Jump to content
The Education Forum

Dr. Costella's smoking gun:


Jack White
 Share

Recommended Posts

I hope John will add to this thread, now that he has "released" his smoking gun.

In case you did not hear him explain it on Dr. Jim's Dynamic Duo internet radio

show last nght, he presents UNIMPEACHABLE WITNESSES (police chief, secret

service chief, policemen, etc) who describe an innocuous event (at the time) all

verifying that MOTORCOP CHENEY IMMEDIATELY RODE FORWARD IN THE

MOTORCADE TO INFORM THOSE IN THE LEAD CAR OF THE SHOOTING.

Extant films and photos DO NOT SHOW CHENEY GOING FORWARD as described.

There is no reason for anyone to lie about Cheney's ride, THEREFORE THE FILMS

AND PHOTOS ARE NECESSARILY FORGED. All describe the actions of Cheney

very consistently and believeably.

Any jury in the world would accept this testimony over questionable photos.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 180
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I hope John will add to this thread, now that he has "released" his smoking gun.

In case you did not hear him explain it on Dr. Jim's Dynamic Duo internet radio

show last nght, he presents UNIMPEACHABLE WITNESSES (police chief, secret

service chief, policemen, etc) who describe an innocuous event (at the time) all

verifying that MOTORCOP CHENEY IMMEDIATELY RODE FORWARD IN THE

MOTORCADE TO INFORM THOSE IN THE LEAD CAR OF THE SHOOTING.

Extant films and photos DO NOT SHOW CHENEY GOING FORWARD as described.

There is no reason for anyone to lie about Cheney's ride, THEREFORE THE FILMS

AND PHOTOS ARE NECESSARILY FORGED. All describe the actions of Cheney

very consistently and believeably.

Any jury in the world would accept this testimony over questionable photos.

Jack

So far, the anti-alterationists appear to be stumped on a reply to John's

simple analysis. Not a peep yet from the usual provocateurs. I will be

interested to see what kind of excuses they try to feed us.

Jack :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a sad thread this is! :)

Except for the splice in the beginning , THE ZAPRUDER FILM WAS NOT ALTERED IN ANY WAY!

This ranks in the same category as Badgeman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vjv59Xqlwds

Wim

Sad? Why sad? The reason for that "SPLICE" in the beginning is....? Badgeman discussion deals with an anomaly 'in' a still photo, this thread deals with something that SHOULD appear in DP film.... and doesn't appear.....

So don't be sad Wim, every move us Z-film alterations make needs to be discussed -- get Dr. Costella's data and prove him wrong -- you should be able to find someone that can challenge his findings.... till then champ, you're wishful thinking is in vain.....

Again, the reason for that "SPLICE" in the beginning is....?

David Healy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who did not hear Dr. Costella discuss his findings

with Dr. Fetzer, here are audio files, courtesy Rich DellaRosa.

http://www.jfkresearch.com/Fetzer_Costella1.mp3

http://www.jfkresearch.com/Fetzer_Costella2.mp3

http://www.jfkresearch.com/Fetzer_Costella3.mp3

http://www.jfkresearch.com/Fetzer_Costella4.mp3

http://www.jfkresearch.com/Fetzer_Costella5.mp3

Click and the MP3 files will play on your computer, with

the commercial breaks edited out.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope John will add to this thread, now that he has "released" his smoking gun.

In case you did not hear him explain it on Dr. Jim's Dynamic Duo internet radio

show last nght, he presents UNIMPEACHABLE WITNESSES (police chief, secret

service chief, policemen, etc) who describe an innocuous event (at the time) all

verifying that MOTORCOP CHENEY IMMEDIATELY RODE FORWARD IN THE

MOTORCADE TO INFORM THOSE IN THE LEAD CAR OF THE SHOOTING.

Extant films and photos DO NOT SHOW CHENEY GOING FORWARD as described.

There is no reason for anyone to lie about Cheney's ride, THEREFORE THE FILMS

AND PHOTOS ARE NECESSARILY FORGED. All describe the actions of Cheney

very consistently and believeably.

Any jury in the world would accept this testimony over questionable photos.

