The breakdown of Fetzer's "breakthrough"

[Paul Rigby]

If in fact alterations other than those referenced above can be demonstrated to have been made, then the Z-film becomes of critical importance to the struggles to answer the "who" and, by extension, "why" questions.

C.,

Is there a translation available for "Dixie" speakers? I'd hate you-know-who to go off on a tangent and show us yet another illegible survey.

Paul

[David G. Healy]

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

then you should have no problem finding a competent physicist to dispute the JCostella Ph.D claims... Get with it, what YOU personally think is irrelevant...

So Dr. Thompson, how'd a philosophy professor from Haverford U. find his way into LIFE Magazines deal with the Zapruder film? For the record books for sure, eh? There's a scarcity of information concerning same.

[Charles Drago]

If in fact alterations other than those referenced above can be demonstrated to have been made, then the Z-film becomes of critical importance to the struggles to answer the "who" and, by extension, "why" questions.

C.,

Is there a translation available for "Dixie" speakers? I'd hate you-know-who to go off on a tangent and show us yet another illegible survey.

Paul

All I can tell you, Paul, is why Southern girls go to college:

So they can learn how to say "indubitably" instead of "no s**t."

[J. Raymond Carroll]

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:

Chief Curry immediately broadcast to surround the building.

Why would Sorrels lie?

Jack

That's an interesting one, Jack.

There is little doubt that Sorrels was lying when he swore that Curry ordered the building surrounded. Sorrels was in the car sitting beside Curry when Curry radiod an order to get men up on the overpass. We have the radio transcripts which PROVE that Curry said NOTHING about surrounding the building.

Leaving aside the question of WHY Sorrels lied, the fact is that he did lie. As judges always tell jurors, "if you conclude that a witness lied about ONE matter, then you MAY infer.......

[Thomas H. Purvis]

If in fact alterations other than those referenced above can be demonstrated to have been made, then the Z-film becomes of critical importance to the struggles to answer the "who" and, by extension, "why" questions.

C.,

Is there a translation available for "Dixie" speakers? I'd hate you-know-who to go off on a tangent and show us yet another illegible survey.

Paul

Perhaps you should have said something to Specter & Company about showing ellegible survey's then.

Or were you even aware that the WC had assassination re-enactment survey's posted within it?

You certainly do not appear to be too fully aware of all of those slight little sleight-of-hand tricks which Specter slipped by on you.

He certainly, of my knowledge, did not slip too many by on me!

Please by my guest and NOT LOOK if the survey data is too difficult for you to grasp!

[Bernice Moore]

Pat :"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."

http://educationforum.iphost.com/index.php...st&p=137451

We're all grown-ups here.. thanks for the chuckle...

Pat........This info, Chaney.....is not new, and some have kept it on hand, though off and on, a niggle more or less, since reading Penn Jones "Forgive My Grief " 3..and Meaghers "Accessories After the Fact" off and on over the past many years......It just takes some information to be put together, gathered and awaiting such as the researchers that have done so at present....

Your conclusions, and theories, are your opinions, and to each their own....

As far as Stavis Ellis is concerned, I would suggest you contact Doug Weldon, perhaps he can set you straight, may be worth the effort....

Pat :" Hargis pulled over just after the shots. He could not have possibly witnessed Chaney pulling up next to Curry on the on-ramp. "

????? Where does Hargis say what you have posted?? He does not say he saw Chaney pull up next to Curry on the ramp..?

He states

"Chaney put his motor in first gear and accelerated up to the front to tell them to get everything out of the way, that he was coming through, and that is when the Presidential limousine shot off, and I stopped and got off my motorcycle and ran to the right-hand side of the street, behind the light pole....... "

Hargis.......

Mr. HARGIS - Yes; when President Kennedy straightened back up in the car the bullet him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood and brain, and kind of bloody water, It wasn't really blood. And at that time the Presidential car slowed down. I heard somebody say, "Get going," or "get going,"

Mr. STERN - Someone inside--

Mr. HARGIS - I don't know whether it was the Secret Service car, and I remembered seeing Officer Chaney. Chaney put his motor in first gear and accelerated up to the front to tell them to get everything out of the way, that he was coming through, and that is when the Presidential limousine shot off, and I stopped and got off my motorcycle and ran to the right-hand side of the street, behind the light pole.......

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/hscaharg.htm

http://educationforum.iphost.com/index.php...st&p=137449

You will notice also perhaps, that Hargis states..." and that is when the Presidential limousine shot off "......after Chaney had taken off.....

So did James Simmons....make reference to such.....

James L Simmons RR man on the overpass ..Re his testimony at the Clay Shaw trial..Garrison.

Upon being questioned by the defense ........

Asst D.A Alvin Osner asked : Did the car ( limo) speed up ?

Simmons : No, in fact the car stopped or almost stopped.

Osner : Then did the car speed up ?

Simmons: Yes, after they got the motorcycle policeman out of the way...

It went right over the Asst.D.As.... head it went no further....

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/simmons_j.htm

GWIW....

B..........

[Don Jeffries]

Charles,

You and I are in complete agreement about the conspirators' shoddy "coverup" on all levels. I think you're exactly right about the amateurish splice in the Zapruder film. That garnered the attention of critics early on, and was bound to lead to more detalied analysis of the entire film.

The more I study this case, the more I am in total accord with Vincent Salandria. I think those who killed JFK constructed a ridiculous case against Oswald that was about as believable as the Tooth Fairy. I've said this before, but to cite just one example; why plant a pristine bullet, when your objective is to make people think it caused seven wounds? Salandria was right; they wanted us to know what they did, and are probably still relishing the attention and all the debates.

[Pat Speer]

Bernice, I didn't mean to imply that Hargis saw Chaney on the ramp. Since Tink and Mack and a whole lot of others want to believe it's all just a mistake, and that Chaney did what he said, just not when he said he did it, I was pointing out that Hargis could not have seen Chaney drive up on the ramp, as theorized, because he immediately pulled over in the plaza and ran up the knoll.

I believe the DPD went on the defensive and tried to hide Chaney and Jackson's actions from the public.

[Jack White]

Bernice, I didn't mean to imply that Hargis saw Chaney on the ramp. Since Tink and Mack and a whole lot of others want to believe it's all just a mistake, and that Chaney did what he said, just not when he said he did it, I was pointing out that Hargis could not have seen Chaney drive up on the ramp, as theorized, because he immediately pulled over in the plaza and ran up the knoll.

I believe the DPD went on the defensive and tried to hide Chaney and Jackson's actions from the public.

That statement makes absolutely no sense. Why would they want to hide Chaney

speeding forward to tell Curry? Doing that seems a sensible thing to do!

Jack

[Charles Drago]

Charles,

You and I are in complete agreement about the conspirators' shoddy "coverup" on all levels. I think you're exactly right about the amateurish splice in the Zapruder film. That garnered the attention of critics early on, and was bound to lead to more detalied analysis of the entire film.

The more I study this case, the more I am in total accord with Vincent Salandria. I think those who killed JFK constructed a ridiculous case against Oswald that was about as believable as the Tooth Fairy. I've said this before, but to cite just one example; why plant a pristine bullet, when your objective is to make people think it caused seven wounds? Salandria was right; they wanted us to know what they did, and are probably still relishing the attention and all the debates.

Thanks, Don.

Rest assured that we're not a minority of three.

[Bernice Moore]

Charles,

You and I are in complete agreement about the conspirators' shoddy "coverup" on all levels. I think you're exactly right about the amateurish splice in the Zapruder film. That garnered the attention of critics early on, and was bound to lead to more detalied analysis of the entire film.

The more I study this case, the more I am in total accord with Vincent Salandria. I think those who killed JFK constructed a ridiculous case against Oswald that was about as believable as the Tooth Fairy. I've said this before, but to cite just one example; why plant a pristine bullet, when your objective is to make people think it caused seven wounds? Salandria was right; they wanted us to know what they did, and are probably still relishing the attention and all the debates.

