The breakdown of Fetzer's "breakthrough"

Paul Rigby · February 17, 2008

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

Josiah Thompson on the Muchmore film:

Josiah Thompson, “Proof that the Zapruder Film is Authentic:
“The FBI first learned of the Muchmore film, for example, when it was shown on the New York City station WNEW-TV just after midday on Tuesday, November 26th.”

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zapho...pson-proof.html

News to the FBI:

5WCH140

Mr. Specter:
How did you obtain a copy of that film?

Mr. Shaneyfelt:

Our first knowledge of this came as a result of a review of the book "Four Days" which covers the assassination period, in which representatives of the FBI noted a colored picture taken from a motion picture film that did not match either the Nix film or the Zapruder film.

Once we established that, then we investigated and learned that it was made by Mrs. Mary Muchmore, and was at that time in the possession of United Press International in New York, and made arrangements for them to furnish us with a copy of the Muchmore film. That is the copy that I used for examination.

And again:

JFK Lancer: 2064, Why all the assassination films are authentic!
Posted by Josiah Thompson, Wed Dec-31-69 06:00 PM

Wed Apr-30-03 08:37 AM

Richard Trask wrote about this in both his book, “Pictures of the Pain,” drawing on an earlier article by UPI’s Maurice Schonfeld in the “Columbia Journalism Review.” According to Trask, Marie Muchmore walked into the Dallas office of United Press International (UPI) and sold her film to them UNDEVELOPED for $1000 on Monday, November 25th. UPI immediately took it to Kodak for processing. UPI then shipped either the original 8mm film or a 16mm print to UPI's home office in New York City. Further research by Gary Mack, has shown that Muchmore's film first was shown in New York around midday Tuesday, November 26th on WNEW-TV.

Sad to report, Mack has been unable to do any such thing, despite repeated opportunities to do so, most recently on the thread on this forum devoted to the subject.

Ken Rheberg · February 17, 2008

Paul said:

"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."

But this statement can be easily explained without resorting to film fakery as the reason. Chaney has placed himself at "the right rear fender" of the limo. After what he believed was the first shot, Chaney looked to his left away from the President. We see this in the Altgens photo. At the time of what he believed was the second shot, Cheney had by then looked BACK just in time to see the President struck in the face. Looking BACK in this instance simply means Chaney had returned his attention to the President. His angle from the right rear led Chaney to believe that the President had been shot in the face.

Ken

Ron Ecker · February 17, 2008

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."

Chaney said that he looked to the left, and then he "looked back just in time to see the President struck," that is, he is looked back toward the right, in other words straight ahead, to see the President hit. Chaney did not mean that he looked behind him when he "looked back," he meant that his head was moving around left and right.

You also quote Chaney as saying in the same interview, "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." So we are supposed to believe that Chaney not only went ahead of the limo to talk to Curry, but then (the limo surely having passed as he was talking to Curry) went ahead of the limo again and overtook the escort to inform them too of what had happened.

Frankly it sounds to me like Chaney made some untrue, self-aggrandizing statements that day, as if to say that he had immediately taken charge to get JFK to Parkland.

Josiah Thompson · February 18, 2008

I tend to disagree with you, Ron. I think it may be a reach to see Chaney as spinning his tale to inflate his own importance. He was just a motorcycle cop who got caught in a lot of chaos. He was button-holed by a TV reporter in the midst of all that confusion at DPD headquarters on the night of the 22nd. I think he probably told his story pretty much as he remembered it.

The pilot car was proceeding the limousine by a couple of hundred feet. Chaney was riding just behind the limousine. Then the shooting occurred and the President got hit in the head. Chaney and Officer Jackson dropped back. Mrs. Kennedy climbed out on the trunk and Clint Hill ran to the limousine. After all this happened and Chaney decided to speed up to tell Curry what had happened, the pilot car and limousine disappeared into the dark shadow of the overpass. By the time Chaney got to the pilot car, the limousine had passed it up. Chaney thought he had “gone ahead” of the limousine but hadn’t. Then, as the motorcade made its way to Parkland Hospital, the pilot car and the limousine traded the lead.

