Jump to content
The Education Forum

The breakdown of Fetzer's "breakthrough"


Recommended Posts

John Simkin was kind enough to send me my user name and password. I had lost them. This post has gotten all fouled up so I will post it again as a new thread with the critical photos. I hope by posting this as a new thread I am not violating any rule of Internet posting. The photos themselves carry the argument.

FETZER’S “BREAKTHROUGH”

Fetzer once again is trying to bootstrap a piece of incomplete and somewhat shoddy work into “a major breakthrough” in Kennedy assassination research. As usual, Fetzer did none of the work but wrote the “press release”:

Madison, WI (OpEdNews) February 5, 2008 – The editor of Assassination Research, James H. Fetzer, Ph.D. has announced the discovery of new proof that the home movies of the assassination of JFK known as the Zapruder film and a second known as the Nix film are fakes... Both were subject to extensive alteration to fabricate evidence of the crime and keep the truth about the sequence of events in Dealey Plaza from the American people. Fetzer, McNight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota, observed that the films are authentic only if the visible events they record correspond to the actual sequence of events at the time. “The proof is based upon the convergent testimony of motorcycle patrolmen, members of the Secret Service, and the Dallas Chief of Police. That it contradicts the official account of the assassination recorded in the films qualifies as a major breakthrough.”

Fetzer’s substantive claim is that the Nix and Zapruder films do not show DPD Officer James Chaney doing what Chaney told a newsman he did that day. Fetzer quoted Chaney as follows:

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.

Fetzer claims that the Nix and Zapruder films do not show Chaney going “ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit” and for that reason, the two films are forgeries.

What do the two films show?

Along with another DPD motorcycle officer, Chaney was riding his cycle to the right rear of the Presidential limousine. The Nix film shows dramatically that after JFK is hit in the head the cyclists to the right rear of the limousine drop back as the limousine speeds forward towards the underpass. No motorcycle chases the limousine or overtakes it. The Zapruder film shows Chaney only in its earlier footage. He is last seen in frame 205, after which the limousine disappears behind the Stemmons Freeway sign. The content of the frame narrows as the limousine nears Zapruder and than expands as the car moves away from him. About the time Clint Hill climbs on the back of the limousine, it becomes possible to see the space behind the right rear bumper earlier occupied by Chaney. No motorcycle is visible. However, in the series of “ghost images” or double-exposures, it is possible to see a motorcycle wheel that may belong to Chaney’s cycle up to frame 331. Then it too drops back and out of sight. In short, the two films match by showing Chaney dropping back at about the time JFK is hit in the head and not following right behind the limousine to the underpass.

Additional films show the same thing. The Muchmore film (which ends shortly after the head shot) matches what we see in both the Nix and Zapruder film. Much more importantly, James Altgens took a clear still photo as the limousine and pilot car zoomed away. Chaney is nowhere to be seen in this photo. (See attached Altgens photo.)

Zapruder frame 444 shows how close the limousine has come to the pilot car by the time the pilot car has reached the dark shadow of the underpass. (See attached Z frame 444.)

Finally, a photo taken from the far side of the underpass looking towards Dealey Plaza shows Chaney fast approaching Chief Curry’s pilot car. It was taken by Mel McIntire. When Fetzer’s claim first arose several months ago Craig Lamson published it on the Education Forum but its significance was never recognized. (See attached Mel McIntire photo.)

The motorcyclists in the foreground led the motorcade well in advance of Chief Curry’s pilot car. Several hundred feet behind them we see the limousine passing Chief Curry’s pilot car as the Secret Service follow-up car follows the limousine. We can see Secret Service agents standing in the follow-up car and then, behind, in the shadow of the overpass, two police motorcycles. The one nearest the center of the overpass is B.J. Martin; the one nearest the side curb is Chaney. They are more easily seen in an enlargement. (See attached enlargement of Mel McIntire photo.)

Note that the limousine has passed Chief Curry’s pilot car. As Curry points out, they had heard gunshots and knew something had happened but it wasn’t until Chaney pulled alongside and told them the President had been hit did they set off for Parkland Hospital. Chaney did exactly what he said he did but he did it the far side of the overpass on the curve leading up to the Stemmons Freeway.

What did Chaney actually say and to whom?

Fetzer gives only a fragment of the quote. On Friday night, November 22nd, Bill Murray took Chaney’s photograph in a corridor of the Dallas police headquarters as Chaney was being interviewed about what he saw. Bill Lord of ABC News did a brief interview of Chaney in the corridor in front of the Robbery/Homicide Bureau as others crowded around. Fetzer quotes only a paragraph of the interview found in Richard Trask’s book, That Day in Dallas. The Sixth Floor Museum has a videotape of the interview. This is a more complete transcript:

A: Uh, Jim Chaney.

Q: I understand you were riding next to the President’s car when the assassination took place.

A: I was riding on the right rear fender.

Q: What happened?

A: We had proceeded west on Elm Street at approximately 15 to 20 miles an 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, the second shot came, well 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 uh, it was apparent to me that we were being fired upon. I went ahead of the President's car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. And then he (Curry) instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hospital and he had Parkland Hospital stand by. I went on up ahead of the, to notify the officers that were leading the escort that he had been hit and we’re gonna have to move out.

Q: You did not see the person who fired the shot?

A: No sir, it was back over my right shoulder.

Q: What preventive measures had been taken to preclude such an incident?

A: I don’t know what had been done in that part of town.

Q: All right, fine, thank you.

As the sequence of photos demonstrates, Chaney got only one detail wrong. He didn’t go “ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry” because “the President’s car” had passed the pilot car as both sped under the overpass.

