The breakdown of Fetzer's "breakthrough"

Chris Davidson · February 18, 2008

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.

Witness statements on the day of the assassination. Most important.

Paul has provided Chaney's.

Who else do we have on that day?

Not 5 days, 5 weeks, or 5 years later.

Chaney says he sees Kennedy get struck in the face.

Curry, 5 years later:

"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)

I think so!!!

So according to Curry, Chaney was not completely sure. Hard to believe.

SS Agent Winston Lawson:

"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. Both the

President's car and our lead car rapidly accelerated almost

simultaneously."

According to the Bell film, the lead car doesn't enter the underpass until the limo has almost caught it.

If both cars simultaneously accelerated, how quickly did Curry slow down afterwards and how far had he gone, as Bell doesn't agree with this.

SS Agent Forrest Sorrels:

"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"

Lurch: An abrupt unsteady, uncontrolled movement.

Meantime: simultaneously, concurrently.

While the limo is lurching, Chaney is reaching Curry.

Officer Chaney:

"I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. 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."

If we are to believe this happens near the Stemmons freeway at some point, Curry's car would have to be in front of the limo again. The Daniel's film shows the limo out in front as the film ends.

So Curry, Lawson and Sorrels pass the limo but they still don't view/know the damage in the limo as they wait for Chaney to catch up and describe what happened.

Then Chaney states he went on up ahead of the ? to notify the officer leading the escort, I guess they didn't look back either.

Yet Travis Ellis states there is a plan in place if something tragic occurs:

"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.

We can cherrypick all we want, how about same day statements?

chris

Craig Lamson · February 18, 2008

You know Jim, if you want to end the confusion about who said what and who answered, the problem is easy to fix....quit being the sock puppet and let Dr. John and company post themself.

Edited February 18, 2008 by Craig Lamson

Craig Lamson · February 18, 2008

I find it amazing, Jim that given your belief that the government lied and faked so much of the evidence, that you now find this evidence believable and without question. What a turn of events! Its also amazing that this sudden faith in a governmetal agency comes at a time when you are once again pushing a new "proof" of film alteration.

Wonders will never cease.

Thomas H. Purvis · 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

Certainly glad to see that at least someone here understands and speaks "DIXIE".

"I looked back" DOES NOT, in and of itself, mean that I looked rearward.

It is a common colloquialism in the southern states which in effect means "I again looked", and refeences the second (or thereafter) time that one looks at something.

"I looked back at my book and read the sentence again", hardly means that I looked rearward to my book.

Boy oh boy, and some persons think that I am far out on a limb!

Charles Drago · February 18, 2008

I find it amazing, Jim that given your belief that the government lied and faked so much of the evidence, that you now find this evidence believable and without question. What a turn of events! Its also amazing that this sudden faith in a governmetal agency comes at a time when you are once again pushing a new "proof" of film alteration.
Wonders will never cease.

The key to lending bona fides to altered or entirely fabricated "evidence" is to package it with legitimate material.

Jim, like all of us who bring something greater than a pre-school mentality to the subjects we explore, understands that the more tainted the source -- the U.S. government, or certain agents provocateurs who work within these cyberpages, for examples -- the more likely it is to find grains of truth within their truck loads of suffocating sand.

On the other hand, sometimes a fool is simply a fool.

Your post quoted here stands as yet another indication both of your unsophisticated view of the secret world's most basic operating principles and of your skin-deep penetrations of the deep political milieu.

The wonders, they just keep wondering.

Pat Speer · February 18, 2008

We have a number of men telling a story that Chaney sped up ahead and spoke to Curry immediately after the shots.

We have photos that contradict this claim.

NOW, either the photos, created by a number of apparently unrelated individuals and made available at different places and dates, are all doctored, for apparently no reason.

OR, the men are telling a tale.

As Chaney and Jackson BOTH slammed on their brakes and shirked their duties as "bodyguards" to the President, and as BOTH of them mysteriously disappeared from the record, and were NEVER interviewed by DPD, FBI, or WC, about their cowardice under fire, or self-preservation, whatever, it only makes sense that there was a concerted effort to hide their actions from the public. As Chaney was purportedly the SOLE member of the Dallas PD to talk to Jack Ruby between the assassination and Oswald's murder, it would only have made sense that he would be called to testify to the Warren Commission. No dice. This makes it even more obvious they were hiding him.