However, no one can read Chaney’s mind 45 years after the event. You may be right.

The more interesting question is how Costella and Fetzer could get this so wrong. My bet is that they simply weren’t aware of the Altgens, Daniel and McIntire photos. Since these photos demonstrate that Chaney was not where Costella and Fetzer thought he was, I can’t believe they just decided to ignore these photos. Now they face the difficult dilemma of deciding whether (a) to admit they were wrong, or ( claim that Zapruder, Muchmore, Nix, Daniel, Altgens and McIntire films/photos were all faked up. That’s what happens when you do sloppy research. You get caught in this kind of logical trap.

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."

Chaney said that he looked to the left, and then he "looked back just in time to see the President struck," that is, he is looked back toward the right, in other words straight ahead, to see the President hit. Chaney did not mean that he looked behind him when he "looked back," he meant that his head was moving around left and right.

You also quote Chaney as saying in the same interview, "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." So we are supposed to believe that Chaney not only went ahead of the limo to talk to Curry, but then (the limo surely having passed as he was talking to Curry) went ahead of the limo again and overtook the escort to inform them too of what had happened.

Frankly it sounds to me like Chaney made some untrue, self-aggrandizing statements that day, as if to say that he had immediately taken charge to get JFK to Parkland.

Bill Miller · February 18, 2008

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.

Chaney's comment that he went ahead of JFK's car to Curry makes perfect sense once one realizes that, at the time of the shooting, Curry WAS ahead of JFK. By the time Chaney reached Curry, however, the limo had passed him by. Also, once Curry heard from Chaney and coordinated with limo driver Greer, Curry again drove ahead of JFK. No wonder Chaney's memory got a little confused.

I must ask once again .... you guys seem to play on a turn of a word or a misstated communication out of a ton of other evidence to the contrary so to try and add a little excitement to what seems like an otherwise boring case for most of you. Chaney was well aware of his appearance in the assassination images, so why do you think that he, his friends, or his family has never said something like, 'My God .. that film (or photo) is all wrong ... that's not what I did!' ??? The reason is that these witnesses had never seen anything wrong with the photographic record. I know this and you know it ... and this is exactly why you people never bother to validate your claims by going to the best sources like those just previously mentioned.

As I have said several times now ... this modus-operandi has been a constant practice among alteration pushers. Jack would always point out that Moorman said that she took a photo from the street ... he would also make sure that everyone heard where Jean Hill said she had stepped in the street, and thats where he left it. Then one day Jean Hill was asked by a caller on Black Op Radio when it was that she stepped in and out of the street and Jean said that she had gotten back out of the street before the first shot sounded. JFK researcher Mark Oakes sells Moorman prints for Mary and one day Mark asked Mary what she thought about her allegedly being in the street by the alteration crowd and Mary said, 'I think the whole thing is silly'. Yes, it is silly, its quite lame, and certainly not fooling anyone why the alteration pushers fail to go to the best sources rather than trying to hand their hats on a select coin of a phrase. I mean how blind do you guys think everyone needs to be to swallow the things your post. Jean Hill was big on voicing her opinion about there being a conspiracy, so why would Jack not go to Jean and say that she and Mary should be in the street in the assassination films .... the answer is because doing so will certainly hurt an already weak case for film alteration. I will be most curious to see how you guys follow-up in getting validation from those directly involved.

Bill Miller

Edited February 19, 2008 by Bill Miller

Bill Miller · February 18, 2008

Paul said:
"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."

But this statement can be easily explained without resorting to film fakery as the reason. Chaney has placed himself at "the right rear fender" of the limo. After what he believed was the first shot, Chaney looked to his left away from the President. We see this in the Altgens photo. At the time of what he believed was the second shot, Cheney had by then looked BACK just in time to see the President struck in the face. Looking BACK in this instance simply means Chaney had returned his attention to the President. His angle from the right rear led Chaney to believe that the President had been shot in the face.

Ken

Ken, you are not cooperating here. You are taking all the fun out of this alteration stuff by bringing common sense and sound reasoning into the equation.

