New: Speaking of DP Eyewitnesses

[Mark Knight]

Here's a clue, Tim...You might check for your OWN spelling errors/typos on posts critical of someone else's spelling errors/typos, lest one come off as a pompous hypocrite.

Is that enough of a clue?

(Pssssst....."continually" is spelled with only TWO "L's", and "protocol" has NO "A's" in it.)

Edited December 7, 2007 by Mark Knight

[Tim Gratz]

A very good point, Mark. It has happened more than once that when I point out someone's error I discover I have made a similar one myself!

However you should note that in this Forum I am continually subject to ridicule by those who disagree with my POV. It gets rather tiring but that is how intolerant people (who often claim to be champions of tolerance) think.

BK wants to ridicule me because I have on several occasions proven his assertions wrong. E.g. the SS always secured windows on presidential parade rotines, clearly false.

[William Kelly]

A very good point, Mark. It has happened more than once that when I point out someone's error I discover I have made a similar one myself!

However you should note that in this Forum I am continually subject to ridicule by those who disagree with my POV. It gets rather tiring but that is how intolerant people (who often claim to be champions of tolerance) think.

BK wants to ridicule me because I have on several occasions proven his assertions wrong. E.g. the SS always secured windows on presidential parade rotines, clearly false.

Tim,

My use of ridicule was unintentionally effective, stimulating Tim Gratz to new levels of JFK research, though my assertions regarding Secret Service protocol on open windows along parade route has yet to be shown to be "clearly false."

When JFK asked Ian Fleming how he would deal with Castro, Fleming replied, "ridicule," and proposed infusing Cuba with propaganda and chemical agents would make his beard fall off, and thus suffer the resulting indignity.

Ridicule is a little understood and often effective wrench in the tool box of diplomacy.

And Tim, I would never intentionally ridicule you, in lue of being ridiculed myself.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

And I have learnt the hard weight that if I pointed out a misspeling I would no doubt comit a mispeling myself!!

[John Dolva]

A very good point, Mark. It has happened more than once that when I point out someone's error I discover I have made a similar one myself!

However you should note that in this Forum I am continually subject to ridicule by those who disagree with my POV. It gets rather tiring but that is how intolerant people (who often claim to be champions of tolerance) think.

BK wants to ridicule me because I have on several occasions proven his assertions wrong. E.g. the SS always secured windows on presidential parade rotines, clearly false.

Tim,

My use of ridicule was unintentionally effective, stimulating Tim Gratz to new levels of JFK research, though my assertions regarding Secret Service protocol on open windows along parade route has yet to be shown to be "clearly false."

When JFK asked Ian Fleming how he would deal with Castro, Fleming replied, "ridicule," and proposed infusing Cuba with propaganda and chemical agents would make his beard fall off, and thus suffer the resulting indignity.

Ridicule is a little understood and often effective wrench in the tool box of diplomacy.

And Tim, I would never intentionally ridicule you, in lue of being ridiculed myself.

BK

"When JFK asked Ian Fleming how he would deal with Castro, Fleming replied, "ridicule," and proposed infusing Cuba with propaganda and chemical agents would make his beard fall off, and thus suffer the resulting indignity

Ridicule is a little understood and often effective wrench in the tool box of diplomacy"

Castro (see Texan speech database) repetaedly early sixties pre assassination (in latin macho mlieu) ridiculed Kennedy as 'beardless', ie immature.

(To go from there to assassination is a big step.)

[Tim Gratz]

Another example of how factual error creeps in to the case.

JFK never spoke to Fleming.

[John Costella]

I don't know if there will be enough to convince you that something is amiss with the photographic evidence (I don't know how strongly you believe in its authenticity),

John

John,

I'm interested to know if there are any reasons to question the authenticity

of the following Dealey Plaza photos and films:

The Houston St. segment of the Nix film

The Towner film

Altgens 5 & 6

Willis 4 & 5

Betzner 3

...Thank you.

Hi Cliff,

Sorry, I meant to reply to this when I saw it the other day, but got flummoxed when navigating the board, and I only just realised that disjoint subthreads are not shown ... anyway, let me try now.

You probably know that I don't believe the extant Zapruder film or the Elm Street sequence of the Nix or Muchmore films to be genuine. That comes through analysis of the Zapruder film, and the fact that the other two are lock-synched with the Zapruder film. (I'll be talking about the Z and Nix films in particular on Jim Fetzer's gcnlive.com radio show on Tuesday, including the new "smoking gun" of fabrication of these two films in particular.)