Therefore, I suspect the Chaney sped ahead story is a tale designed to protect the reputation of the DPD.

In our efforts at amateur crime-solving it can be easy to forget that the initial investigation was orchestrated primarily for POLITICAL purposes. We had a President who wanted everyone to know he wasn't a killer. Having police officers from his home state fail to protect his predecessor would have cast even more doubt on the man and his ears. Chaney and Jackson simply had to disappear.

Bill Miller · February 18, 2008

We have a number of men telling a story that Chaney sped up ahead and spoke to Curry immediately after the shots.
We have photos that contradict this claim.

NOW, either the photos, created by a number of apparently unrelated individuals and made available at different places and dates, are all doctored, for apparently no reason.

OR, the men are telling a tale.

Al Carrier once posted about witnesses recall after a traumatic event. Al, at the time was a 20 year police veteran and conspiracy believer in the JFK assassination cited personal test that were done in a class he taught. I believe it was Ray who broke Chaney's movements down as well as anyone on this forum, but if I got that wrong, please - no one start posting how the CIA altered my memory. I asked Fetzer to tell us what his definition of the term 'immediately' meant because the meeting with Curry and Chaney took place within the first minute following the shooting. I recall using Holland's use of the word 'immediate' as an example when the fact way that Holland hadn't moved a muscle by the time Dillard took his 3rd photo. Ooooppps! I hope I haven't opened the door for another alteration claim concerning Dillard's #3 photo. (sigh~)

Jack White · February 18, 2008

Thanks, Bernice. As stated in an earlier post, I looked into this awhile back and concluded that the DPD made up some sort of cover story that Chaney heroically raced up to the limo and then to Curry. Hargis pulled over just after the shots. He could not have possibly witnessed Chaney pulling up next to Curry on the on-ramp. He was therefore either repeating a story someone else told him, deliberately lying to protect Chaney, or telling the truth--in such case the photographic evidence has been faked. With Hargis, I vote option 1. In some of the others, option 2.
We're all grown-ups here. We know that cops lie to protect each other all the time, and take PRIDE in it.

As far as Ellis, he's not exactly reliable.

From patspeer.com, chapter 6:

Stavis Ellis was one of the motorcycle officers out in front of the lead car. (HSCA Vol. XII, p.23 “On August 5, 1978, the committee received information from former Dallas policeman Stavis Ellis that Ellis had also seen a missile hit the ground in the area of the motorcade…Ellis said he rode on a motorcycle alongside the first car…approximately 100 to 125 feet in front of the car carrying President Kennedy. Ellis said that just as he started down the hill of Elm Street, he looked back toward President Kennedy’s car and saw debris come up from the ground at a nearby curb. Ellis thought it was a fragment grenade. Ellis also said that President Kennedy turned around and looked over his shoulder. The second shot then hit him, and the third shot “blew his head up.” (The Kennedy Assassination Tapes, 1979) Officer A “when the first shot was fired, I was looking directly at the President, and I saw the concrete burst into a cloud of dust when the bullet hit the curb. I noticed, too, that with the shot, some people started running in every direction, while several people hit the ground…Then while looking back at the President, I heard the second shot. The President became rigid and grabbed his neck. It also seemed like the limousine stopped or almost stopped, and agents from the following car started running toward the President’s limousine. The third shot hit the President in the head.” (No More Silence p.142-l53, published 1998) “Just as I turned around, then the first shot went off. It hit back there…I could see where the shot came into the south side of the curb. It looked like it hit 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…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!”

Analysis: Ellis is a poster child for Selective Attribution Syndrome. Both conspiracy theorists and lone nut theorists love to use his comments about seeing something hit the curb as evidence there was a first shot miss. But they should read on. He says that as this happened people began running everywhere. That they began falling... He can only be referring to the head shot. What he saw hit the curb was possibly one of the skull fragments observed flying through the air by Charles Brehm and found in the street by Harry Holmes and A.D. McCurley. If this is so, then Ellis’s description of Kennedy reaching for his neck and the third shot striking the President in the head would appear to be more his assertion of what he believes happened, then what he saw happen. Sure enough, in Ellis’s statements to Larry Sneed in No More Silence, he admits he turned around after the first shot and therefore could not have seen what he is purported to have seen in Bowles’ book. His throwing in the “Bang Bang” at the end was probably poetic license but possibly a reflection that he did indeed hear one or two shots after the head shot. Not surprisingly, the Bell and Daniel films prove that Ellis was nowhere near the lead car at the time of the shots. Heard no early shots. One or more shots possibly after the head shot.