Bill

Bill Miller · February 18, 2008

Sad to report, Mack has been unable to do any such thing, despite repeated opportunities to do so, most recently on the thread on this forum devoted to the subject.

Let's say Mack starts tearing through his large personal collection of JFK assassination data which from what I recall - was in storage and produces the article, then what? Do you drop your foolishness ... do you apologize ... what??? My guess is that it won't change a thing - you will still have been wrong and probably on your way to the next new claim before it gets the box taped back up again.

February 18, 2008

Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:47:18 -0600 [08:47:18 PM CST]

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Fwd: [jfk-research] Re: Tink Thompson's response to Fetzer's "Breakthrough"

Tink,

John asks, It certainly seems from the Nix, Bell and Daniel films that we

are seeing Martin trailing along, and that he eventually caught up. But

on the Simkin forum, you maintain that that is actually Chaney. Now, if

that's Chaney, how does he get to go PAST the limo to the lead when it's

already passed the lead car? And, just for the record, it is your view

that all of the photos and films--including the Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore,

Altgens, Bell and McIntire--are AUTHENTIC, is that right? So if we prove

that they are not consistent, would you then concede that you are wrong

and that at least some of them have to have been changed/altered/faked?

Here are three more examples of testimony from Forrest Sorrels, Chief

Jesse Curry, and Officer Stavis Ellis. If one of the parties has been

"cherry picking" (selecting only evidence favorable to their side and

ignoring the rest), then I would suggest that that party is you. Take

a good look, for example, at the second extract from Sorrel's testimony

and compare it with the first. The second leaves the matter rather in

limbo by virtue of its ambiguity, while the first is unambiguous. The

motorcycle patrolman pulled up along side of the car and spoke to Chief

Curry and FOLLOWING THAT EVENT they were just about under the underpass

when the President's car pulled up alongside. Anything ambiguous here?

(1) John's example:

Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service agent, in the lead car in front of the

Presidential limousine), November 28, 1963: "I noted that the President's

car had axcelerated [sic] its speed and was closing fast the gap between us.

A motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled 'Is

anybody hurt?', to which the officer replied in the affirmative, and Chief

Curry immediately broadcast to surround the building. By that time we had

gotten just about under the underpass when the President's car pulled up

alongside, and at that time Chief Curry's car had started to pick up speed,

and someone yelled to get to the nearest hospital, and Chief Curry broadcast

for the hospital to be ready." [statement: 21H548]

Perhaps you are looking at the wrong testimony, such as the following:

Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service agent, in the lead car in front of the

Presidential limousine), May 7, 1964: "Within about 3 seconds, there were

two more similar reports. And I said, 'Let's get out of here' 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.' He didn't say what

building. He just said, 'Surround the building.' " [Warren Commission

testimony: 7H345]

(2) Jack's example: Jesse Curry's JFK ASSASSINATION FILE" (1969), p. 30:

As I turned the lead car right from the Main Street parade route onto

Houston Street I was thinking how impressed I was with the size of the

crowds along Main Street. The crowd was well under control and the

security along the route had been excellent. The weather was perfect.

The people of Dallas had turned out in overwhelming numbers and had

given the President a vibrant and warm welcome.

For a brief moment I almost started to relax. I made the left turn

(west) and proceeded at a speed of approximately eight to ten mph toward

the triple underpass. I did see a few unauthorized people on the overpass

and wondered how they had gotten up there. About half·way between Houston

and the triple underpass I heard a sharp crack. Someone in the car said,

"Is that a firecracker?" Two other sharp reports came almost directly

after the first. All of the reports were fired fairly close together, but

perhaps there was a longer pause between the first and second reports

than between the second and the third.

The President's car was only about 100 feet behind our car at that moment.

I glanced into my rear view mirror and could see the commotion in the

President's car. Everyone was confused.

President John F. Kennedy had been shot and the motorcycle officers on

each side of the rear of the Presidential car knew that he was hurt and

hurt badly. No one knew any more forcefully than motorcycle Officer Bobby

Hargis. He had been following close, just behind the left rear fender of

the limousine. A red sheet of blood and brain tissue exploded backward

from Kennedy's head into the face of Officer Hargis. The trajectory must

have appeared to Hargis to have come from just ahead and to the right of

the motorcade. He parked his motorcycle and started running in that direction.

