, his book PROVED A CONSPIRACY, yet he disavowed having proven conspiracy.

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

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

His dismissal of MURDER was simply absurd. Compare what a serious review had to day about it.

Of course, if Gary is right, then the film is a fake. He cannot consistently maintain both. So which is it?

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

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

This was a real doozie. He did not do his homework and hung himself out to dry. He maintains that

Witt was there, but Witt impeaches the film. So if Tink is right about Witt, he's wrong about the film.

(4) Here he is treating Chaney as a WITNESS, when what matters were his ACTIONS in motoring

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

He objects that Toft said 60 to 75 people reported the limo stop. So does Tink think they are all liars?

And since Chaney motored forward, which is not in the film, Chaney's actions also prove it is a fake.

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

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

But he cannot even do that with LOGICAL CONSISTENCY. No one here seems to understand that, if

he is on both sides of issues, HIS POSITION IS INCONSISTENCY AND CANNOT POSSIBLY BE TRUE.

He may not have offered course in logic, criticial thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years, but he

has a Ph.D. in philosophy from Yale. The man has to know he has now become a walking contradiction.

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.

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

This is very bad. Typical Thompson, he doesn't even dare identify the source of the story. It originated John Costella and was published in my "New Proof of JFK film fakery", http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jim_fetz_080205_new_proof_of_jfk_fil.htm Do any of you think Chaney motoring forward is seen in the film? Here is a summary:

The evidence emerged as an unexpected outcome of the collation of eyewitness reports in Dealey Plaza conducted by John P. Costella, Ph.D., who co-edits assassinationresearch.com with Fetzer. Costella earned his Ph.D. in physics with a specialty in electromagnetism, including the physics of light and of moving objects. What he discovered were multiple, consistent and reinforcing reports that James Chaney, a motorcycle patrolman who was to the right rear of the presidential limousine, rode forward to tell Jesse Curry, Dallas Chief of Police—who was in the lead car with the head of the Secret Service in Dallas, Agent Forrest Sorrels, and a second Secret Service Agent, Winston Lawson—that the President had been shot. This led Chief Curry to issue instructions for the limousine to be escorted to Parkland Hospital, where the President would be pronounced dead 30 minutes later. Bobby Hargis, a motorcycle patrolman riding on the left rear, confirmed Chaney’s report. But this sequence is in neither the Zapruder film nor the Nix film.

Notice that EVEN CHANEY acknowledges that there were "at least between 60 and 75 people that day who claimed the car stopped". My inference would be that Chaney is unsure because, as John observed, Chaney was motoring forward and, given his relative motion, did not recognize that it had stopped.

A: I know.. 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.

Q: Yeah, Bobby. I just spoke to him a few minutes ago. There are, I think, at least between 60 and 75 people that day who claimed the car stopped. But even if it didn’t stop..

A: 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?

Q: Right.

Clint Hill, on the other hand, has consistently reported actions he took that are also not included in the film: getting on the back step and then pushing Jackie down, lying across their bodies, peering into the hole in JFK's head, given his colleagues a "thumb's down" before reaching the Underpass:

"JFK: Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?"

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/25/jfk-whos-telling-the-truth-clint-hill-or-the-zapruder-film/

Moreover, WE KNOW THE FILM IS A FAKE AND WHERE AND WHEN IT WAS DONE. So what's going on here? Are the members of this forum so absent minded that they do not remember what has already been proven? Are none of you even bothering to read summaries of some of the most important work ever done on the film?

"US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication"

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/10/03/us-government-official-jfk-cover-up-film-fabrication/

He is attempting to undermine every proof of conspiracy in the assassination of JFK (by disavowing his "double hit" theory, even though Feynman pointed it out to Lifton; his fraudulent attempt to explain away the Umbrella man, who turns out, ironically, to be a witness to the limo stop; and now this):

"JFK, the CIA and The New York Times"

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/29/jfk-the-cia-and-the-new-york-times-2/

Where will it end? Now Pat Speer and Don Jeffries are here THANKING JOSIAH THOMPSON FOR ATTEMPTING TO PUT ANOTHER ONE OVER ON THE JFK COMMUNITY? Do I have to be eternally vigilant to point out he is trading in sleight-of-hand arguments and trying to obfuscate what has already been well-established?

And he pulls this "cutsie" about "chalking up to the law of unintended consequences"! How dumb are the members of this forum to be taken in by Tink? I already exposed what he was doing in the elaborate planned series with The New York Times. I guess The Times pulled the plug so, even resourceful, he came here to play the saps.

First, he praised Aguilar's chapter in MURDER, which argues for a hole in the back of JFK's head, which is also not in the film. Then, he vouched for Louis Witt's presence in Dealey Plaza, but Witt testified to the limo stop. So his own preferred sources offer proof the film has been faked. THOSE are cases of "unintended consequences"!