Finally, there is the report of a fairly well-known, straight-arrow researcher who talked to Curry in 1979. I’ll call him “Carl” since I don’t want him involved in this given the vileness of Fetzer’s and Costella’s tongues. Carl had been on the radio and his comments had treated Curry with affection and respect. In response, Curry’s wife called in to thank Carl for the way he treated her husband. Carl asked her if he could speak with Chief Curry the next day and she agreed. Carl’s interest than was in the acoustics and in Curry’s memory of when he put out on the radio that they were going to Parkland. In explaining this, Curry mentioned that Chaney had reached the pilot car as both were climbing up the curve onto the Stemmons Freeway. That location for their shouted interchange fits nicely with the relative positions of Chaney and Curry in the McIntire photo.

Fetzer calls this a “breakthrough.” Actually, it is simply another piece of evidence for the importance of careful, non-speculative examination of the Dealey Plaza photos. The actual sequence of events is unfolded through the various films and photos.

The Nix film shows Chaney and Jackson dropping back when the President’s head explodes. The Altgens photo shows the limousine accelerating towards the pilot car with no motorcyclist in sight. Frame 444 of the Zapruder film shows the limousine gaining on the pilot car as both approach the overpass. Finally, the McIntire photo shows the limousine passing the pilot car and Chaney accelerating towards both from several hundred feet back. We know all this by simply patching together a series of photos and films. If you take movies or still photos from different angles of the same event, these movies and still photos form a self-authenticating fabric. If someone altered any one of the photos or films, it would stand out like a sore thumb. The numerous photos and films taken of the Kennedy assassination are an instance of multiple photos of the same event taken from different angles. They form a self-authenticating whole. For years, Fetzer and a small coterie have claimed there were discrepancies in the photo record of what happened in Dealey Plaza. Each discrepancy gets shot down in turn and they imagine a new one. Sort of like a continuing game of wack-a-mole. For years (it seems like decades!) Fetzer has been trying to claim that the Zapruder film was altered. Since other movies of the assassination match frame for frame with the Zapruder film, he now has to claim that they too have been altered. When the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films don't show what Fetzer thinks they ought to show, he says they were all faked up. The Moorman photo? Yeah, I guess he thinks that’s been faked up too. So now will he have to add the second Altgens photo and the McIntire photo to his list of forgeries?

All in all, playing wack-a-mole with Costella and Fetzer is unpleasant. No matter how many times their claims are exposed as silly, they come up with others. And their tongues become more vile with each passing year. Maybe simply ignoring his next “breakthrough” might be the best policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

John Simkin was kind enough to send me my user name and password. I had lost them. This post has gotten all fouled up so I will post it again as a new thread with the critical photos. I hope by posting this as a new thread I am not violating any rule of Internet posting. The photos themselves carry the argument.

FETZER’S “BREAKTHROUGH”

Fetzer once again is trying to bootstrap a piece of incomplete and somewhat shoddy work into “a major breakthrough” in Kennedy assassination research. As usual, Fetzer did none of the work but wrote the “press release”:

Madison, WI (OpEdNews) February 5, 2008 – The editor of Assassination Research, James H. Fetzer, Ph.D. has announced the discovery of new proof that the home movies of the assassination of JFK known as the Zapruder film and a second known as the Nix film are fakes... Both were subject to extensive alteration to fabricate evidence of the crime and keep the truth about the sequence of events in Dealey Plaza from the American people. Fetzer, McNight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota, observed that the films are authentic only if the visible events they record correspond to the actual sequence of events at the time. “The proof is based upon the convergent testimony of motorcycle patrolmen, members of the Secret Service, and the Dallas Chief of Police. That it contradicts the official account of the assassination recorded in the films qualifies as a major breakthrough.”

Fetzer’s substantive claim is that the Nix and Zapruder films do not show DPD Officer James Chaney doing what Chaney told a newsman he did that day. Fetzer quoted Chaney as follows:

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.

Fetzer claims that the Nix and Zapruder films do not show Chaney going “ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit” and for that reason, the two films are forgeries.

What do the two films show?

Along with another DPD motorcycle officer, Chaney was riding his cycle to the right rear of the Presidential limousine. The Nix film shows dramatically that after JFK is hit in the head the cyclists to the right rear of the limousine drop back as the limousine speeds forward towards the underpass. No motorcycle chases the limousine or overtakes it. The Zapruder film shows Chaney only in its earlier footage. He is last seen in frame 205, after which the limousine disappears behind the Stemmons Freeway sign. The content of the frame narrows as the limousine nears Zapruder and than expands as the car moves away from him. About the time Clint Hill climbs on the back of the limousine, it becomes possible to see the space behind the right rear bumper earlier occupied by Chaney. No motorcycle is visible. However, in the series of “ghost images” or double-exposures, it is possible to see a motorcycle wheel that may belong to Chaney’s cycle up to frame 331. Then it too drops back and out of sight. In short, the two films match by showing Chaney dropping back at about the time JFK is hit in the head and not following right behind the limousine to the underpass.

Additional films show the same thing. The Muchmore film (which ends shortly after the head shot) matches what we see in both the Nix and Zapruder film. Much more importantly, James Altgens took a clear still photo as the limousine and pilot car zoomed away. Chaney is nowhere to be seen in this photo. (See attached Altgens photo.)

Zapruder frame 444 shows how close the limousine has come to the pilot car by the time the pilot car has reached the dark shadow of the underpass. (See attached Z frame 444.)

Finally, a photo taken from the far side of the underpass looking towards Dealey Plaza shows Chaney fast approaching Chief Curry’s pilot car. It was taken by Mel McIntire. When Fetzer’s claim first arose several months ago Craig Lamson published it on the Education Forum but its significance was never recognized. (See attached Mel McIntire photo.)

The motorcyclists in the foreground led the motorcade well in advance of Chief Curry’s pilot car. Several hundred feet behind them we see the limousine passing Chief Curry’s pilot car as the Secret Service follow-up car follows the limousine. We can see Secret Service agents standing in the follow-up car and then, behind, in the shadow of the overpass, two police motorcycles. The one nearest the center of the overpass is B.J. Martin; the one nearest the side curb is Chaney. They are more easily seen in an enlargement. (See attached enlargement of Mel McIntire photo.)

Note that the limousine has passed Chief Curry’s pilot car. As Curry points out, they had heard gunshots and knew something had happened but it wasn’t until Chaney pulled alongside and told them the President had been hit did they set off for Parkland Hospital. Chaney did exactly what he said he did but he did it the far side of the overpass on the curve leading up to the Stemmons Freeway.

What did Chaney actually say and to whom?

Fetzer gives only a fragment of the quote. On Friday night, November 22nd, Bill Murray took Chaney’s photograph in a corridor of the Dallas police headquarters as Chaney was being interviewed about what he saw. Bill Lord of ABC News did a brief interview of Chaney in the corridor in front of the Robbery/Homicide Bureau as others crowded around. Fetzer quotes only a paragraph of the interview found in Richard Trask’s book, That Day in Dallas. The Sixth Floor Museum has a videotape of the interview. This is a more complete transcript:

A: Uh, Jim Chaney.

Q: I understand you were riding next to the President’s car when the assassination took place.

A: I was riding on the right rear fender.

Q: What happened?

A: We had proceeded west on Elm Street at approximately 15 to 20 miles an 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, the second shot came, well 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 uh, it was apparent to me that we were being fired upon. I went ahead of the President's car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. And then he (Curry) instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hospital and he had Parkland Hospital stand by. I went on up ahead of the, to notify the officers that were leading the escort that he had been hit and we’re gonna have to move out.

Q: You did not see the person who fired the shot?

A: No sir, it was back over my right shoulder.

Q: What preventive measures had been taken to preclude such an incident?

A: I don’t know what had been done in that part of town.

Q: All right, fine, thank you.

As the sequence of photos demonstrates, Chaney got only one detail wrong. He didn’t go “ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry” because “the President’s car” had passed the pilot car as both sped under the overpass.

Finally, there is the report of a fairly well-known, straight-arrow researcher who talked to Curry in 1979. I’ll call him “Carl” since I don’t want him involved in this given the vileness of Fetzer’s and Costella’s tongues. Carl had been on the radio and his comments had treated Curry with affection and respect. In response, Curry’s wife called in to thank Carl for the way he treated her husband. Carl asked her if he could speak with Chief Curry the next day and she agreed. Carl’s interest than was in the acoustics and in Curry’s memory of when he put out on the radio that they were going to Parkland. In explaining this, Curry mentioned that Chaney had reached the pilot car as both were climbing up the curve onto the Stemmons Freeway. That location for their shouted interchange fits nicely with the relative positions of Chaney and Curry in the McIntire photo.

Fetzer calls this a “breakthrough.” Actually, it is simply another piece of evidence for the importance of careful, non-speculative examination of the Dealey Plaza photos. The actual sequence of events is unfolded through the various films and photos.

The Nix film shows Chaney and Jackson dropping back when the President’s head explodes. The Altgens photo shows the limousine accelerating towards the pilot car with no motorcyclist in sight. Frame 444 of the Zapruder film shows the limousine gaining on the pilot car as both approach the overpass. Finally, the McIntire photo shows the limousine passing the pilot car and Chaney accelerating towards both from several hundred feet back. We know all this by simply patching together a series of photos and films. If you take movies or still photos from different angles of the same event, these movies and still photos form a self-authenticating fabric. If someone altered any one of the photos or films, it would stand out like a sore thumb. The numerous photos and films taken of the Kennedy assassination are an instance of multiple photos of the same event taken from different angles. They form a self-authenticating whole. For years, Fetzer and a small coterie have claimed there were discrepancies in the photo record of what happened in Dealey Plaza. Each discrepancy gets shot down in turn and they imagine a new one. Sort of like a continuing game of wack-a-mole. For years (it seems like decades!) Fetzer has been trying to claim that the Zapruder film was altered. Since other movies of the assassination match frame for frame with the Zapruder film, he now has to claim that they too have been altered. When the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films don't show what Fetzer thinks they ought to show, he says they were all faked up. The Moorman photo? Yeah, I guess he thinks that’s been faked up too. So now will he have to add the second Altgens photo and the McIntire photo to his list of forgeries?

All in all, playing wack-a-mole with Costella and Fetzer is unpleasant. No matter how many times their claims are exposed as silly, they come up with others. And their tongues become more vile with each passing year. Maybe simply ignoring his next “breakthrough” might be the best policy.

Mr Thompson, I wanted to ask you a simple question, which, is not intended to be construed as criticism of those who believe or disbelieve in the issue of alteration of the Zapruder film. Your value as a researcher is enormous, and I am well aware of your legacy as one the original dis-believers in the conclusions reached by the Warren Commission, not to mention your authorship of Six Seconds in Dallas.

The question is......

Do you believe that beneath the myriad of documents, books and theories regarding the assassination, there is a particular area of the assassination that has been overlooked or bypassed which prevents the complete picture of the assassination from emerging? Here's to the hope that you and others like you who have contributed most of their lives to discovering the truth of the assassination, will soon see the revelation of the Grand Unified Facts of the Assassination....and not just the theories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure.

In my opinion, the pivotal area is the acoustics.

We've gone back and forth on this issue for some twenty-five years. If the acousitcs evidence is established as indicating a series of four or five sound impulses from gunshots in a short period of time, that fact will then become the timetable of events. On the one hand, it will make uncredible any claim that only three shots were fired. On the other hand, it will make equally unbelievable the more febrile imaginations of those who talk of more than that number of shots. When established, it will become like the Zapruder film, a foundational piece of evidence around which everything else has to find its place. I'm a great admirer of Don Thomas and his work and I look forward to even more significant results in the not too distant future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Tink claims, "As the sequence of photos demonstrates, Chaney got only one detail wrong. He didn’t go “ahead of

the President’s car to inform Chief Curry” because “the President’s car” had passed the pilot car as both sped under the

overpass." But this is absurd! Who would know better than James Chaney whether James Chaney rode ahead of

the limo? He claims to support this on the basis of photos and films whose authenticity is being disputed. In logic,

this is called "begging the question" by taking for granted what needs to be established on independent grounds. I

guess he never studied informal fallacies at Yale. It is apparent here that logic and reasoning are not his strong suit.

This seems to be the best he can do, but his attempt to salvage an unsalvageable situation is beyond belief. Notice

he does not acknowledge the many different kinds of proof that the Z-film is faked and simply ignores the reports of

Forrest Sorrels, Winston Lawson, Bobby Hargis, James Chaney, and Chief Curry. Costella has already demonstrated

that there is no merit to this line of argument. Jack has observed that Stavis Ellis offered corroborating testimony, as

did Marrion Baker. What is most remarkable about Thompson's interminable attempts to defend the indefensible is

the extent to which he is willing to ignore the evidence and commit fallacies to create the semblance of an argument.

What, after all, is more probable? That Sorrels, Lawson, Hargis, Curry, Ellis, Baker and Chaney himself are wrong in

their reports of what actually happened at the time, when they were there? Or that Thompson is ignoring evidence

and warping logic to create the impression that Chaney only rode forward AFTER the limousine had traveled out of

the plaza and away from Zapruder? Oh, yes, and of course that requires that Chaney only has "one detail" wrong.

Because, ACCORDING TO CHANEY, HE RODE AHEAD OF THE PRESIDENT'S CAR TO INFORM CHIEF CURRY! So what

is the probability that Chaney would be mistaken on this key point and Tink is right, after all? Approximately zero.

John Simkin was kind enough to send me my user name and password. I had lost them. This post has gotten all fouled up so I will post it again as a new thread with the critical photos. I hope by posting this as a new thread I am not violating any rule of Internet posting. The photos themselves carry the argument.

FETZER’S “BREAKTHROUGH”

Fetzer once again is trying to bootstrap a piece of incomplete and somewhat shoddy work into “a major breakthrough” in Kennedy assassination research. As usual, Fetzer did none of the work but wrote the “press release”:

Madison, WI (OpEdNews) February 5, 2008 – The editor of Assassination Research, James H. Fetzer, Ph.D. has announced the discovery of new proof that the home movies of the assassination of JFK known as the Zapruder film and a second known as the Nix film are fakes... Both were subject to extensive alteration to fabricate evidence of the crime and keep the truth about the sequence of events in Dealey Plaza from the American people. Fetzer, McNight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota, observed that the films are authentic only if the visible events they record correspond to the actual sequence of events at the time. “The proof is based upon the convergent testimony of motorcycle patrolmen, members of the Secret Service, and the Dallas Chief of Police. That it contradicts the official account of the assassination recorded in the films qualifies as a major breakthrough.”

Fetzer’s substantive claim is that the Nix and Zapruder films do not show DPD Officer James Chaney doing what Chaney told a newsman he did that day. Fetzer quoted Chaney as follows:

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.

Fetzer claims that the Nix and Zapruder films do not show Chaney going “ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit” and for that reason, the two films are forgeries.

What do the two films show?

Along with another DPD motorcycle officer, Chaney was riding his cycle to the right rear of the Presidential limousine. The Nix film shows dramatically that after JFK is hit in the head the cyclists to the right rear of the limousine drop back as the limousine speeds forward towards the underpass. No motorcycle chases the limousine or overtakes it. The Zapruder film shows Chaney only in its earlier footage. He is last seen in frame 205, after which the limousine disappears behind the Stemmons Freeway sign. The content of the frame narrows as the limousine nears Zapruder and than expands as the car moves away from him. About the time Clint Hill climbs on the back of the limousine, it becomes possible to see the space behind the right rear bumper earlier occupied by Chaney. No motorcycle is visible. However, in the series of “ghost images” or double-exposures, it is possible to see a motorcycle wheel that may belong to Chaney’s cycle up to frame 331. Then it too drops back and out of sight. In short, the two films match by showing Chaney dropping back at about the time JFK is hit in the head and not following right behind the limousine to the underpass.

Additional films show the same thing. The Muchmore film (which ends shortly after the head shot) matches what we see in both the Nix and Zapruder film. Much more importantly, James Altgens took a clear still photo as the limousine and pilot car zoomed away. Chaney is nowhere to be seen in this photo. (See attached Altgens photo.)

Zapruder frame 444 shows how close the limousine has come to the pilot car by the time the pilot car has reached the dark shadow of the underpass. (See attached Z frame 444.)

Finally, a photo taken from the far side of the underpass looking towards Dealey Plaza shows Chaney fast approaching Chief Curry’s pilot car. It was taken by Mel McIntire. When Fetzer’s claim first arose several months ago Craig Lamson published it on the Education Forum but its significance was never recognized. (See attached Mel McIntire photo.)

The motorcyclists in the foreground led the motorcade well in advance of Chief Curry’s pilot car. Several hundred feet behind them we see the limousine passing Chief Curry’s pilot car as the Secret Service follow-up car follows the limousine. We can see Secret Service agents standing in the follow-up car and then, behind, in the shadow of the overpass, two police motorcycles. The one nearest the center of the overpass is B.J. Martin; the one nearest the side curb is Chaney. They are more easily seen in an enlargement. (See attached enlargement of Mel McIntire photo.)

Note that the limousine has passed Chief Curry’s pilot car. As Curry points out, they had heard gunshots and knew something had happened but it wasn’t until Chaney pulled alongside and told them the President had been hit did they set off for Parkland Hospital. Chaney did exactly what he said he did but he did it the far side of the overpass on the curve leading up to the Stemmons Freeway.

What did Chaney actually say and to whom?

Fetzer gives only a fragment of the quote. On Friday night, November 22nd, Bill Murray took Chaney’s photograph in a corridor of the Dallas police headquarters as Chaney was being interviewed about what he saw. Bill Lord of ABC News did a brief interview of Chaney in the corridor in front of the Robbery/Homicide Bureau as others crowded around. Fetzer quotes only a paragraph of the interview found in Richard Trask’s book, That Day in Dallas. The Sixth Floor Museum has a videotape of the interview. This is a more complete transcript:

A: Uh, Jim Chaney.

Q: I understand you were riding next to the President’s car when the assassination took place.

A: I was riding on the right rear fender.

Q: What happened?

A: We had proceeded west on Elm Street at approximately 15 to 20 miles an 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, the second shot came, well 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 uh, it was apparent to me that we were being fired upon. I went ahead of the President's car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. And then he (Curry) instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hospital and he had Parkland Hospital stand by. I went on up ahead of the, to notify the officers that were leading the escort that he had been hit and we’re gonna have to move out.

Q: You did not see the person who fired the shot?

A: No sir, it was back over my right shoulder.

Q: What preventive measures had been taken to preclude such an incident?

A: I don’t know what had been done in that part of town.

Q: All right, fine, thank you.

As the sequence of photos demonstrates, Chaney got only one detail wrong. He didn’t go “ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry” because “the President’s car” had passed the pilot car as both sped under the overpass.

Finally, there is the report of a fairly well-known, straight-arrow researcher who talked to Curry in 1979. I’ll call him “Carl” since I don’t want him involved in this given the vileness of Fetzer’s and Costella’s tongues. Carl had been on the radio and his comments had treated Curry with affection and respect. In response, Curry’s wife called in to thank Carl for the way he treated her husband. Carl asked her if he could speak with Chief Curry the next day and she agreed. Carl’s interest than was in the acoustics and in Curry’s memory of when he put out on the radio that they were going to Parkland. In explaining this, Curry mentioned that Chaney had reached the pilot car as both were climbing up the curve onto the Stemmons Freeway. That location for their shouted interchange fits nicely with the relative positions of Chaney and Curry in the McIntire photo.

Fetzer calls this a “breakthrough.” Actually, it is simply another piece of evidence for the importance of careful, non-speculative examination of the Dealey Plaza photos. The actual sequence of events is unfolded through the various films and photos.

The Nix film shows Chaney and Jackson dropping back when the President’s head explodes. The Altgens photo shows the limousine accelerating towards the pilot car with no motorcyclist in sight. Frame 444 of the Zapruder film shows the limousine gaining on the pilot car as both approach the overpass. Finally, the McIntire photo shows the limousine passing the pilot car and Chaney accelerating towards both from several hundred feet back. We know all this by simply patching together a series of photos and films. If you take movies or still photos from different angles of the same event, these movies and still photos form a self-authenticating fabric. If someone altered any one of the photos or films, it would stand out like a sore thumb. The numerous photos and films taken of the Kennedy assassination are an instance of multiple photos of the same event taken from different angles. They form a self-authenticating whole. For years, Fetzer and a small coterie have claimed there were discrepancies in the photo record of what happened in Dealey Plaza. Each discrepancy gets shot down in turn and they imagine a new one. Sort of like a continuing game of wack-a-mole. For years (it seems like decades!) Fetzer has been trying to claim that the Zapruder film was altered. Since other movies of the assassination match frame for frame with the Zapruder film, he now has to claim that they too have been altered. When the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films don't show what Fetzer thinks they ought to show, he says they were all faked up. The Moorman photo? Yeah, I guess he thinks that’s been faked up too. So now will he have to add the second Altgens photo and the McIntire photo to his list of forgeries?

All in all, playing wack-a-mole with Costella and Fetzer is unpleasant. No matter how many times their claims are exposed as silly, they come up with others. And their tongues become more vile with each passing year. Maybe simply ignoring his next “breakthrough” might be the best policy.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Thompson,

In your opening post you used the phrase:

"...bootstrap a piece of incomplete and somewhat shoddy work into “a major breakthrough” in Kennedy assassination research..."

This perilously close to accusing Prof Fetzer of poor research, which is prophibited by our rules:

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=13297

Please phrase your comments so as to not imply that. Thank you.

Edited by Evan Burton
Corrected spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Thompson,

In your opening post you used the phrase:

"...bootstrap a piece of incomplete and somewhat shoddy work into “a major breakthrough” in Kennedy assassination research..."

This perilously close to accusing Prof Fetzer of poor research, which is prophibited by our rules:

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=13297

Please phrase your comments so as to not imply that. Thank you.

Yet praising Fetzer's research would call Josiah's credibility as a researcher of researchers into question. Could it be, Evan ... that Josiah has seen on other parts of the forum where you allow a fella to be called 'Ted the Moron' and just figured that what he said here wasn't as bad, or as direct as that, thus it is allowed.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Thompson,

In your opening post you used the phrase:

"...bootstrap a piece of incomplete and somewhat shoddy work into “a major breakthrough” in Kennedy assassination research..."

This perilously close to accusing Prof Fetzer of poor research, which is prophibited by our rules:

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=13297

Please phrase your comments so as to not imply that. Thank you.

Your right Evan, of course. But the problem here is, there is no real middle ground between Josiah Thompson and James Fetzer. Their views are so polarised that any meaningful discussion could hardly fail to produce a certain amount of criticism of each others work. Many of us have been waiting some time now for a "head to head" between the two. So perhaps, for the sake of an interesting debate, somewhat more latitude than usual could be allowed. Denis.

Edited by Denis Pointing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems to be the best he can do, but his attempt to salvage an unsalvageable situation is beyond belief. Notice

he does not acknowledge the many different kinds of proof that the Z-film is faked and simply ignores the reports of

Forrest Sorrels, Winston Lawson, Bobby Hargis, James Chaney, and Chief Curry. Costella has already demonstrated

that there is no merit to this line of argument. Jack has observed that Stavis Ellis offered corroborating testimony, as

did Marrion Baker. What is most remarkable about Thompson's interminable attempts to defend the indefensible is

the extent to which he is willing to ignore the evidence and commit fallacies to create the semblance of an argument.

Jim, Josiah doesn't have to say more than what he did because every one of those other 'kinds of proof' that you mention have all fallen under their own weight. Let me ask you this direct question: If what Josiah has said is so far off and your allegations are so solid, then why is it that you cannot sell those shoddy claims to anyone ... not even the tabloids? Even David Healy has said within the past year that he has seen no proof of alteration. When you went on Lancer and were under fire for the errors in those claims ... it was you who tried to separate yourself from the people making the claims. Didn't you say something about only being the editor and are not responsible for the credibility of those claims - or words to that effect ... I think so!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Mr. Burton,

You have funny rules. In Post #26 under “New Proof of JFK Film Fakery” James Fetzer, Ph.D. made a few hostile comments of his own and then included in his post some email communication from John Costella. Since this was all done without anyone’s objection I wondered why you would find objectionable anything I said. Here’s a sample of Fetzer and Costella:

Fetzer:

I am not a fan of Bill Miller, who, in my experience, plays fast and loose with the truth.....

Costella:

Tink, you're a buffoon....

Costella:

You're losing it, mate....

Fetzer:

This guy has trouble getting facts straight.....

Costella:

Tink, you've lost it, mate. At the time I was born you were perhaps the world's foremost expert on the Zapruder film. Now you don't even have an inkling of what it shows. Time to start taking notice of those "senior moments" you've been having and start wearing the diapers. I need to often repeat things for my mother, who has a similar problem and is about your age, so let me do it for you..

I will certainly make every effort to abide by the rule you cited: "Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers." Certainly, civility cannot but help but improve things. I did not and will not make any comment on Professor Fetzer’s research abilities. It would be a waste of time since everyone on this Forum has had a chance to observe his abilities or lack of them.

However, I insist that his latest press dispatch with its grandiloquent claims is an instance of just what I said it was.... a “piece of incomplete and somewhat shoddy work” claiming to be a breakthrough. Surely, even a great researcher can have a bad day. Or a shoddy researcher will have many bad days. But simply pointing out the defects in a piece of research cannot be disallowed for that is the very substance of give and take.

Why do I think Fetzer’s piece is “incomplete and shoddy?”

Because apparently he and Costella never looked at the Daniel film or the Mel McIntire photo or the Altgens photo before making their announcement. Specifically, the Daniel film and the McIntire photo shows Officer Chaney in a position he could not be if Costella and Fetzer are right. They must either admit they were wrong or claim that in addition to the Zapruder, Muchmore and Nix films the Daniel film, the Altgens photo and the McIntire photo were all faked up. That’s precisely the place you end up in when you do “incomplete and shoddy” research.

Please don’t hesitate to let me know if I should inadvertently overstep one of your rules. I’m all in favor of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Real quick and simple: If Chaney had done what you and Costella think he did, he would not be where he appears in the Mel McIntire photo and in the Daniels film. He would be in the middle of that tangle of limousine, pilot car and SS car. He's not there. He's hundreds of feet behind. So either you are wrong and Chaney did exactly what he is shown to have done in the Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore and Daniel films and the Altgens and McIntire photos, or else the Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore and Daniel films as well as the Altgens and McIntire photos have all been faked up.

Please tell me why you don't face the dilemma describe above.

As for any eyewitness getting details of sequence or timing wrong... it happens all the time. It is the rule rather than the exception. Chaney simply cycled up to the pilot car and told Curry what he had seen. Earlier, he knew the pilot car was ahead of the limousine so he thought he'd "gone ahead of the President's car" to get there. If I had a dollar for every time something like this happened to a witness in a criminal case, I'd be a rich man!

Tink claims, "As the sequence of photos demonstrates, Chaney got only one detail wrong. He didn’t go “ahead of

the President’s car to inform Chief Curry” because “the President’s car” had passed the pilot car as both sped under the

overpass." But this is absurd! Who would know better than James Chaney whether James Chaney rode ahead of

the limo? He claims to support this on the basis of photos and films whose authenticity is being disputed. In logic,

this is called "begging the question" by taking for granted what needs to be established on independent grounds. I

guess he never studied informal fallacies at Yale. It is apparent here that logic and reasoning are not his strong suit.

This seems to be the best he can do, but his attempt to salvage an unsalvageable situation is beyond belief. Notice

he does not acknowledge the many different kinds of proof that the Z-film is faked and simply ignores the reports of

Forrest Sorrels, Winston Lawson, Bobby Hargis, James Chaney, and Chief Curry. Costella has already demonstrated

that there is no merit to this line of argument. Jack has observed that Stavis Ellis offered corroborating testimony, as

did Marrion Baker. What is most remarkable about Thompson's interminable attempts to defend the indefensible is

the extent to which he is willing to ignore the evidence and commit fallacies to create the semblance of an argument.

What, after all, is more probable? That Sorrels, Lawson, Hargis, Curry, Ellis, Baker and Chaney himself are wrong in

their reports of what actually happened at the time, when they were there? Or that Thompson is ignoring evidence

and warping logic to create the impression that Chaney only rode forward AFTER the limousine had traveled out of

the plaza and away from Zapruder? Oh, yes, and of course that requires that Chaney only has "one detail" wrong.

Because, ACCORDING TO CHANEY, HE RODE AHEAD OF THE PRESIDENT'S CAR TO INFORM CHIEF CURRY! So what

is the probability that Chaney would be mistaken on this key point and Tink is right, after all? Approximately zero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tink, I don't remember where or when, but sometime in the last few years, I looked through all the photos to try to make sense of Chaney's assertion, and came to the same conclusion as yourself--that he simply got it wrong. What was hard for me to grasp, however, was that several others supported his assertion--that he'd raced forward and talked to Curry. It then hit me that this could have been by design.

As we now should all realize, the main objective of most everyone on 11-22-63 was to cover their rumps. As the shots rang out, Chaney and Jackson both slammed on their brakes. They were supposed to be protecting Kennedy, and yet they slammed on their brakes. This was an embarrassment to the DPD. I suspect that a decision was then made to hide this from the public. It seems way too big a coincidence that Chaney comes up with this whopper that he raced ahead of the limousine, and then is NEVER interviewed by the FBI or WC. Ditto for Jackson, who'd actually taken notes on the event in anticipation of his having to write a report or testify. Nope, nothing. Chaney and Jackson were never officially interviewed until more than a decade after the shooting, by which time they'd changed their stories to be more friendly to the "official" story.

From patspeer.com, chapter 6:

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.”

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.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do I think Fetzer’s piece is “incomplete and shoddy?”

Because apparently he and Costella never looked at the Daniel film or the Mel McIntire photo or the Altgens photo before making their announcement. Specifically, the Daniel film and the McIntire photo shows Officer Chaney in a position he could not be if Costella and Fetzer are right. They must either admit they were wrong or claim that in addition to the Zapruder, Muchmore and Nix films the Daniel film, the Altgens photo and the McIntire photo were all faked up. That’s precisely the place you end up in when you do “incomplete and shoddy” research.

All the alteration claims have been created from the same recipe as Josiah cites. In the 'Hoax' book ... it is said in one alteration claim that Moorman and Hill were in the street and in another area of the same book it was written by the author of the 'Moorman in the street' claim ... that Altgens #6 is genuine and can be used to check other assassination images. Only because that photo wasn't studied any more than the others were by these guys, Moorman and Hill's shadows were not being noticed as coming from the grass ABOVE the curb. The solution: Jack flip-flops and says that the Altgens #6 photo must have been altered, as well. The idea that the outside cycle driven by Martin wasn't 2' off the curb doesn't seem to register with an alteration supporter. Anyone in the south lane of traffic would have been ran over, if not subdued immediately by police and SS agents, especially when their moving towards the President's car occurred during the shooting. Yet no consideration is given to this observation which is nothing but common sense if one even spends a few seconds pondering over the alternatives. No witness ever said that two women were in the street during the shooting and were caught between the motorcycles. But this is the nonsense that the alteration pusher (Fetzer, White, Costella, etc.,) would want you to believe. And this is why those alleged earth-shattering claims will never be picked up by even those news agencies that are notorious for running even the most absurd stories.

Isn't it interesting that no matter how many mistakes are pointed out to these 'alteration people' who relied on their observations being correct ... that despite their mistakes being exposed - they still embrace their prior claim. I would love nothing more than for there to be a valid alteration claim against the Feds because I believe they knew the evening of the assassination that there was more than one person involved in the shooting. But simply making up claims based on poor interpretation or a lack of data doesn't help that cause.

In the beginning it was the researcher personally that was not supposed to be attacked ... now it seems that their poorly researched claims are to only be praised when ever possible, but never called shoddy and incomplete. The 'freedom of speech' window appears to be ever so slowly closing.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Tink,

As Jack and John (his words) have observed, your dilemma is the opposite:

It’s as simple as this. Either they all lied (they didn’t just SAY these

things – some of them TESTIFIED UNDER OATH to a President’s Commission to

this effect; they never said “I think this happened but can’t really be

sure” – they testified that this DID happen), or else the photographic

evidence is not to be trusted. That’s the basic question: do you believe

these high-ranking officials, offering this testimony under oath, or do you

trust photographic evidence with NO LEGAL CHAIN OF CUSTODY? I know which

would have carried weight in a court of law.

I find it interesting that a professional PI would be so careless about

the legal niceties when it comes to the most important case with which he

has ever been concerned! Obviously, in a situation like this, we have to

look at what the film record has to tell us about the sequence of events,

especially when the sources of testimony about it appear to be impeccable.

The argument John presents below appears to settle the matter decisively--

and to substantiate calling this new proof of JFK film fakery "conclusive"!

Jim

Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:53:16 +1100 [04:53:16 AM CST]

From: John Costella <jpcostella@hotmail.com>

To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu, 'Jack & Sue White' <jwjfk@flash.net>

Reply-To: costella@bigpond.com

Subject: An excellent resource -- ironically, from the Gang!

Jim, Jack,

An excellent resource showing a clear, slowed-down version of the Nix film

was something I originally saved from WAY back (when I first came into this

case). It was compiled by one or another member of Tink's Gang, and was

designed to show precisely that the three films (Z, Nix and Muchmore) are

all synchronised frame-for-frame.

I have it up at

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco.../ThreeFilms.mov

(QuickTime format)

or

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco.../ThreeFilms.avi (Windows

format)

Although it does not show the Z ghost panels, you can manually connect it up

with my Clip G around Z-330 (Nix 37). Of course, you can also see the Chaney

cycle wheel in the upper part of the sprocket region (one frame out of sync)

essentially stop relative to the limo, right when the Nix shows him slamming

on the brakes.

Ironically, this clip helps establish that all three films ARE in complete

agreement - and they are all fake.

When you stitch together this clear slow-motion version of the Nix, with the

REST of the Nix and the REST of the Zapruder, then the Bell and Daniel films

(check out the Groden video), then you rule out any Chaney movement until

the limo has well and truly passed the lead car.

John

Quoting gumshoe882000 <josiah@direcway.com>:

> Real quick and simple: If Chaney had done what you and Costella think

> he did, he would not be where he appears in the Mel McIntire photo

> and in the Daniels film. He would be in the middle of that tangle of

> limousine, pilot car and SS car. He's not there. He's hundreds of

> feet behind. So either you are wrong and Chaney did exactly what he

> is shown to have done in the Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore and Daniel films

> and the Altgens and McIntire photos, or else the Zapruder, Nix,

> Muchmore and Daniel films as well as the Altgens and McIntire photos

> have all been faked up.

>

> Please tell me why you don't face the dilemma describe above.

>

> As for any eyewitness getting details of sequence or timing wrong...

> it happens all the time. It is the rule rather than the exception.

> Chaney simply cycled up to the pilot car and told Curry what he had

> seen. Earlier, he knew the pilot car was ahead of the limousine so he

> thought he'd "gone ahead of the President's car" to get there. If I

> had a dollar for every time something like this happened to a witness

> in a criminal case, I'd be a rich man!

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody lied, Professor Fetzer. You have simply chosen to interpret certain witnesses’ words to suit your purposes.

You quoted Bobby Hargis’ remarks as follows: “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.” (Hargis stopped his cycle in Dealey Plaza. When Chaney slowed and then sped up to catch the motorcade it would have seemed to Hargis that he “immediately went forward.” This report from Hargis came from a Daily News article.)

Or Chief Jesse Curry, whom you quoted but cherry picked.... here is the full quote: “I heard a sharp report. We were near the railroad yards at this time, and I didn’t know a – I didn’t know exactly where this report came from, whether it was above us or where, but this was followed by two more reports, and at that time I looked in my rear view mirror and I saw some commotion in the President’s caravan and realized that probably something was wrong, and it seemed to be speeding up, and 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.’” (12H28)

Or SS Agent Winston Lawson, whom you also cherry-picked.... here is a fuller quote from a report he typed out: “As the lead car was passing under this bridge I heard the first loud, sharp report and in more rapid succession two more sounds like gunfire. I could see persons to the left of the motorcade vehicles running away. I noticed Agent Hickey standing up in the follow-up car with the automatic weapon and first thought he had fired at someone. Both the President’s car and our lead car rapidly accelerated almost simultaneously. I heard a report over the two-way radio that we should proceed to the nearest hospital. A motorcycle officer pulled alongside our Lead Car and said the President had been shot.” (17H632)

Or a fuller quote from SS Agent Forrest Sorrels: “Within about 3 seconds, there were two more similar reports. And I said, ‘Let’s get out’ and looked back, all the way back, then, to where the President’s car was, and I saw some confusion, movement there, and the car just seemed to lurch forward. And in the meantime, a motorcycle officer had run up on the right-hand side and the chief yelled to him, ‘Anybody hurt?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘Lead us to the hospital.” And the chief took his microphone and told them to alert the hospital, and said, ‘Surround the building.’” 7H345)

None of these witnesses lied. They found themselves in the midst of a chaotic set of events and recalled the sequence and timing of things as best they could. You cherry-picked their remarks for your own purposes.

But now the real question. What do you think happened, Professor?

Against the film evidence of the Zapruder, Muchmore and Nix films, do you believe that Chaney stayed right on the tail of limousine into the underpass? Since the Altgens photo doesn’t show this, was the Altgens photo faked up? And then what happened? Both the Daniel film and the Mel McIntire still photo show the limousine overtaking the pilot car with Chaney hundreds of feet behind. Did Chaney zoom up to pass the limousine and then turn in the other direction to meet the pilot car? Or are the Daniel film and the McIntire photo faked up also?

How about a couple of reasonably frank answers. After all, you started this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody lied, Professor Fetzer. You have simply chosen to interpret certain witnesses’ words to suit your purposes.

Well, you're the expert, sir. Here's Chaney himself on the afternoon of the assassination:

From: Richard Trask. 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 to see the President struck in the face 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.

Chaney did get ahead of the presidential limousine, and said so himself: "I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the face by the second bullet." So who is being selective here? It isn't Fetzer, it's you. The films don't show Chaney's true progress because the films are co-ordinated fakes.

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...