Jack

For the benefit of those without the Richard Trask book cited by John Costella, here is the relevant extract:

That Day in Dallas: The Photographers Capture on Film The Day President Kennedy Died (Danvers, Mass: Yeoman Press, expanded edition, 2000), p.115 & p.119:

At about this time Bill Lord of ABC News did a brief interview of Chaney, recording his activities for a broadcast over WFAA television. Chaney recalled of the motorcade incident:

“I was riding on the right rear fender. We had proceeded west on Elm Street at approximately 15 to 20 miles per hour. We heard the first shot. I thought it was a motorcycle backfiring and, uh, I looked back over to the left and also President Kennedy looked back over his left shoulder. Then the, uh, second shot came, well then I looked back just in time by the second bullet. He slumped forward into Mrs. Kennedy’s lap, and uh, it was apparent to me that we’re being fired upon. 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 he had Parkland standing by. I went on up ahead of the – to notify the officer that was leading the escort that he had been hit and we’re going to have to move out. [The shot,] it was back over my right shoulder” (24).”

(24) Bill Lord interview of James Chaney for WFAA-TV, 11/22/63.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Jack, Paul, Dave ... appreciate the kind words, and the quote from Trask.

I have to laugh at Wim ... no matter where I look, there seems to be a thread debating whether to expel him. I have no problem with you, Wim ... it amuses me that your answer is to stamp your feet and insist that the film is genuine. It warms the cockles of my heart that this is the best "first response" that could be generated.

I suspect that it will take a while for the usual suspects to concoct a refutation to this one. It doesn't rely on advanced physics, optics, or anything else that can be obfuscated by someone in possession of the right words and the wrong intent. All you have to do is listen to (or read) the words of Forrest Sorrels, Chief Curry, Winston Lawson, and Bobby Hargis (and that interview with Chaney himself) ... and then look at the films. No insult to my fiancee Gaye, but if a legal secretary with no background in photography or physics can see it with her own eyes ...

Of course, there were other widely corroborated events I mentioned (the sound of firecrackers, the two shots occurring almost simultaneously) that even those who cling to the fabricated photographic evidence should find interesting. (Except those who believe Oswald did it.) But I don't think those will be getting much attention.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those interested in this thread may wish to read chapters 5 through 9 at patspeer.com. I go through the witnesses one by one, and correlate their statements to the Zapruder film, and show how the evidence is inconsistent with the currently popular single-assassin scenario, particularly the first shot miss. Yes, of course, there are inconsistencies in the statements, but one can cull some truth from them, as long as one fights the desire to cherry-pick the evidence to prove a point.

The films prove that Chaney didn't pull his scooter forward of the limo. The Nix film proves that Chaney and Jackson slammed on their brakes at the moment of the head shot (their actions caused others to stop as well--which is why people believed the motorcade stopped). Methinks a story was invented to cover up their failure to respond--after all, neither Chaney or Jackson were called to make statements by the DPD, the FBI, or the WC, and when they were finally called by the FBI, in the 70's, they completely changed their stories! My, what a coincidence!

Chaney and Jackson's statements from patspeer.com

James Chaney rode to the right and rear of the President. Despite the fact he was the closest witness behind the President and that he had a private conversation with Jack Ruby on the day following the assassination, Chaney was not questioned by the Warren Commission. (11-22-63 interview on WFAA, as quoted in That Day in Dallas) “I was riding on the right rear fender. We had proceeded west on Elm Street at approximately 15-20 miles per hour. We heard the first shot. I thought it was a motorcycle backfiring and uh I looked back over to my left and also President Kennedy looked back over his left shoulder. Then, the, uh, second bullet came, well, then 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, as uh, it was apparent to me that we’re being fired upon. I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit…(The shot) it was back over my right shoulder.” Later in this interview Chaney mentioned “a third shot that was fired that (he) did not see hit the President” but that he did see “Governor Connally’s shirt erupt in blood..”. ((3-24 -64 testimony of Mark Lane before the Warren Commission, 2H32-61) “James A. Chaney, who is a Dallas motorcycle policeman, was quoted in the Houston Chronicle on 11-24-63, as stating that the first shot missed entirely. He said he was 6 feet to the right and front of the President's car, moving about 15 miles an hour, and when the first shot was fired, "I thought it was a backfire." (12-8-63 AP article by Sid Moody) "His head erupted in blood" said Dallas patrolman James Chaney, who was 6 feet away from the president." (3-25-64 testimony of Marrion Baker before the Warren Commission, 3H242-270) “I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two shots hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor.” (9-12-75 FBI report) “Chaney stated that as the President’s car passed the…(TSBD), he was four to six feet from the President’s right shoulder. He heard three evenly spaced noises coming seconds apart, which at first he thought to be motorcycle backfire. Upon hearing the second noise, he was sure it was not a motorcycle backfire. When he heard the third noise he saw the President’s head “explode” and realized the noises were gunshots. He said that the shots did not come from his immediate vicinity and is positive that all the shots came from behind him.” (9-17-75 FBI report) “after making a left turn off Houston Street and shortly after the car had passed the School Book Depository, Chaney heard a noise which sounded like one of the motorcycles close to the President’s car had backfired…Chaney said he glanced to his left at the two motorcycles on the opposite side of the President’s car…Within a few seconds after Chaney heard the first noise, he heard a noise again and turned to his right to try and determine what the noise was and where it was coming from…Chaney said he then looked straight ahead to avoid colliding with the curb and presidential car and then looked at the President just as he heard a third noise. Chaney said while he was looking at President Kennedy, he saw his head “explode.” Chaney said he was positive that all the noises he heard were coming from behind his motorcycle and none of these noises came from the side or the front of the position in which Chaney was located. Chaney said the noises were evenly spaced.”