You'll understand that I'll discuss this topic from this premise; I understand there are many who believe all the photographic evidence is genuine; but for the sake of argument, I'll take that to be given.

How the other films and photographs fit in is not quite so clear. There were probably photographs that were published quickly (or even not so quickly), that escaped being altered. Let's assume that there were. If you were tasked with ensuring that the photographic evidence showed what you were told it was to be allowed to show, what would these "loose" photographs do to you? Quite simply, they would provide constraints as to what you could do with everything else. Anything that was published in a newspaper was like toothpaste out of a tube: you can't put it back in.

But these "rogue" publications aren't the only constraints on you. LIFE Magazine published "a remarkable and exclusive series of pictures" (31 in all) within days of the assassination. They are black and white and terrible quality. Of course, the story as later told was that these pictures in fact came from a movie film; that this movie film was in fact colour; that this movie was actually very high quality; that it was taken by a Dallas dressmaker; and that LIFE actually bought the film, and was in possession of the high-quality original, at the time they published their terrible black and white, n-th generation copies. I don't believe that LIFE ever uttered the word "Zapruder" in print. Even their Warren Report issue, nearly a year after the assassination, describes it as "an eight-second [sic] strip of 8-mm color movie film taken by a bystander".

No matter; LIFE's complicity in the fabrication is well-understood. The point I was making is that these 31 "remarkable pictures" provided further severe constraints on what the photographic evidence could, from that point in time, say.

Now, if you were in control of the photographic evidence, which photos and films would you allow to be published unmodified; which would you modify; and which would you simply suppress?

Motion picture film provided a very difficult situation. Making two films agree with each other, if one has been altered or fabricated, is extremely difficult work: you need to not only ensure that everything lines up in the three dimensions of Dealey Plaza, at one moment in time (as with a photograph), but you need to have this agreement throughout a finite period of time. It takes a lot of work. You need reconstructions and analysis (ok, plenty of that carried out in Dealey Plaza following the assassination), together with a lot of film fabrication. It's very resource intensive (as of 1963).

The net result is that the most work was done in creating the Zapruder film; only small and blurry snippets of two (or three) other films were created for the crucial time of the shots; and all other films were chopped up into smaller sequences that managed to just miss the time of the shots. Of course, even the Zapruder film was cut down in length, to make its creation more logistically manageable, to less than 27 seconds (just 486 photos to create). The turn of the limo onto Elm Street was eliminated. The swerving of the limo to the left, its stop, and associated pandemonium was also deleted (for other reasons as well, of course).

Once the key frames of the Z film were in place, the other snippets of the Nix and Muchmore films (and, a decade later, the Bronson film) were created to agree with it.

I still haven't answered your question! The Houston Street portion of the Nix film: I don't know. There's something strange going on with Houston Street; there is not, to my knowledge, a single extant photograph or film taken by anyone in the crowds along Houston Street between Main and Elm (all the extant footage is either from the corner of Main and Houston; the south-west corner of Elm and Houston; or the Zapruder pedestal). Why? I don't know. Is what has survived genuine? Possibly. Maybe not. I haven't analysed it in any great detail; there are only so many hours in one lifetime to dedicate to this work.

The Towner film? It's difficult to know. If the limo did almost hit the corner on that wide turn, as testified by Roy Truly, then the Towner film would seem to have it rounding the corner a little too smoothly. But there's little or no corroboration for the Truly account, other than a couple of witnesses describing a "wide turn". (I'm not including the statements from people who have seen "other" films of the assassination, not because I don't take that evidence extremely seriously, but simply because there are other, more direct ways to understand alteration and fabrication than that.) And the Towner film, like so many others, conveniently stops right when things get interesting: we don't see the Stemmons sign, or the Zapruder pedestal; we don't see the shots, of course; in fact, we don't see very much at all.

Altgens 5 and 6? Ah, you've hit the most difficult ones here. (I assume you're talking about his 5th and 6th, which are numbered 6 and 7 in the extant negatives.) If you've read my chapters in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, you'd know about the strong evidence (namely, his own!) that Altgens' 4th and 7th photos were not taken by him. So what about the 5th (the Lovelady in the doorway one) and the 6th (with Clint Hill on the back of the limo)? These ones are difficult. I have two copies of the Melbourne Herald, printed just hours after the assassination (picked up from a newsagent, on the day, by a source I trust implicitly), with Altgens' 6th photo (the Clint Hill one). Admittedly, it's heavily altered: the lamp post has been removed, with its base left behind to be the "President's head"; the background has been eliminated; Clint Hill has been retouched; and the whole print is reversed. But it's still powerful evidence that this photograph moved over the wire quickly.

Is it genuine? Did it escape the FBI dragnet? Quite possibly. If so, it provided an immensely important constraint to those in control of the photographic evidence; and indeed this could explain quite a lot about what does remain in the photographic evidence.

What about Altgens' 5th? This one is so famous that it would be close to sacrilege to doubt its authenticity. ... And now we come to an important question.

Can "most" of a photo be genuine?

This is the question that dogs both Altgens' fifth, and the famous Moorman polaroid. In the case of Altgens, it seems likely that most of the photo is genuine. But what about the view through the windscreen of the limo? (It is a curiosity that, in both his 5th and 6th photos, no faces of people in the presidential limousine are visible. Coincidence? Perhaps.) Here we see Jackie's white-gloved hand holding the President's left wrist, as his left arm is in the "chicken dance" position (flaying elbows). But no eyewitness to the assassination described the "chicken dance" at all, before photos showing same were widely published. So what do we make of this photograph, that shows the "chicken dance" immortalised by what we now know as the Zapruder film?

I'm not sure. Maybe it's genuine. Maybe there was an instant in time when JFK's left arm genuinely was in this position -- even though he never did the "chicken dance". Or maybe that portion of the photograph is not genuine. Note that this photo (his 5th) was not published anywhere near as rapidly as his 6th (the one on the front page of the Melbourne Herald hours after the assassination).

Willis 4 and 5. Another difficult set of questions. It would be nice to see a copy of Willis 5 in which the colours were not absolutely washed out and distorted. But apart from that, there isn't much in Willis 5 that disagrees violently with any other evidence that we have, as far as I know. It may be genuine. It may not. This is one of the fundamental uncertainties that makes this work so hard: there are no irrefutable known reference points at all -- apart from a knowledge of what was mass-published and filed away by millions of ordinary citizens.

Betzner 3. Well, this pretty well agrees with Willis 5, so you'd have to take a guess that its authenticity follows that of the other. Again, I'm not aware of anything in it that disagrees violently with all of the other evidence. So I really don't know.

I guess by this point you might be wondering why I keep going on about "violently disagreeing" with other evidence. Well, if you listen in on Tuesday (actually, I think there will be a follow-up interview on another channel, but I will wait for details on that before advising), then you'll get the idea. There are so many discrepancies between the Zapruder film and, to within its bounds, the Nix film (the Muchmore is much too short ... sort of a joke, wasn't it, that the Muchmore shows close to nix and the Nix shows much more ... I'd almost like to have a beer with those film fabricators, just for their sense of humour, if their work were not used for such evil purpose), and what the hundreds of eyewitnesses to the assassination actually saw, that you have to make a fundamental decision as to whether you are going to believe a couple of films with an absolutely broken chain of custody, or the sworn testimony of dozens or hundreds of generally God-fearing and law-abiding Texans, visitors, and law-enforcement officials.

Does that answer your question? If it was a genuine question in the spirit of enquiry -- such as I used to get from my students, when I was a teacher -- then I suspect my ambiguous answer is more useful than a plain set of "yes"es and "no"s. But (no offence intended, Cliff), I don't know you from bar of soap, and I have been popped so many "Dorothy Dixers" during my investigation of the assassination that, in the wrong audience, my answers would create a veritable holy war, ultimately to be drowned out by so much vitriol that one has to wonder whether it is worth answering the question at all.

John

[Don Bailey]

I will agree... most of the photos and films have been doctored to hide the truth of what happened that day.

[Tim Gratz]

BK wrote:

My assertions regarding Secret Service protocol on open windows along parade route has yet to be shown to be "clearly false."

I respectfully differ. If each picture is worth a thousand words, I posted references to pictures worth about ten thousand words which destroyed that shibboleth.

BK is as wrong in asserting that windows were normally secured on presidential motorcades as he was in asserting that JFK spoke to Ian Fleming. JFK did not.

In no way do I accuse BK of making intentionally false statements of fact but I am unaware of any historical record that JFK met with Fleming. And BK also misstated the relationship between Alex Rorke and Sherm Billingsley (he states he got that from an FBI record, which must constitute one of the few FBI records he trusts). So I would only credit a BK statement if he provides a source for it. Again, I do not accuse him of posting intentionally false information but these examples indicate to me his research ought to be verified.

[Cliff Varnell]

John, thank you for your views on the topic.

My area of research is the Dealey Plaza photo evidence up to Altgens/Z255,

specifically relating to the clothing evidence.

I also find no "violent disagreements" between the Dealey Plaza photos

and the eye-witness accounts as to what occurred up to that point.

There is a conflict between the Zapruder film and the consensus witness

testimony as to the movement of the limo after JFK was first shot.

Bill Miller has a "benign" explanation; Jack White (and yourself and others) have

a "sinister explanation."

I remain agnostic on that point, and remain removed from that particular debate.

Otherwise, I subscribe to Tink Thompson's adage -- "The Dealey Plaza films and

photos are the bedrock evidence in the case."

I know that's a conversation-stopper, John, but you've given me no reason to

doubt the authenticity of the films and photos taken at and before Altgens/Z255.

[Jack White]

John, thank you for your views on the topic.

My area of research is the Dealey Plaza photo evidence up to Altgens/Z255,

specifically relating to the clothing evidence.

I also find no "violent disagreements" between the Dealey Plaza photos

and the eye-witness accounts as to what occurred up to that point.

There is a conflict between the Zapruder film and the consensus witness

testimony as to the movement of the limo after JFK was first shot.

Bill Miller has a "benign" explanation; Jack White (and yourself and others) have

a "sinister explanation."

I remain agnostic on that point, and remain removed from that particular debate.

Otherwise, I subscribe to Tink Thompson's adage -- "The Dealey Plaza films and

photos are the bedrock evidence in the case."

I know that's a conversation-stopper, John, but you've given me no reason to

doubt the authenticity of the films and photos taken at and before Altgens/Z255.

Cliff...apparently:

1. You are not familiar enough with the photo evidence

2. You have not read John's treatise on witness testimony

Looking for John's SMOKING GUN, I read it three times.

There are numerous smoking guns, but the one he has

discovered would convince any jury that the films are

altered, because a half-dozen highly qualified and

unimpeachable witnesses testify uniformly about an

event WHICH HAPPENED, but clearly DOES NOT APPEAR

in any photos. These witnesses testified separately and

had NO REASON TO FABRICATE THE EVENT; it was really

an insignificant moment in the telling of what happened in

the motorcade, and IF IT HAPPENED as these reliable

witnesses describe IT NECESSARILY MUST APPEAR

IN MANY FILMS AND PHOTOS. The event does NOT appear,

therefore the content of such films is necessarily false.

In the face of indisputable evidence, remaining agnostic

is not an option.

Jack

[William Kelly]

BK wrote:

My assertions regarding Secret Service protocol on open windows along parade route has yet to be shown to be "clearly false."

I respectfully differ. If each picture is worth a thousand words, I posted references to pictures worth about ten thousand words which destroyed that shibboleth.

TIM -

THEY DID CHECK FOR OPEN WINDOWS IN FORT WORTH AND FOUND SOME KIDS WITH A RIFLE -

http://www.archives.gov/publications/prolo...last-day-2.html

"....Howard says that every floor and window in a tall building facing the parking lot where the President was to speak on Friday morning was thoroughly checked. Occupants were asked to keep their windows closed on November 21 - 22, but on Thursday afternoon a policeman spotted an open window on an upper floor. Howard says that two teenage boys in a law office were using a scope to get a closer look at preparations in the parking lot. The problem was that the scope was mounted on a hunting rifle belonging to the father of one of the boys, an attorney in the office. The rifle, taken from an office gun case, was not loaded. It was determined that innocent curiosity had compelled the boys to take a magnified look at the parking lot activity through the scope. The father was notified and the weaponry in the office safely locked up...."

SO THEY DID CHECK THE OPEN WINDOWS IN FORT WORTH, BUT NOT IN DALLAS.

IF CHECKING OPEN WINDOWS ON THE MOTORCADE ROUTE IN DALLAS WAS NOT ON THE LIST OF SECURITY ITEMS TO DO, THEN THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ASSASSINATION MUST HAVE KNOWN THAT.