So there was a vast conspiracy to protect the reputation of the DPD?

This is known as Selective Theorizing Syndrome...that is, coming up

with any absurd theory to avoid facing truth.

This would have us believe that EVERYONE LIED about a relatively

insignificant event, including SS man Forrest Sorrels sitting beside

Curry. This means that the SS was in on the conspiracy to lie to protect

the reputation of the DPD?

I do not understand how these "lies" protect the reputation of the DPD.

The anti-alterationists are becoming desperate.

Jack

Bill Miller · February 18, 2008

So there was a vast conspiracy to protect the reputation of the DPD?
This is known as Selective Theorizing Syndrome...that is, coming up

with any absurd theory to avoid facing truth.

This would have us believe that EVERYONE LIED about a relatively

insignificant event, including SS man Forrest Sorrels sitting beside

Curry. This means that the SS was in on the conspiracy to lie to protect

the reputation of the DPD?

I do not understand how these "lies" protect the reputation of the DPD.

The anti-alterationists are becoming desperate.

Jack

I personally feel that there is a conspiracy to make CT's look like incompetent buffs and it started with your Zfilm alteration claims.

Bill Miller

Josiah Thompson · February 18, 2008

Now Professor, there's no reason to get one's knickers all twisted up. We're just trying to figure out what you are claiming. We thought you were claiming that numerous films and p[hotos were doctored because they didn't show Officer Chaney doing something. But what is that "something?" Did I miss it? Did you tell us all about it and I just missed it? Well, if that's the case, I'm sure you'll be able to bring me and others up-to-date. I thought you were claiming that because the films didn't show whatever Chaney was supposed to have done, this was why you announced your "breakthrough" discovery. Wasn't that right? Well, if it's right, surely you can be so kind as to tell us exactly what you think Chaney should have done but didn't do in the various films and photos? Surely, this is a small request. Just tell us what the films and photos should have shown if they were showing what Officer Chaney really did. Surely, this is a small thing we're asking. Why not just tell us this and then we'll take it from there. We'll look at the films and photos and let you know what we see.

quote name=James H. Fetzer' date='Feb 18 2008, 06:59 AM' post='137447]

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:

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]

THAT IS FORREST SORRELS. Not John Costella, not Jack White, not Jim Fetzer.

Now it is very clear to me that, when you feel boxed in, you resort to the

tried and true tactic of introducing some inflammatory diversion having no

or scant relevance to the issues under consideration. You do that all the

time. In this instance, instead of conceding that Sorrel's testimony blows

your position out of the water, you ask, What are your views, Jim Fetzer?

My views, in general, are well-known because they are published in three

books. But you have never read any of my books, so how would you know?

One of the purposes of having a research group, of course, is that each of

us brings a different background, training, and competence to the effort, in

this case, to discover the truth about the assassination of JFK. Who doubts

that Jack, John, and David know more about the film than do I? So what? If

that is your point, all the more reason to distinguish us from one another.

This simmering hatred for me transcends your rationality in considering these

issues. You are intent upon showing that I AM WRONG no matter what, even if

that entails warping the evidence, denying the obvious, making false points.

That this has become your practice has been long evident. Anyone familiar

with my books would be shocked to read the savage reviews you have posted on

amazon.com. No rational person could possibly go to such lengths to create

misleading impressions and distorted representations of three of the most

important scientific studies of the death of JFK ever published--Lifton's

BEST EVIDENCE (1980) being the fourth. So I really think it is time that

you hung up your jock and gave it a rest. You have done your best defending

the indefensible. Your ongoing efforts are only going to further tarnish a

once imposing reputation. Give it a rest, Josiah. All of us deserve it.

Jim

THAT "Jim" IS JIM FETZER. I trust that my answers are reasonably frank.

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.?

Jack White · February 18, 2008

Forget all the other witnesses for a moment. Consider JUST SS man Forrest Sorrels

in the front seat beside Curry. Does he have any motive to fabricate a story? Is he

trying to protect the reputation of the Dallas Police? Would his sworn testimony have

credibility in a court of law?

Let's examine his sworn testimony: