Chris Scally

Great news - and a very sincere thanks to you, James, and your associates, for saving the forum. Chris.

Colleagues: Information is desperately sought which may provide invaluable assistance in the on-going search for the camera-original Nix film. If you (or even someone you know) still have one of the copies of the Nix film in Super-8mm format which were being sold in early 1977 by The Collector's Archives in Quebec, Canada, please contact me by e-mail or PM - your answer to a single, simple question may prove extremely helpful. With sincere thanks in advance for any information/assistance you can provide in this matter. Chris Scally.

Ron: I'm not suggesting that the officer on the 3-wheeler is the one who come to the east side of the underpass, and asked Tague what happened - I was just naming him, for the record. But yes, I agree with you that it seems unlikely that he would leave his motorcycle parked in the middle lane of Main Street and walk to the other side of the underpass! Unfortunately, other than the Bell and Daniel films, I cannot find any trace of Officer Williams or his motorcycle after that. The Daniel film seems to show him walking back to his motorcycle, and the Bell film seems to show Sgt. Harkness (who had ridden down Main from his position at the Main/Houston intersection) stopping his motorcycle nearby, but unfortunately I cannot go beyond that. Chris

Robin: I believe this 3-wheel motorcycle officer, seen parked on Main Street to the west of the Underpass, to be R.M. Williams. Chris

In post #354 above, David Josephs posted a passage starting with "At 12:17 PM" and continuing to the end of the post. In fairness, it should be noted that this entire passage is a verbatim quote from Bill Drenas' 1998 article, "Car #10 Where Are You?" (available on-line). I would also add that the account given to me by Larry Harris in 1984 regarding the 4100 Bonnieview incident is accurately reported by Bill Drenas in his article.

Bill, Check your e-mail... Chris.

Richard, I believe your "5" is very possibly KTVT cameraman Don Cook, wearing the ID badge on the left side of his jacket. He appears in one of the James Murray photos also, at around the same time. Chris

No problem, Bjorn, you are very welcome. Just glad I could help. Chris.

Robert, The mystery man taking movie pictures was, of course, Abraham Zapruder, whose business premises were on the 4th and 5th floors of the Dal-Tex building. As he made his way back to his office through the Plaza after the shooting, Zapruder had met with Dallas Morning News reporter Harry McCormick, who told Zapruder that the Secret Service would want to see his film, and McCormick immediately went off in search of Forrest Sorrels, the Secret Service SAIC in Dallas. A few minutes later, Beatrice Hester, one of Zapruder's employees, who had been filmed in the Plaza by Zapruder prior to the arrival of the motorcade, told a DPD officer about Zapruder's film, and the police went to Zapruder's office in an effort to obtain it. However, as he had already agreed with Harry McCormick that he would give the film to the Secret Service, Zapruder refused to turn it over to the DPD officers. By the time Sawyer heard back from his officers, Sorrels had arrived at Zapruder's office, so Sawyer left it to him and the rest of the story is, as the saying goes, history. Chris.

J. Raymond: Many thanks for your kind words - they are much appreciated. Chris.

J. Raymond - New Ross for me every time - and (coincidentally) I live about 30-minutes' drive away..! Chris

With the increasing move away from traditional methods of information distribution, this new educational and informational "App" - aimed at both 'new recruits and seasoned researchers' - could be an interesting source of unbiased and totally objective information as we approach the 50th Anniversary. Find out more at http://igg.me/at/jfkapp/x/3917647 The creator is a friend of mine, I've seen the prototype in action, and I believe the finished product will be a useful addition to the literature. Chris

Thank you very much, John. Here's to a happy and peaceful future...! Chris.

Sean/Lee/Don: Here is Denham's statement for Chief Curry, dated July 16, 1964 (Hearings, Vol. 22, p. 599, CE 1358). He makes no mention whatsoever of being inside the TSBD. Now, it is possible that he just left out everything that happened after the shooting took place, but ..... Chris

Hi, Sean: I've listened to my Channel 2 recording a number of times now, and although the passage in question is very noisy indeed, I think what Sawyer actually said could be: "Well, apparently, the shots might have come from this building. It's unknown whether he's stil there or not. It's unknown whether he was there in the first place." The dispatcher then replies, "10-4. Well, all the information that we have received, 9, indicates that it did come from the about the fith or fourth floor of that building", which would make sense in that context. Hope this is of some help. Chris.

John: The lengthy passage quoted by Robert is, in fact, a chapter from "The Taking of America, 1-2-3" by Richard E. Sprague (published in the 1970s, as I recall).

Dr. Fetzer: When you start telling me with whom I should consult/communicate, I know I'm dealing with a totally lost cause. For your information, although it is actually none of your business, I have been in contact with Doug Horne (since shortly after his book was published) and with David Lifton since the late 1970s/early 1980s. Furthermore, our exchanges have been interesting, informative, and always cordial, although I'm sure there are things on which we all disagree with one another. You ask if I have any reason to doubt that the Zapruder film was processed/developed in Dallas on the afternoon of the assassination. The answer to that is a resounding NO - and why, because there is enough corroborated evidence to prove it many times over. Yes, Dr, Fetzer, that is what I said - corroborated EVIDENCE. There is the evidence of Zapruder himself, and the corroborating evidence of his business partner Erwin Schwartz, newsmen Darwin Payne and Harry McCormick, Secret Service agents Forrest Sorrels and Max Phillips, the two officers who escorted Zapruder and his party around Dallas in the afternoon, the DPD radio recordings, and even a photograph of the box containing copy 0186 of the film, with the date and time of receipt along with Zapruder's name and address written on the box by Secret Service agent Max Phillips. In addition, there are oral and written statements and affidavits from staff at both Kodak and Jamieson, as well as the statements of Richard Stolley and Zapruder's daughter, Myrna. Do you want me to continue? You ask if I doubt the existence of a secret CIA lab at Hawkeye Works, in Kodak HQ in Rochester. Again, the answer is NO, because the work that was being done there was, by its very nature, secret. There is also corroborating evidence of the lab's existence, and the work it was doing. My problem is, was, and continues to be, the alleged alteration/manipulation of the Zapruder film at Rochester, as you well know. That was why I initially asked you about it - you sounded so certain ["WE KNOW THE FILM IS A FAKE AND WHERE AND WHEN IT WAS DONE." (Caps in original)] that I wanted to determine if you actually had any more pieces of the jigsaw which makes up the history of the film in the days immediately after the assassination. However, it transpired that your claim was based on the uncorroborated 33-year-old recollections of a gentleman who - by his own admission - had an unreliable memory. You produced not a scintilla of independent evidence to corroborate his claim - no "Secret Service agent Smith", and no details of ANYTHING that might support the story. The best you could do was make accusations about me which were unfounded, and tell me how difficult it would be to get "signed confessions" from people at Rochester. I might ask if you have made any efforts - yourself - to verify the story. I somehow suspect you have not. You asked if I would tell you what I think. I have already done so, Dr. Fetzer, but you clearly did not read what I wrote. However, out of courtesy, I'll try again, one last time. Every single element of the story which Bill Smith allegedly told Homer McMahon DID happen, except that it happened in Dallas, and not Rochester. The film had been taken by an amateur photographer, it had been taken to Kodak for processing, and then taken somewhere else for processing. The fact that it happened in Dallas is established by the wealth of corroborated evidence I outlined above. The fact that it happened in Rochester is unsubstantiated. So what do I think happened? I think Homer McMahon made a simple human error, as I have already told you. The film was brought to NPIC on Sunday night (from FBI HQ in Washington, I believe), and McMahon heard that it had originated with the Secret Service (which it had). He assumed Rochester rather than Dallas when "Kodak" was mentioned (perfectly understandably again, in my opinion), and by mixing facts and assumptions over the next 33 years, he came up with the story he told the ARRB. This, of course, is just my opinion - it is NOT fact, because I have nothing with which to independently verify it. That was why I was hoping you might have some EVIDENCE which would allow me to replace or refine my opinion with FACT. Sadly, you were unable to do so. Dr. Fetzer, I have better things to do than continue this pointless discussion with you. We differ - and will always differ - for the simple reason that I do not subscribe to the view that my opinion will automatically become fact, if I repeat it often enough. I will (again) ignore your nasty personal remarks, and end this exchange with your own words from post #585: "You are welcome to believe what you like, but, for my part, I can see no good reason to change any of my written or spoken thoughts about all this." Chris.

Dr. Fetzer: Your failure to answer ANY of the points I raised speaks volumes... As for the comments above, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, or its relevence to anything... A name "invented out of thin air"? "junior philosopher"? "the meaning of the word 'knowledge'"? Enough said, methinks!

Dr. Fetzer: Before I begin to address the rest of your latest post, I wish to state that at no time was I making - or attempting to make - ad hominem attacks on either Homer McMahon or Ben Hunter. My point was that, even by his own admission, Homer McMahon was not the most reliable witness, and Ben Hunter did not back him up with regard to either Bill Smith existance or Smith's story about Rochester. That said, if I have have inadvertantly and in any way offended either gentleman, I unreservedly apologise to them. Now, let me turn to your comments about me. I was not trying to "set you up", and there is nothing "funny" about me, I assure you, so if you would care to withdraw both of those remarks, I would appreciate it. Perhaps you would also like to withdraw your ad hominem attack on Rollie Zavada at the same time? And why did David Lifton get dragged into this? If you had read what I wrote, you would have seen that I DID offer an alternative hypothesis to the film being altered or created (or whatever word you want to use) at Hawkeye Works - a simple misunderstanding, a simple human error, on Homer McMahon's part. You said in your reply that I was attempting to undermine you belief that "(5) the party who delivered the fake film said it had been developed in Rochester". You are correct - I dispute that statement, because there is no evidence to support it. There is nothing to support the "Secret Service agent Bill Smith" story. My interest here is in trying to establish, to the extent possible, the exact whereabouts of the film in the days after the assassination. It matters not a bit to me if someone proves it was in Disneyland - as long as we can state that with certainty, and back it up with evidence, I'm happy. The whole point in this exchange with you was to determine whether or not you could support - with concrete evidence - your assertion in post #4 that "WE KNOW THE FILM IS A FAKE AND WHERE AND WHEN IT WAS DONE." If you could, I would have been delighted. However, your answers suggest to me that you cannot support it, and that the assertion is merely your opinion. You THINK you know, which is a different matter altogether, although I fully accept that you are entitled to your opinion. Indeed, your opinion is as valid as mine, and mine is as valid as yours - but that, I think, is where we disagree, and will continue to disagree. Chris.

Dr. Fetzer: Many thanks for your reply. So you "know" the film was altered at Rochester, because of the unsworn evidence of Homer McMahon to the ARRB, nearly 34 years after the event? Let me quote these three extracts from his taped interview with Doug Horne, Michelle Combs and Jeremy Gunn on July 14, 1997: "I have senile dementia. I can’t really answer that. Most of my reflections are what I have recalled and remembered after the fact. In other words, I did it once, and then I recalled it, and remembered it. I don’t know how the mind works, but I do know that I am not. I am a recovering drug addict and alcoholic. Do you know what a wet brain is? You’re looking at one. I damn near died. And I’m not a competent witness because I don’t have good recall. Absolutely not - absolute recall." "I don’t have good remembrance anyway. I’m almost 70 years old, I’m almost 80 years old, I’m almost 90 years old, I don’t know, but that was the best of my knowledge." "I just told you, I don’t have a full deck. I don’t know how (laughs) I am presenting anything here. This is not...at the time I did it I was not, I was not impaired, but I later became impaired. So whether you are talking to a reliable witness or not, that’s up to you to decide. (laughs)" Elsewhere in the interview, McMahon - head of NPIC's colour lab at the time - claimed not to know Captain Pierre Sands, the Deputy Director at NPIC. Doug Horne then told McMahon that McMahon's assistant, Ben Hunter, "independently recalled that a Captain Sands brought in the film and he could not remember anyone being with him. Subsequently he remembered there might have been a Secret Service fellow, but he remembered a Captain Sands." Doug Horne continued, "If I was to call this person Captain Sands, would that help any?". McMahon replied: "Okay. We might have had an intermediate naval officer that brought the chap in. Someone had to bring him in because they wouldn’t have had clearance and to get behind the barrier was pretty tough to do (laughs) without either presidential or above Top Secret clearance (laughs)." I should also add that Ben Hunter never remembered the name ‘Bill Smith’, even after discussing the matter with McMahon, nor did he recall anything being said about the film having been processed at Rochester. (Horne Vol. IV, p. 1224, Murder In Dealey Plaza, p. 322) Furthermore, Doug Horne subsequently checked a roster of all Secret Service agents attached to the White House Detail in 1963, and found that there was no agent named Bill (or William) Smith on that list. (Horne Vol. IV, p. 1223) That said, I don't believe that McMahon set out to deliberately mislead the ARRB. I believe that McMahon – because of the references to the Secret Service being the initial source of the film – may have simply erred by assuming that "Bill Smith" was a Secret Service agent, and then assumed the reference to Kodak was to the Kodak plant in Rochester (with which McMahon would have been familiar), rather than Kodak in Dallas. By then mixing facts and assumptions together, he finished up with the story he told to the ARRB. A simple explanation, perhaps – but the simple explanation is often the correct one. Turning now to your response regarding Rollie Zavada's implied involvement in the "production of the substitute version of the film" at Kodak in Rochester, his credentials and area of expertise have absolutely NOTHING to do with my question. As for his report for the ARRB, he DID "dissociate himself from determinations of film authenticity". Indeed, when Doug Horne was critical of his FAILURE to state that the film was authentic, you will be aware that Zavada responded by saying that his "report did not contain a statement or certification of authenticity for one simple reason! ARRB requested – through you - that ‘NO’ statement of authenticity be provided: by me (Rollie Zavada) or by Kodak." (Zavada's Open Letter response to Doug Horne’s Chapter 14, May 26, 2010, p.1). I would suggest that your response is a VERY long way from proving that Zavada was in any way involved in anything improper, which is what you said on the 'Real Deal' interview in November. In summary, I'm sorry to say that I am still far from convinced that you really do KNOW the 'who, where and when' of the allegedly production of any substitute version of the Zapruder film. Chris.

Dr. Fetzer: Many thanks for your reply. Can I assume from your first statement above, then, that you believe the account of Homer McMahon, which is based (insofar as it relates to the films's presence at Hawkeye) on what "Secret Service agent Bill Smith" told him? Further, does your response to my question regarding the identities of anyone involved in altering the film mean that you no longer subscribe to the view that "it is highly probable that Rollie Zavada might have been involved in the production of the substitute version of the film" at Kodak's Hawkeye Plant in Rochester, as you suggested in your 'Real Deal' interview with Doug Horne on Friday, November 18, last (1 hour 17 minutes 30 seconds into the programme)?

Craig: Unfortunately, this is the the best scan that I could get. Remember, the slides are 30 years old, at least, and although I've kept them in a box in a drawer, and out of any natural light, they have deteriorated somewhat over time. I'm sure they were much clearer and sharper years ago, but maybe that is just my imagination. Chris.

For whatever it is worth - This is a direct scan of frame 317 from my set of 35mm Zapruder frames, which (I believe it was) Robert Groden made available in the late 1970s or early 1980s. Chris.