IF CHECKING FOR OPEN WINDOWS ON A MOTORCADE ROUTE WAS NOT PART OF THE ROUTINE THEN, I'M SURE IT IS NOW, BECAUSE THAT LAPSE IN SECURITY WAS NECESARY FOR JFK TO BE KILLED IN DALLAS.

AND AS MY ASSERTIONS THAT WINDOWS ARE NORMALLY SECURED - WAS NOT WRONG - MY ASSERTION THAT JFK SPOKE WITH IAN FLEMING ABOUT FIDEL CASTRO WAS EQUALLY NOT WRONG.

BK is as wrong in asserting that windows were normally secured on presidential motorcades as he was in asserting that JFK spoke to Ian Fleming. JFK did not.

WHILE MY SOURCE IS JOHN PEARSON'S THE LIFE OF IAN FLEMING, THIS LINK CERTAINLY ESTABLISHES THE FACT.

http://www.school-for-champions.com/history/jfk007.htm

Relationship Between John F. Kennedy and James Bond 007

by Ron Kurtus (revised 15 September 2001)

The James Bond 007 series of books written by British author Ian Fleming were mildly successful in the late 1950s and early 1960s. After Fleming met President John F. Kennedy, the books became extremely popular in the United States, resulting in a series of 007 movies.

Ian Fleming served in British Intelligence during World War II. From this experience, he learned the workings of the system of spying and the secret service. He started writing his series of James Bond books around 1951 and wrote a book every year or two until completing 13 books.

Fleming and Kennedy Meet

Fleming was somewhat dashing and had many friends within British government. Thus, he was invited to a party in Washington D.C. held by newly elected American President John F. Kennedy.

Fleming was introduced to President Kennedy, and in their conversation, he told Kennedy that he had a way to get rid of Fidel Castro, the Communist leader of Cuba. This piqued Kennedy's interest, since Castro had been a thorn in the side of Kennedy.

Gave amusing suggestion

Fleming said that Castro's beard was the key. Without the beard, Castro would look like anyone else. It was his trademark. So, Fleming said that the U.S. should announce that they found that beards attract radioactivity. Any person wearing a beard could become radioactive himself as well as sterile!

Castro would immediately shave off his beard and would soon fall from power, when the people saw him as an ordinary person.

Kennedy had a good laugh about this bizarre suggestion.

Kennedy tells about books

John F. Kennedy was a young and fun-loving president. He had a good sense of humor and certainly enjoyed a joke or two. His style and grace caught the Country by storm.

When he found out that Fleming had written some spy stories, Kennedy promised to read one.

Later, in a press conference, a reporter ask President Kennedy what type of books he liked read. He said his favorite books were the James Bond series, by Ian Fleming. Once the public found out about it, the books rose to the best-selling list.

ACTUALLY, THIS LAST TWO STATMENT ARE INCORRECT. KENNDY NEVER SAID WHAT KIND OF BOOKS HE LIKED TO READ AT A PRESS CONFERENCE, HIS SECRETARY, MRS. LINCOLN, IN RELEASING A LIST OF BOOKS PRESIDENT KENNEDY HAD RECENTLY READ, ADDED IAN FLEMING'S JAMES BOND SPY NOVEL TO THE LIST BECAUSE SHE THOUGHT THE REAL LIST WAS TOO BORING. ACTUALLY IT WAS THE FIRST LADY WHO READ FLEMING AND ENJOYED HIS BOOKS.

SO NOW WHAT DOES TIM HAVE TO SAY?

In no way do I accuse BK of making intentionally false statements of fact

BUT YOU NONETHELESS ACCUSE ME OF BEING WRONG ABOUT THE SECRET SERVICE POLICY OF CHECKING OPEN WINDOW AND ABOUT JFK MEETING FLEMING.

but I am unaware of any historical record that JFK met with Fleming.

NOW YOU HAVE BEEN MADE AWARE OF THE FACT.

"HUMILITY IS THE RECOGNITION OF THE TRUTH." BUT TIM CAN NOT BE HUMBLE.

And BK also misstated the relationship between Alex Rorke and Sherm Billingsley

OKAY, THE FBI REPORT SAYS THAT THEY ARE RELATED - ARE THEY, YOU CORRECTED THE RECORD.

(he states he got that from an FBI record, which must constitute one of the few FBI records he trusts). So I would only credit a BK statement if he provides a source for it. Again, I do not accuse him of posting intentionally false information but these examples indicate to me his research ought to be verified.

TRUST BUT VERIFY.