Analysis: it seems apparent that Chaney initially believed the first shot missed the President, the second shot hit the President in the face, and the third hit Connally. Chaney’s statement that Kennedy looked back over his left shoulder, however, indicates the first shot was a hit, as Kennedy only leaned to the left after being hit. Baker’s testimony, in fact, indicates Chaney re-appraised this initial impression. That Chaney, the closest witness behind Kennedy at the time of the head shot, believed there was a shot after the head shot, is undoubtedly intriguing. As he saw no impact from this final shot on the President, perhaps his eyes strayed to Connally as Connally was being pulled down in the seat by his wife. If this is so, then Chaney’s statements are consistent with those of Greer, Kellerman, and Martin. In any event, it seems clear that by 1975 Chaney had changed his views again and was now attempting to support the official story. Chaney may have come to believe his initial impressions were wrong and have “corrected” them once again. In light of Chaney’s earliest statements, and Baker’s testimony, and his looking to his left in the Altgens photo corresponding to Z-255 when he says he looked to his left after the first shot, Chaney’s 1975 statements about the shots being evenly spaced and the head shot coming last can not be trusted. First shot hit 190-224. Last shot after the head shot.

Douglas Jackson rode on the far right of the President. (Notes written on the night of 11-22-63 as reprinted in The Kennedy Assassination Tapes, 1979): Officer C “we turned west onto Elm Street. Drove only a short way traveling very slowly. About that time I heard what I thought was a car back fire and I looked around and then to the President’s car in time for the next explosion and saw Mr. Connally jerk back to his right and it seemed that he look right at me. I could see a shocked expression on his face…I began stopping my motor…I looked back toward Mr. Kennedy and saw him hit in the head; he appeared to have been hit just above the right ear. The top of his head flew off away from me.” (9-17-75 FBI report) “As the presidential vehicle was proceeding down Elm Street, and Jackson was turning the corner from Houston to Elm Street, he heard a loud (noise) which he first thought to be a motorcycle backfire. (He looked) at the Presidential car to see what the reaction was and observed Texas Governor John Connally turn to his right in the car. At the same time he heard a second noise and saw Connally jerk to his right. At this point, Jackson had just rounded the corner from Houston to Elm Street and he recognized the second noise as a definite gunshot…At this point, he was 15 to 20 feet away from the Presidential vehicle and he stopped his motorcycle in the street and looked toward the railroad overpass, directly in front of the Presidential car. He observed a police officer with his hands on his hips, looking toward the Presidential car. As this appeared normal, he then looked to his right and rear in the direction of the Texas School Book Depository and the intersection of Houston and Elm Street and observed many bystanders falling to the ground. He looked toward the Presidential vehicle and at the same time heard a third shot fired. He observed President Kennedy struck in the head above his right ear and the impact of the bullet exploded the top portion of his head, toward the left side of the Presidential vehicle. Jackson immediately knew that Kennedy had been hit and that the shot had been fired from his right rear.”

Analysis: while on the surface, Jackson’s statements might seem to support the LPM theory, they do not. While his statements make it sound like there was a first shot miss as they turned the corner, that Connally was hit by the second shot and looked to his right, and that there was a final headshot, there are holes in this. First, at what point does Connally turn far enough to his right to look at Jackson? Not until Z-280 or so. Is that when Jackson heard the second shot? And, at what point does Jackson stop his motorcycle? While Jackson says it was after the second shot, the Nix film shows that Jackson only slowed his motorcycle after Kennedy was struck in the head! This could indicate that Jackson heard a shot (a first shot hit) looked around, looked back to Connally, heard the head shot, slammed on his brakes, and heard the third shot as he looked up and saw the President’s wounds. Still, since he distinctly remembered seeing a piece of the President’s skull fly away, it would seem he saw the actual impact. This raises the possibility that he heard a shot, looked around, saw Connally jerk to his right and then fall back into the car after being hit by a silent bullet, saw the President’s head explode, heard a shot, slammed on his brakes, and looked back to the President as a third shot rang out, but then got himself mixed-up when he tried to make sense of the movements and the shots. Another possibility is that he was simply mistaken about when he stopped his motorcycle in relation to the shots. In any regard, one can not honestly say his statements support the LPM theory. Even so, his notes are significant in that his initial impression of the fatal shot was that Kennedy had been hit above the right ear. That neither of the two men closest behind the President, James Chaney and Douglas Jackson, saw an impact on the back of Kennedy’s head at frame 313 is undoubtedly suggestive that the bullet at Z-313 did not enter the back of Kennedy’s head. Strangely, despite having been one of the closest witnesses, Jackson was not interviewed by Hoover’s FBI after the assassination, nor was he called before the Warren Commission. Possible LPM scenario. Possible first shot hit 190-224. Last two shots possibly bunched together (with the last shot after the head shot).

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, of course, there are inconsistencies in the statements, but one can cull some truth from them, as long as one fights the desire to cherry-pick the evidence to prove a point.

But, Pat, that's precisely what you've done - cherry-picked them to support the proposition that the films are genuine.

The pattern in eyewitness statements is quite clear. They're refashioned, chiefly by the FBI, to support the films. If the films were genuine, there would have been no such need.

The films prove that Chaney didn't pull his scooter forward of the limo.

Quite the wrong way round: the eyewitness statements make nonsense of the films!

And here's the rub - the films don't match Altgens #5.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat's response is quite peculiar. In any court in the land, the witness

testimony would impeach the photos...not the other way around.

To impeach the independent testimony of each witness, it would be

necessary that they all conspired to tell a story which did not happen,

and for no apparent reason. There is NO REASON for these men to

lie about an innocuous event.

More to come. I am checking for other photos which may SUPPORT

Cheney going forward as he and the others testified.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat's response is quite peculiar. In any court in the land, the witness

testimony would impeach the photos...not the other way around.

To impeach the independent testimony of each witness, it would be

necessary that they all conspired to tell a story which did not happen,

and for no apparent reason. There is NO REASON for these men to

lie about an innocuous event.

More to come. I am checking for other photos which may SUPPORT

Cheney going forward as he and the others testified.

Jack

Jack, I think this is incorrect. Can you cite one case in history where a defense attorney successfully used eyewitness statements to demonstrate a photo offered by the prosecution had been faked? I'd be greatly interested in reading about such a case should one exist.

Eyewitness testimony IS notoriously unreliable. BUT, the sheer number of eyewitnesses in this case makes it hard to refute some simple facts apparent from reading ALL the statements (and not cherry-picking them), e.g. the first shot heard by most witnesses did not miss Kennedy, and was not fired prior to Z-188.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, of course, there are inconsistencies in the statements, but one can cull some truth from them, as long as one fights the desire to cherry-pick the evidence to prove a point.

But, Pat, that's precisely what you've done - cherry-picked them to support the proposition that the films are genuine.

The pattern in eyewitness statements is quite clear. They're refashioned, chiefly by the FBI, to support the films. If the films were genuine, there would have been no such need.

The films prove that Chaney didn't pull his scooter forward of the limo.

Quite the wrong way round: the eyewitness statements make nonsense of the films!

And here's the rub - the films don't match Altgens #5.

Paul

Paul, this is not true. One can hardly call creating the largest database of witness statements "cherry-picking." I also do not argue that the statements prove the films genuine, and collect quotes to support that position. I merely note, here as elsewhere, that the x-rays and autopsy photos match, and that the medical evidence, when viewed in conjunction with the Z-film, suggests more than one shooter. The question then follows--why would the government fake evidence that suggests a conspiracy?

As far as Altgens #5, I haven't been following that discussion but suspect someone's mis-interpreting something. I receive emails from people who think Hickey fired a gun, and others claiming Altgens shows a hole in the windshield. People have a way of talking themselves into believing all sorts of things. I'm not different. I just doubt myself more than most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...