Someone in the Presidential car said, "Let's get out of here." A solo

motorcycle officer pulled up behind my car and I asked, "What has happened

in the Presidential car--has someone been hit?" He answered, "Yes," and I

told him to head for Parkland Hospital which is the nearest hospital from

that location. I immediately went on the air as the motorcycles formed an

escort for our vehicles which were rapidly gaining speed.

(3) Jim's example: Travis Ellis in Larry Sneed, NO MORE SILENCE (1998):

We came west on Main Street to Houston Street and took a right, facing

right into that building. The building with the window was looking right

at us as we came up to Elm Street and made a left, heading back toward the

Triple Underpass. . . . About the time I started on a curve on Elm, I had

turned to my right to give signals to open up the intervals since we were

fixing to get on the freeway a short distance away. That's all I had on

my mind. Just as I turned around, then the first shot went off. It hit

back there. I hadn't been able to see back where Chaney was because Curry

was there, but I could see where the shot came down into the south side

of the curb. It looked like it hit the concrete or grass there in just a

flash, and a bunch of junk flew up like a white or gray color dust or smoke

coming out of the concrete. Just seeing it in a split second like that I

thought, "Oh, my God!" I thought there had been some people hit back there

as people started falling. I thought either some crank had thrown a big

"Baby John" firecracker and scared them causing them to jump down or else

a fragmentation grenade had hit all those people. In any case, they went

down! Actually, I think they threw themselves down in anticipation of

another shot.

As soon as I saw that, I turned around and rode up beside the Chief's car

and BANG! . . . BANG!, two more shots went off: three shots in all! The

sounds were clear and loud and sounded about the same. From where I was,

they sounded like they were coming from around where the tall tree was in

front of that building. Of course, I'm forming an opinion based on where

I saw that stuff hit the street, so I knew that it had to come from up that

way, and I assumed that the others came from the same place.

But all the time I was moving up, I still didn't know it was shots until

Chaney rode up beside me and said, "Sarge, the President's hit!" I asked

him how bad, and he replied, "Hell, he's dead! Man, his head's blown off!"

"All right, we're going to Parkland," I said. This had been the prearranged

plan in the event that someone was shot or injured; it was normal procedure.

Chaney and I then rode on up to Curry's car. Curry was driving with the

Chief of the Secret Service, Forrest Sorells (sic), in the front seat with

him. "Chief," I said, "That was a shot! The President was hit and he's in

bad, bad shape! We're going to Parkland!"

He said, "All right, let's go!"

Before you get too excited that Ellis is describing him as having told the

Chief rather than Chaney, notice the additional complication this adds to

your position. According to Ellis, he noticed a bullet hit concrete [my

guess: this was the miss that injured James Tague] before he entered the

Triple Underpass. He made a U-turn and rode back toward the motorcade and

Chaney told him the JFK had been hit. Which ever of them told the Chief

[and the preponderance of the evidence suggests it was Chaney, not Ellis],

it is obvious these events occurred before entering the underpass and that

they should be present on the Zapruder and the Nix films, when they aren't.

This could just as well be labeled "Jack's second example", since it was he

who pointed out to me that Ellis's testimony in Sneed's book is important.

Now I know that there's a lot of heat in this kitchen and you would dearly

like to change the topic. But let's persist. We may be getting somewhere.

Jim

----- Forwarded message from josiah@direcway.com -----

Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 19:22:20 -0000

From: gumshoe882000 <josiah@direcway.com>

Reply-To: jfk-research@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [jfk-research] Re: Tink Thompson's response to Fetzer's

"Breakthrough"

To: jfk-research@yahoogroups.com

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.... the question that Barb asked and which

you have studiously avoided answering... 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 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.

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.