I'M GETTING TIRED OF HAVING TO CORRECT GRATZ'S POSTS. MAYBE IF HE DIDN'T POST SO MUCH HE WOULDN'T BE WRONG SO MUCH.

BK

Edited December 10, 2007 by William Kelly

[Cliff Varnell]

John, thank you for your views on the topic.

My area of research is the Dealey Plaza photo evidence up to Altgens/Z255,

specifically relating to the clothing evidence.

I also find no "violent disagreements" between the Dealey Plaza photos

and the eye-witness accounts as to what occurred up to that point.

There is a conflict between the Zapruder film and the consensus witness

testimony as to the movement of the limo after JFK was first shot.

Bill Miller has a "benign" explanation; Jack White (and yourself and others) have

a "sinister explanation."

I remain agnostic on that point, and remain removed from that particular debate.

Otherwise, I subscribe to Tink Thompson's adage -- "The Dealey Plaza films and

photos are the bedrock evidence in the case."

I know that's a conversation-stopper, John, but you've given me no reason to

doubt the authenticity of the films and photos taken at and before Altgens/Z255.

Cliff...apparently:

1. You are not familiar enough with the photo evidence

I'm familiar enough with the evidence I cited.

In fact, the question I put to John was one I put to you, Jack, some time ago.

You expressed the conclusion that any photo showing Zap and Sitz had been

altered. You also expressed doubt about Altgens 5 (the Houston St photo),

since apparently Ike Altgens doesn't remember taking it.

Well, I don't buy the Zap/Sitz Dance, and maybe Ike Altgens simply forgot.

Other than that, you expressed no suspicions concerning the films/photos I cited.

When, in an earlier post, John said he had a more powerful argument for alteration,

I asked him just as I asked you (see above).

Apparently, John's analysis doesn't include arguing for alteration in the films/photos

I cited above.

2. You have not read John's treatise on witness testimony

Looking for John's SMOKING GUN, I read it three times.

There are numerous smoking guns, but the one he has

discovered would convince any jury that the films are

altered,

Apparently, these films to which you refer do not include the Houston St.

segment of the Nix film, or the Towner film.

because a half-dozen highly qualified and

unimpeachable witnesses testify uniformly about an

event WHICH HAPPENED, but clearly DOES NOT APPEAR

in any photos.

Okay, I'll ask again: other than the Zap/Sitz Dance and the Houston St. photo

maybe/maybe-not taken by Ike Altgens -- what evidence of alteration do you

find in the following:

1) The Houston St. segment of the Nix film

2) The Towner film

3) Willis 4 & 5

4) Altgens 5 & 6 (Houston St/Elm St.)

5) Betzner 3

And a bonus round!

6) Croft 3

These witnesses testified separately and

had NO REASON TO FABRICATE THE EVENT; it was really

an insignificant moment in the telling of what happened in

the motorcade, and IF IT HAPPENED as these reliable

witnesses describe IT NECESSARILY MUST APPEAR

IN MANY FILMS AND PHOTOS. The event does NOT appear,

therefore the content of such films is necessarily false.

In the face of indisputable evidence, remaining agnostic

is not an option.

Jack

That's what the Sunday school teacher used to tell me.

All the photos and films I cited occurred at and prior to Z255.

What's missing from them, Jack?

[Jack White]

John, thank you for your views on the topic.

My area of research is the Dealey Plaza photo evidence up to Altgens/Z255,

specifically relating to the clothing evidence.

I also find no "violent disagreements" between the Dealey Plaza photos

and the eye-witness accounts as to what occurred up to that point.

There is a conflict between the Zapruder film and the consensus witness

testimony as to the movement of the limo after JFK was first shot.

Bill Miller has a "benign" explanation; Jack White (and yourself and others) have

a "sinister explanation."

I remain agnostic on that point, and remain removed from that particular debate.

Otherwise, I subscribe to Tink Thompson's adage -- "The Dealey Plaza films and

photos are the bedrock evidence in the case."

I know that's a conversation-stopper, John, but you've given me no reason to

doubt the authenticity of the films and photos taken at and before Altgens/Z255.

Cliff...apparently:

1. You are not familiar enough with the photo evidence

I'm familiar enough with the evidence I cited.

In fact, the question I put to John was one I put to you, Jack, some time ago.

You expressed the conclusion that any photo showing Zap and Sitz had been

altered. You also expressed doubt about Altgens 5 (the Houston St photo),

since apparently Ike Altgens doesn't remember taking it.

Well, I don't buy the Zap/Sitz Dance, and maybe Ike Altgens simply forgot.

Other than that, you expressed no suspicions concerning the films/photos I cited.

When, in an earlier post, John said he had a more powerful argument for alteration,

I asked him just as I asked you (see above).

Apparently, John's analysis doesn't include arguing for alteration in the films/photos

I cited above.

2. You have not read John's treatise on witness testimony

Looking for John's SMOKING GUN, I read it three times.

There are numerous smoking guns, but the one he has

discovered would convince any jury that the films are

altered,

Apparently, these films to which you refer do not include the Houston St.

segment of the Nix film, or the Towner film.

because a half-dozen highly qualified and

unimpeachable witnesses testify uniformly about an

event WHICH HAPPENED, but clearly DOES NOT APPEAR

in any photos.

Okay, I'll ask again: other than the Zap/Sitz Dance and the Houston St. photo

maybe/maybe-not taken by Ike Altgens -- what evidence of alteration do you

find in the following:

1) The Houston St. segment of the Nix film

2) The Towner film

3) Willis 4 & 5

4) Altgens 5 & 6 (Houston St/Elm St.)

5) Betzner 3

And a bonus round!

6) Croft 3

These witnesses testified separately and

had NO REASON TO FABRICATE THE EVENT; it was really

an insignificant moment in the telling of what happened in

the motorcade, and IF IT HAPPENED as these reliable

witnesses describe IT NECESSARILY MUST APPEAR

IN MANY FILMS AND PHOTOS. The event does NOT appear,

therefore the content of such films is necessarily false.

In the face of indisputable evidence, remaining agnostic

is not an option.

Jack

That's what the Sunday school teacher used to tell me.

All the photos and films I cited occurred at and prior to Z255.

What's missing from them, Jack?

I don't want to spoil your fun. Read Costella's list of witnesses.

If you do, you will discover MANY things described by witnesses

which simply are not shown in any films/photos.

However, I will give you just ONE which I found, that John had

not noticed (IT IS NOT HIS SMOKING GUN, WHICH IS EVEN

BETTER). I will wait until later to discuss HIS smoking gun;

you can listen to him and Fetzer discuss it tomorrow night.

Read the testimony of motorcop Cheney, who is seen in Altgens

looking DIRECTLY AT JFK, who has just been hit by the first

shot. He testified HE IMMEDIATELY SPEEDED UP and A MOMENT

AFTER HE SPEEDED UP and AFTER PASSING THE LIMO, he LOOKED

BACK, over his shoulder AND SAW THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD EXPLODE.

In other words, Cheney was in front of the limo at the time

of the head shot. He is very explicit about looking BACK at

the time of the head shot. Please show me films and photos

which show this. Zapruder does not. Nix does not.

So your view is that he is lying or mistaken? Why would he

make this up? Why would he lie? How could he be mistaken?

How could he forget what he saw?

(I think that Cheney was one of the first police witnesses

to die, as I recall.)

There are others. Read for yourself. These are witness

statements, no embellishments. Dispute them, not me.

Jack

Edited December 10, 2007 by Jack White

[Cliff Varnell]

(snip)

Read the testimony of motorcop Cheney, who is seen in Altgens

looking DIRECTLY AT JFK, who has just been hit by the first

shot. He testified HE IMMEDIATELY SPEEDED UP and A MOMENT

AFTER HE SPEEDED UP and AFTER PASSING THE LIMO, he LOOKED

BACK, over his shoulder AND SAW THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD EXPLODE.

In other words, Cheney was in front of the limo at the time

of the head shot. He is very explicit about looking BACK at

the time of the head shot. Please show me films and photos

which show this. Zapruder does not. Nix does not.

So your view is that he is lying or mistaken? Why would he

make this up? Why would he lie? How could he be mistaken?

How could he forget what he saw?

(I think that Cheney was one of the first police witnesses

to die, as I recall.)

There are others. Read for yourself. These are witness

statements, no embellishments. Dispute them, not me.

Jack

Jack, you are describing the actions of Cheney after Z255/Altgens6.

My area of interest is at Z255 and earlier.

If that's Cheney in Altgens6 then he clearly was behind the limo at that point.

If you guys can't impeach the authenticity of the films/photos I cited, you're

throwing the baby out with the bath water, imo.