****************

Pat:

You are so subtle with your suppositions.......Till next time...........

^^^^^^^^^^^

Jack :

Suppositions, never do make any sense........

*************

Don:

Imo ........of course they wanted us to know.....in many cases that is the why

they were and have been so obvious.....and still are......

B.......

Below appears to be researchers.....

Edited February 19, 2008 by Bernice Moore

[Bill Miller]

then you should have no problem finding a competent physicist to dispute the JCostella Ph.D claims... Get with it, what YOU personally think is irrelevant...

Why bother anyone with that nonsense, David. Let's use the one you relied on when you posted three years after seeing Costella's so-called work that you had not seen any proof of alteration. I'm just agreeing with you and if you spoke to a physicist to reach that conclusion, then fine ... I'll cite him, too! LOL!!!

[Josiah Thompson]

David Healy writes: "So Dr. Thompson, how'd a philosophy professor from Haverford U. find his way into LIFE Magazines deal with the Zapruder film? For the record books for sure, eh? There's a scarcity of information concerning same."

Where have you been for the last twenty or thirty years? The full story of how I went to work at LIFE for a few months in 1966 and then wrote Six Seconds has been told over and again. For example, take a look at a fine new book by John Kelin named Praise from A Future Generation: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy and the First Generation Critics of the Warren Report (San Antonio, Texas: Wings Press, 2007).

Lacking any ability to deal with the argument put forward, you start shoveling out innuendo. Guess who that reminds me of?

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

then you should have no problem finding a competent physicist to dispute the JCostella Ph.D claims... Get with it, what YOU personally think is irrelevant...

So Dr. Thompson, how'd a philosophy professor from Haverford U. find his way into LIFE Magazines deal with the Zapruder film? For the record books for sure, eh? There's a scarcity of information concerning same.

[David G. Healy]

David Healy writes: "So Dr. Thompson, how'd a philosophy professor from Haverford U. find his way into LIFE Magazines deal with the Zapruder film? For the record books for sure, eh? There's a scarcity of information concerning same."

Where have you been for the last twenty or thirty years? The full story of how I went to work at LIFE for a few months in 1966 and then wrote Six Seconds has been told over and again. For example, take a look at a fine new book by John Kelin named Praise from A Future Generation: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy and the First Generation Critics of the Warren Report (San Antonio, Texas: Wings Press, 2007).

Lacking any ability to deal with the argument put forward, you start shoveling out innuendo. Guess who that reminds me of?

Actually Dr. Thompson, for a good part of those 30 years right down the coast from you, during that time we probably read the same SF newspapers, watched the same news local programs (of course I was a bit closer to those news programs/studio than you were) ... however, that doesn't answer my simple query.... eh? I'm sure a few here don't have 6 Seconds available at their fingertips.... Think of it this way, if you and I were doing this on-camera a simple 2 paragraph response would do... here's the question again:

How did a Philosophy professor (Ph.D.), you sir, wind up in the executive offices of LIFE magazine, working on the film of the century? That same certain magazine that did NOT want the country to witness that same film as purchased (still pics.motion picture rights) by them...

And please, don't push a Bill Miller type out to fetch your paper, as it stands right now Miller can't believe your posting to this thread....

[Bill Miller]

David Healy writes: "So Dr. Thompson, how'd a philosophy professor from Haverford U. find his way into LIFE Magazines deal with the Zapruder film? For the record books for sure, eh? There's a scarcity of information concerning same."

Where have you been for the last twenty or thirty years? The full story of how I went to work at LIFE for a few months in 1966 and then wrote Six Seconds has been told over and again.

Josiah, you are aware that David Healy never cites data about the case .... so he may have never read anything about JFK's assassination. David's interest seems to be in making contradictory statements like 'I think the Zfilm is altered' and 'I have seen no proof of alteration'.