Edited February 18, 2008 by James H. Fetzer

Josiah Thompson · February 18, 2008

A bit of straight, blunt talk:

(1) You say that "it certainly seems from the Nix, Bell and Daniel films that we are seeing Martin trailing along, and that he eventually caught up. But on the Simkin forum, you maintain that that is actually Chaney." No, you didn't read correctly. I wrote: "the one nearest the center of the overpass is B.J. Martin; the one nearest the side curb is Chaney."

(2) You criticize me for using the quote from Sorrels at 21H548. That was the quote you cherry-picked and used in your press release. I just expanded it so a sentence wouldn't be taken out of context.

(3) The long irrelevant quote from Curry affects nothing since he doesn’t indicate when “the motorcycle officer pulled up behind my car.”

(4) The reference to Travis Ellis is pretty funny. He says he was on a motorcycle in the first group and did a U-turn in the middle of the shooting and went back to talk Chaney. Chaney told Ellis that JFK had his head shot off. Then Ellis and Chaney both rode to the pilot car where Ellis, not Chaney, told the Chief that the President had been shot. And just what are we supposed to make of this ridiculous story? Even if we believed it, how would it show that Chaney “went ahead of the President’s car?”

(5) You asked if I believed the Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore, Altgens, Bell and McIntire films all to be authentic. Of course.

Now a few blunt questions for you:

(1) When you announced this “breakthrough,” were you aware of what the Altgens, Daniel and McIntire films/photos showed?

(2) Are you prepared to admit that you were wrong? Or are you saying that the Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore, Altgens, Daniel and McIntire films/photos have been faked up?

How about a few straight answers. Like always, when you get in a bind you start piling on irrelevant quotes... Perhaps, to give the impression that you have something to say when you don't. If you really have something to say, then why not anwer the most obvious questions that anyone would have at this point. Since these new photos torpedo your claim, are you willing to save it by complaining that all the photos are faked up.?

Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:47:18 -0600 [08:47:18 PM CST]

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Fwd: [jfk-research] Re: Tink Thompson's response to Fetzer's "Breakthrough"

Tink,

John asks, It certainly seems from the Nix, Bell and Daniel films that we

are seeing Martin trailing along, and that he eventually caught up. But

on the Simkin forum, you maintain that that is actually Chaney. Now, if

that's Chaney, how does he get to go PAST the limo to the lead when it's

already passed the lead car? And, just for the record, it is your view

that all of the photos and films--including the Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore,

Altgens, Bell and McIntire--are AUTHENTIC, is that right? So if we prove

that they are not consistent, would you then concede that you are wrong

and that at least some of them have to have been changed/altered/faked?

Here are three more examples of testimony from Forrest Sorrels, Chief

Jesse Curry, and Officer Stavis Ellis. If one of the parties has been

"cherry picking" (selecting only evidence favorable to their side and

ignoring the rest), then I would suggest that that party is you. Take

a good look, for example, at the second extract from Sorrel's testimony

and compare it with the first. The second leaves the matter rather in

limbo by virtue of its ambiguity, while the first is unambiguous. The

motorcycle patrolman pulled up along side of the car and spoke to Chief

Curry and FOLLOWING THAT EVENT they were just about under the underpass

when the President's car pulled up alongside. Anything ambiguous here?

(1) John's example:

Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service agent, in the lead car in front of the

Presidential limousine), November 28, 1963: "I noted that the President's

car had axcelerated [sic] its speed and was closing fast the gap between us.

A motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled 'Is

anybody hurt?', to which the officer replied in the affirmative, and Chief

Curry immediately broadcast to surround the building. By that time we had

gotten just about under the underpass when the President's car pulled up

alongside, and at that time Chief Curry's car had started to pick up speed,

and someone yelled to get to the nearest hospital, and Chief Curry broadcast

for the hospital to be ready." [statement: 21H548]

Perhaps you are looking at the wrong testimony, such as the following:

Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service agent, in the lead car in front of the

Presidential limousine), May 7, 1964: "Within about 3 seconds, there were

two more similar reports. And I said, 'Let's get out of here' 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.' He didn't say what

building. He just said, 'Surround the building.' " [Warren Commission

testimony: 7H345]

(2) Jack's example: Jesse Curry's JFK ASSASSINATION FILE" (1969), p. 30:

As I turned the lead car right from the Main Street parade route onto

Houston Street I was thinking how impressed I was with the size of the

crowds along Main Street. The crowd was well under control and the

security along the route had been excellent. The weather was perfect.

The people of Dallas had turned out in overwhelming numbers and had

given the President a vibrant and warm welcome.

For a brief moment I almost started to relax. I made the left turn

(west) and proceeded at a speed of approximately eight to ten mph toward

the triple underpass. I did see a few unauthorized people on the overpass

and wondered how they had gotten up there. About half·way between Houston

and the triple underpass I heard a sharp crack. Someone in the car said,

"Is that a firecracker?" Two other sharp reports came almost directly

after the first. All of the reports were fired fairly close together, but

perhaps there was a longer pause between the first and second reports

than between the second and the third.

The President's car was only about 100 feet behind our car at that moment.

I glanced into my rear view mirror and could see the commotion in the

President's car. Everyone was confused.

President John F. Kennedy had been shot and the motorcycle officers on

each side of the rear of the Presidential car knew that he was hurt and

hurt badly. No one knew any more forcefully than motorcycle Officer Bobby

Hargis. He had been following close, just behind the left rear fender of

the limousine. A red sheet of blood and brain tissue exploded backward

from Kennedy's head into the face of Officer Hargis. The trajectory must

have appeared to Hargis to have come from just ahead and to the right of

the motorcade. He parked his motorcycle and started running in that direction.

Someone in the Presidential car said, "Let's get out of here." A solo

motorcycle officer pulled up behind my car and I asked, "What has happened

in the Presidential car--has someone been hit?" He answered, "Yes," and I

told him to head for Parkland Hospital which is the nearest hospital from

that location. I immediately went on the air as the motorcycles formed an

escort for our vehicles which were rapidly gaining speed.

(3) Jim's example: Travis Ellis in Larry Sneed, NO MORE SILENCE (1998):

We came west on Main Street to Houston Street and took a right, facing

right into that building. The building with the window was looking right

at us as we came up to Elm Street and made a left, heading back toward the

Triple Underpass. . . . About the time I started on a curve on Elm, I had

turned to my right to give signals to open up the intervals since we were

fixing to get on the freeway a short distance away. That's all I had on

my mind. Just as I turned around, then the first shot went off. It hit

back there. I hadn't been able to see back where Chaney was because Curry

was there, but I could see where the shot came down into the south side

of the curb. It looked like it hit the concrete or grass there in just a

flash, and a bunch of junk flew up like a white or gray color dust or smoke

coming out of the concrete. Just seeing it in a split second like that I

thought, "Oh, my God!" I thought there had been some people hit back there

as people started falling. I thought either some crank had thrown a big

"Baby John" firecracker and scared them causing them to jump down or else

a fragmentation grenade had hit all those people. In any case, they went

down! Actually, I think they threw themselves down in anticipation of

another shot.

As soon as I saw that, I turned around and rode up beside the Chief's car

and BANG! . . . BANG!, two more shots went off: three shots in all! The

sounds were clear and loud and sounded about the same. From where I was,

they sounded like they were coming from around where the tall tree was in

front of that building. Of course, I'm forming an opinion based on where

I saw that stuff hit the street, so I knew that it had to come from up that

way, and I assumed that the others came from the same place.

But all the time I was moving up, I still didn't know it was shots until

Chaney rode up beside me and said, "Sarge, the President's hit!" I asked

him how bad, and he replied, "Hell, he's dead! Man, his head's blown off!"

"All right, we're going to Parkland," I said. This had been the prearranged

plan in the event that someone was shot or injured; it was normal procedure.

Chaney and I then rode on up to Curry's car. Curry was driving with the

Chief of the Secret Service, Forrest Sorells (sic), in the front seat with

him. "Chief," I said, "That was a shot! The President was hit and he's in

bad, bad shape! We're going to Parkland!"

He said, "All right, let's go!"

Before you get too excited that Ellis is describing him as having told the

Chief rather than Chaney, notice the additional complication this adds to

your position. According to Ellis, he noticed a bullet hit concrete [my

guess: this was the miss that injured James Tague] before he entered the

Triple Underpass. He made a U-turn and rode back toward the motorcade and

Chaney told him the JFK had been hit. Which ever of them told the Chief

[and the preponderance of the evidence suggests it was Chaney, not Ellis],

it is obvious these events occurred before entering the underpass and that

they should be present on the Zapruder and the Nix films, when they aren't.

This could just as well be labeled "Jack's second example", since it was he

who pointed out to me that Ellis's testimony in Sneed's book is important.

Now I know that there's a lot of heat in this kitchen and you would dearly

like to change the topic. But let's persist. We may be getting somewhere.

Jim

Jack White · February 18, 2008

TRAVIS Ellis is a typo. It is STAVIS Ellis.

Tink is wrong on his ID of the two motorcops in the underpass in McIntire.

Jack

Jack White · February 18, 2008

Curry excerpt, condensed:

The President's car was only about 100 feet behind our car at that moment.

I glanced into my rear view mirror and could see the commotion in the

President's car. Everyone was confused.

President John F. Kennedy had been shot and the motorcycle officers on

each side of the rear of the Presidential car knew that he was hurt and

hurt badly.

A solo motorcycle officer pulled up behind my car and I asked, "What has happened

in the Presidential car--has someone been hit?" He answered, "Yes," and I

told him to head for Parkland Hospital which is the nearest hospital from

that location. I immediately went on the air as the motorcycles formed an

escort for our vehicles which were rapidly gaining speed.

Ellis excerpt:

Edited February 18, 2008 by Jack White

February 18, 2008

A bit of straight, blunt talk:

Why are you obsessed with me? I am one part of a research group that

includes David W. Mantik, John P. Costella, Jack White, and others,

in the past including Robert Livingston and Charles Crenshaw. When I

write and identify different questions as having come from different

sources, as in this instance, why don't you reply to John Costella,

Jack White, and me SEPARATELY? Is something wrong with you such that

you cannot distinguish between us? This appears to be a serious kind

of sickness. Have you considered therapy? Frankly, it bothers me.

Now John's question may have been somewhat naive in this instance

because it was based upon Jack's description of what you had said,

which may have been incomplete. So what? You can answer John's

question without confounding John and me. Children less than one

year old are able to discriminate between different persons. Why

are you--a white male over the age of 70 and a Yale graduate, to

boot--chronically unable to do so? And if this is a deliberate

confusion, what does it tell us about your integrity and mind?

John has unearthed definitive evidence that the films do not show

what they would have to show if they were accurate, given a mass

of testimony from Chief Curry, Forrest Sorrels, Winston Lawson,

Bobby Hargis, James Chaney, and Marrion Baker, even if you leave

Stavis Ellis to one side. (It astounds me how casually you can

dismiss the testimony of someone who was not only there but was

leading the motorcade.) Why have you not responded to this post,

which, of course, I introduced into the discussion some time ago:

FROM JOHN COSTELLA:

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

THAT "John" IS JOHN COSTELLA. I take it you have access to these films,

even if the links are not always working. So why have you not replied to

John (via me, of course, if you like)? I presume it is because it shows--

conclusively, beyond any doubt--that Chaney is not shown in these films

having done what he must have done to reconcile the testimony with the

authenticity of the films. So why not address this REAL ISSUE and find

the internal fortitude to resist attacking me, letting your obsession get

the better of you. I assure you, it is not becoming and it makes you look

just a bit demented. You have given no reasons for thinking we are wrong.

Moreover, when John produces a quote from Forrest Sorrels--which, taken at

face value, settles the matter--why do you avoid its importance with side

issues of secondary importance? We are addressing the film, not what I

may or may not believe took place. You seem to be squirming in a manner

that is actually quite striking. Of course, it is unsurprising that you

do not want to confront the evidence when the evidence refutes you! So I

ask, Are you dismissing Sorrels the same way you have dismissed Ellis?

FROM FORREST SORRELS: