Alterationists: Thoughts from Gary Mack.

[Bernice Moore]

tODD...you would have to ask Frank ABOUT THE NIX...he made the gif..i see a hesitant stop what you see is your opinion that's mine...b

Edited January 15, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[John Dolva]

Bernice, the hard disk with the gif I made is out of action for now. If you wish, send me a copy I'll reduce its size and post later.

EDIT : this might be it (had a look at my photobucket stuff) tho poss an early version where I inserted black frames where I thought missing ones might have been. (Missing Nix frames topic)

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c168/yanndee/c.gif

takes a while to load

EDIT TWO : note Jackies hand movement. From memory Frank and I used this as a reference point in synching the z and nix.

Edited January 15, 2010 by John Dolva

[Bernice Moore]

Bernice, the hard disk with the gif I made is out of action for now. If you wish, send me a copy I'll reduce its size and post later.

EDIT : this might be it (had a look at my photobucket stuff) tho poss an early version where I inserted black frames where I thought missing ones might have been. (Missing Nix frames topic)

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c168/yanndee/c.gif

takes a while to load

EDIT TWO : note Jackies hand movement. From memory Frank and I used this as a reference point in synching the z and nix.

i think i still have your email ad john i will have a gander the one you have posted is not the large other one i have it's outside border surround is somewhat jagged in appearance if th

at reminds you.in anyway ..if i can find the email ad i will send it is a dandy imo...b

[Pat Speer]

The answer to your question is "who knows" Jack? This event, in retrospect is quite hazy, even after only 12 years. I have far older memories, less important, but far more vivid than this one. I think the main reason the car stuck with me was because my Father drove one - so the situation real-time applied what was happening to previous experiences and memory.

I'd like to believe I'd have noticed if the car had started and stopped. I'd like to believe something like this would have been easy to remember but the effects of adrenaline can do strange things to your recollection of events and more importantly on your ability to process time in the correct manner.

Maybe a car "slowing down" can be more easily interpreted by the human brain as stopping. The brain loves definitive absolutes Jack - they're easier to process, make sense of and remember...

Lee

I think you may have hit the nail on the head. Studies by the very experts cited by those claiming people are not consistently wrong also indicate that eyewitnesses to a dramatic event approximate the length of the event as twice as long as its actual time. This means that, for them, time slows down. As a result, a limo slowing down to 4-5 mph might appear to have slowed to a near complete stop.

From patspeer.com, chapter 9:

According to Dr. Elizabeth Loftus in her online paper Juror Understanding of Eyewitness Testimony, “People have a strong tendency to overestimate the duration of a stressful event.” Attempts to measure this tendency show that people will often interpret the duration of a stressful event as being twice as long as its actual time. As most of the witnesses to Kennedy’s assassination were initially unaware that the first loud noise was a shot, for them to say the last two shots were closer together than this first noise and the second shot, is therefore indicative that the last two shots were extremely close together. To clarify, as Dr. Loftus’ research indicates that the time between these last two shots would most logically have been overestimated, the probability is that, as close together as many witnesses placed these shots, they were even closer. And yet this simple piece of information is little understood by the public at large. In a study by Yarmey and Jones quoted online by Dr. Loftus, it was found that 95% of the psychologists and legal experts surveyed understood that witnesses routinely overestimate the lengths of events, while less than 50% of the public shared this understanding.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

Just look at all the motercycle cops, they all had to stop or slow way down when the limo stopped

Im willing to bet that the frames that Nix thought were taken out of his film by the government were the frames that showed the complete stop

Dean, if you think the motorcycle cops stopped you're out of alignment with the alteration crowd. You see, the motorcycle officer who slams on his brakes is James Chaney, the very officer they assume, based solely upon the testimony of DPD and men in the DPD car (with no corroboration whatsoever from witnesses in the Plaza) raced up to the lead car in the Plaza. Thus, the Nix film must be fake in order to prop up that the Z-film is fake.

See how sticky this all is?

[David G. Healy]

Being ANTI-alteration is a state of mind. Those of that persuasion do NOT WANT to believe. For many year I was one of them.

Seeing that the film is altered is NOT COMPLICATED.

There are many things that happened in Dealey Plaza that NUMEROUS PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE said happened. The film does

not show these things. Why should the film be believed instead of the people?

A few SIMPLE thing are sufficient.

1. Zapruder said he filmed the limo turn onto Elm. The film does not show it.

2. People who were there said the limo made a wide turn, so it is not seen since the limo turn is not seen.

3. Connally said he turned to his LEFT when he heard a shot, then to his right. His left turn is not seen.

4. Mary Moorman and Jean Hill both said they STEPPED OFF THE CURB to shoot a Polaroid, but they are seen on the grass.

5. Jean Hill said she stepped into the street and waved and hollered at JFK; this is not seen as she stands motionless.

6. Dozens of people said the limo stopped. No limo stop is seen.

7. Numerous credible witnesses said Officer Chaney rode forward to the lead car. The lead car is seen, but no Chaney.

What is complicated about looking at the film and making these observations? Any child could do it, contrary to what

Lee and Kathy say.

Jack

Jack, Being PRO-ALTERATION is also a state of mind. The alteration argument that the film must have been altered because there are things in the film people don't remember, and things people remember that are not in the film, will NEVER hold water with historians, legal scholars, and the media. Those who've studied human cognition are more than aware we are flawed in our recollections. Horribly flawed.

Here is a link to a much discussed video.

Basketball video

This video was created to demonstrate just how flawed we are as recording devices. This video has been shown thousands of times to rooms full of students, etc. Before the showing, the professor will ask the students to count how many times the basketball is passed in the video, or whether the ball is touched more by the boys or the girls, etc. This gives them something to focus on.

Halfway through the video, however, a man in a gorilla suit walks across the room and stands in the middle of those passing the ball. And that's the whole point of the video. After the showing is over, when asked about the man in the gorilla suit, only a minority of the audience has ANY recollection of the man in the gorilla suit. The professor then replays the video, and the bulk of the audience gasps in amazement at their inability to recollect something as strange as a man in a gorilla suit walking across the room.

When given the choice of believing "people's memories are often incorrect" or believing "the film must have been faked because so many people couldn't be wrong" the vast majority of people are gonna go with the first. And be correct to do so.

Now, that doesn't mean you or anyone else who wants to study the film should stop doing so. There are several issues--including whether or not the back of the head was painted in--that, if clearly demonstrated--could make a substantial impact on the public's attitude towards alteration. But saying the film must have been faked because is doesn't show what we think it should isn't gonna pass the average person's smell test. IMHO.

This is a total non-sequitur used by those in general who want to discredit witness testimony,

and I think the relevance of the experiment is subject to various interpretations.

MURDER IN DEALY PLAZA is not a man in a gorilla suit at a basketball game. In Dealey Plaza

all attention was focused on the President and his activities in the motorcade. Hundreds of

people's eyes were riveted on JFK or Jackie and the limo. Even if a herd of gorillas had been

dancing down Main Street, nobody would have been able to tell you whether the gorillas had

been doing a waltz or polka...BUT EVERYONE COULD TELL YOU ABOUT JACKIE'S PINK HAT

AND WHITE GLOVES. So your gorilla argument falls flat, because nobody cared about gorillas

but everybody cared about JFK and Jackie.

If the limo stopped, they could report that accurately. If the gorillas stopped dancing and

started cartwheeling, most would not notice. So memories would depend on what the witness

interest was, not whether some irrelevance was happening.

Jack

Hi Jack

Hope you've had a good day.

In 1998 I was an eyewitness to the robbery of a jewelers in Derby, England. Two guys wearing balaclavas ran out with shotguns. I was petrified but my eyes stayed on them as they got into a getaway car. To cut a long story short during the trial it came to my attention that although I got the car type correct (a Ford Escort) I got the color wrong. It was red and I thought it was green.

Maybe nonsense and doesn't mean anything to you but it's quite personal and I bear it in mind when I read the Warren Commission testimonies.

Lee

Thanks for the anecdote, but again it is somewhat irrelevant. That was in Derby. This was in Dealey.

Let me ask a theoretical. In your robbery scenario...if the car drove away...THEN STOPPED...then drove away again,

would you have noticed that? Or would you have testified that the car DID NOT STOP?

That would be a relevant observation to Dealey.

In Dealey, many witnesses MIGHT have testified that JFK was in a BLACK limo. It was dark blue.

But 59 of them SAID THE LIMO STOPPED or PAUSED. The Z film shows NO such event.

Jack

The answer to your question is "who knows" Jack? This event, in retrospect is quite hazy, even after only 12 years. I have far older memories, less important, but far more vivid than this one. I think the main reason the car stuck with me was because my Father drove one - so the situation real-time applied what was happening to previous experiences and memory.

I'd like to believe I'd have noticed if the car had started and stopped. I'd like to believe something like this would have been easy to remember but the effects of adrenaline can do strange things to your recollection of events and more importantly on your ability to process time in the correct manner.

Maybe a car "slowing down" can be more easily interpreted by the human brain as stopping. The brain loves definitive absolutes Jack - they're easier to process, make sense of and remember...

Lee

I think you may have hit the nail on the head. Studies by the very experts cited by those claiming people are not consistently wrong also indicate that eyewitnesses to a dramatic event approximate the length of the event as twice as long as its actual time. This means that, for them, time slows down. As a result, a limo slowing down to 4-5 mph might appear to have slowed to a near complete stop.

From patspeer.com, chapter 9:

According to Dr. Elizabeth Loftus in her online paper Juror Understanding of Eyewitness Testimony, “People have a strong tendency to overestimate the duration of a stressful event.” Attempts to measure this tendency show that people will often interpret the duration of a stressful event as being twice as long as its actual time. As most of the witnesses to Kennedy’s assassination were initially unaware that the first loud noise was a shot, for them to say the last two shots were closer together than this first noise and the second shot, is therefore indicative that the last two shots were extremely close together. To clarify, as Dr. Loftus’ research indicates that the time between these last two shots would most logically have been overestimated, the probability is that, as close together as many witnesses placed these shots, they were even closer. And yet this simple piece of information is little understood by the public at large. In a study by Yarmey and Jones quoted online by Dr. Loftus, it was found that 95% of the psychologists and legal experts surveyed understood that witnesses routinely overestimate the lengths of events, while less than 50% of the public shared this understanding.

ahh... shall we release all convicts convicted of the crimes due to eye witness testimony? We know there are jury consultants protecting and advancing their turf (much the same here as with "theories, theory's are like a*****es everyone has one, eh?

So let's see: YOU or anyone else here, including the ghost of Mr. Dunkle Dr. Thompson and the band of 8 can't prove the NARA housed extant Z-film is the original and, alterations cant prove the film is altered. Does this surprise anyone here? If you have something to help resolve authenticating the film, let's have it.

Best I see coming out of these Ed Forum threads lately is: folks are plain shook up by an insiders 5 volume series; and they're shucking and jiving avoiding the obvious....

What were Gary's thoughts regarding the slowing downstopping of the limo? I seemed to have missed his post in this thread....

[Paul Rigby]

Studies by the very experts cited by those claiming people are not consistently wrong also indicate that eyewitnesses to a dramatic event approximate the length of the event as twice as long as its actual time. This means that, for them, time slows down. As a result, a limo slowing down to 4-5 mph might appear to have slowed to a near complete stop.

Scratch an anti-alterationist, and you tend to find a Warren Commission lawyer at work:

Apparently the witnesses were mistaken in remembering that the car stopped; motion pictures, according to the Commission, contradicted them. Yet it seems clear from the way counsel led witnesses that the Commission had considerable resistance to inferences which might be drawn from evidence that the car had stopped at the first shot. “Stopped” was transformed into “seemed to stop” and then “into slowed down.” Such leading of witnesses, which would have been challenged in a courtroom, was facilitated by the Commission’s closed hearings…

The films of the assassination have not been released for public showing, although it is possible to see the most important one, the Zapruder film…at the National Archives. That film does not seem to support the witnesses who said that the car stopped dead. This being so, it is baffling that counsel conducted the questioning somewhat improperly and why the Report presents this evidence with some lack of impartiality…

Sylvia Meagher. Accessories After the Fact: The Warren Commission, The Authorities & The Report (NY: Vintage Books, June 1992 reprint), pp.4-5

Miss this leading of witnesses, did we, Pat? How very convenient.

[Bernice Moore]

thank you to those who made these gifs they are very appreciated by some and should be by all ,and again thanks for your giving of your time, efforts and talent..we are appreciative for you adding to the studies.....all others keep in mind your opinion is just one, yours.if you can do better then please do so..and produce your own gifs.. thanks...b imo..

Edited January 15, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Jack White]

DSL COMMENTARY:

As set forth in Pig on a Leash, In November, 1971, I interviewed five of what I shall call the car-stop witnesses:

Mary Moorman

Bill Newman

Gayle Newman

Chism

Franzen

It was pretty obvious to me, from the accounts of these witnesses, that the car stopped, momentarily.

My interviews with Bill and Gayle Newman were particularly important. After they gave me their accounts, I pointed out that the Zapruder film, (then) available at National Archives, did not show such a stop. Bill Newman emphasized to me that they were standing right there, that the car stopped, and that it didn't matter what the film showed.

One statement from Franzen I remember vividly: that the car was moving so slowly that a man could comfortably walk besides it. FYI: 15 miles per hour corresponds to a four minute mile. Just to understand the key issue: Imagine someone running a 4 minute mile down Elm Street and that being confused with someone slowing sharply, much less stopping. Even 11 mph (the measured speed, during some part of the traverse down Elm) would be far to fast for Franzen to have that perception. And the notion that, after the shooting, Clint Hill overtook an accelerating vehicle--regardless of what the edited film frames show--is (to me) not just improbable, but ludicrous.

As far as I'm concerned, the issue of the car slowly sharply (to practically 1-2 mph, at most) or stopping completely, is not a "perception" problem; it is a problem for the integrity of the Zapruder film.

DSL

1/14/10 4 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

David

This is a case of who am I going to believe? You, or my lying eyes?

The vast majority of the 59 witnesses who mentioned the limousine speed stated that the car slowed down (SOME claim ALMOST to a halt).

Bill and Gayle Newman saw this tragic event in front of their eyes only once. They had fractions of seconds to make sense of their environment, recognise shots were being fired, see the president’s head explode and then instinctively protect their children. That’s a lot of pressure to take in the space of less than 1 minute.

When I watch the stabilised version of the Zapruder Film, I can see the limousine SLOWING down - ALMOST to a halt. As everyone is aware all of this happens very quickly – it’s a little difficult to keep up with all that is happening in and around the limousine, even having (what the Newman’s didn’t have at the time) the opportunity to watch it over and over again. I think if I was in Dealey Plaza at the time I would be tempted to testify that you could walk next to the limousine as it slowed down so much compared to its speed after appearing from behind the Stemmon’s freeway sign. However, I must admit that watching the non stabilised version has a different experience and "feel" to it - events are more difficult to "perceive" real-time.

I’m of the impression when watching the stabilised version that all of the witnesses who say “slowed”, “halted”, “momentary lapse” etc are correct. I have the impression that the witnesses who say “stopped” were perceiving such a dramatic limousine slow down, after it passes the lamppost, as a stop, especially if the brake lights acted as a cue during the cognitive process.

I disagree with your statement that this is not a problem concerning perception. The minute you decide to use witness testimony to back up a claim you are, by definition, dealing with perception, whether that perception is accurate or not is what is up for debate based upon the other evidence (and the stress and trauma that the event forced onto the individual’s state of mind – Helen Markham?).

I agree with Franzen’s statement when watching the stabilised version – it is very slow – you could walk next to it – and Clint Hill is running to it before the acceleration has taken place. Are my own eyes deceiving me while I’m watching this?

Lee

Lee is entirely wrong. NO OFFENSE INTENDED. He is watching a faked film and drawing his conclusions

from it instead of the 59 witnesses who saw the limo STOP or SLOW DRAMATICALLY.

He is seeing what he wants to see to justify his position...using a film which is a fabrication. One has

to wonder why?

Jack

[Dean Hagerman]

Just look at all the motercycle cops, they all had to stop or slow way down when the limo stopped

Im willing to bet that the frames that Nix thought were taken out of his film by the government were the frames that showed the complete stop

Dean, if you think the motorcycle cops stopped you're out of alignment with the alteration crowd. You see, the motorcycle officer who slams on his brakes is James Chaney, the very officer they assume, based solely upon the testimony of DPD and men in the DPD car (with no corroboration whatsoever from witnesses in the Plaza) raced up to the lead car in the Plaza. Thus, the Nix film must be fake in order to prop up that the Z-film is fake.

See how sticky this all is?

All of the cops slammed on their brakes, not just Chaney

And I dont see how sticky it is, do you think I agree with every alteration theory?

All you would have to do is ask what I do and do not believe in when it comes to alteration

You would be very suprised Pat

[Jack White]

Lee yo may be interested in viewing these two gifs,,one by frank aqbat and the other by john dolva...they show imo

thelimo really slowing down and then a hesitant stop just long enough for the final head shot to be executed then the limo takes off...like a you know what... if they will upload hopefully...b

Hi Bernice

I don't perceive the limo stopping. I see the brakes being put on...a mometary loss of forward momentum and then acceleration. The limo continues moving throughout the whole slowing down, application of brakes and re-acceleration motion. This is what the majority of the 59 witnesses claimed happened. And, this is what I see.

What is interesting for me is you can observe James Altgens position quite clearly in the Nix film. He is right next to the presidentail limo as it accelerates and taking the elusive picture he claims he took after the headshot that we have never/and probably will never see.

David Lifton uses the Newman's testimony to support the limo stopping totally. They were much further away at this point and had the brake light cue creating a cognitive frame for the event. Altgen's was right ahead of the car during the application of the brakes, most likely didn't have the brake light cue because he was concentrating on taking his picture during the head-shot (that he ultimately didn't take because of the shock of seeing the damage to the president's head), and he was right next to the limo during the acceleration. He was also a professional photographer and presumably highly skilled at noticing events taking place around him.

His Warren Commission testimony (vol. VII Page 518) states "The car never did stop." He was certainly closer to the event as a witness than the Newman's and his testimony is more believable because the Zapruder and Nix films actually SUPPORT his testimony under oath.

Cheers

Lee

Lee again is totally wrong. NO OFFENSE INTENDED.

Jack

[Jack White]

Hi Pat

In addition to what you have written above I think it important to mention something that occurred to me a while ago. All five witnesses that David Lifton uses to support the "stopped limo" were observing the limousine from behind with the vehicle moving away from them.

The human brain uses "frames" to create our reality, organise knowledge and recall memory. A "frame" simply being a mental structure.

Brake lights are a frame. Most of us know what brake-lights do - you put your foot on the brake and the lights warn the person behind. What do they warn them of? They warn them that the car is STOPPING. So the frame created is Brake Lights = Stopping. This mental structure has been created in all of our minds. Brake-Lights = Stopping.

I think this is what happened with Bill & Gayle Newman, Mary Moorman, Jack Franzen and A.J Chism. They perceived from the rear the slowing down of the vehicle, they saw the brake-lights (brake-lights = stopping), therefore the car stopped.

Lee

I am forced to conclude that Lee is full of it. NO OFFENSE INTENDED. His only beliefs are IN HIS MIND with

theoretical premises instead of facts.

NO OFFENSE INTENDED. These are just observations, and nothing personal.

Jack

[Pat Speer]

I always thought the case for a limo stop was weak, but never realized just how weak. My responses in bold.

Why would one person, much less more than a dozen, report a stop if there were none?

There even appears to be some agreement between them about where the limo stopped.

Those who reported the stop included Roy Truly and at least four motorcycle patrolmen.

How can Hargis, Chaney, and Martin report that the limo stopped and be wrong about it?

They were in the best possible position to observe it. They were ridding right beside it!

The probability of the evidence (these reports) if the limo came to a stop is extremely

high; the probability of the evidence if the limo did not come to a stop is extremely low.

The evidence not only favors the hypothesis, but there is enough to make it acceptable.

Said the limousine stopped (personal observation):

4) DPD motorcycle officer James W. Courson (one of two mid-motorcade motorcycles) — "The limousine came to a stop and Mrs. Kennedy was on the back. I noticed that as I came around the corner at Elm. Then the Secret Service agent [Clint Hill] helped push her back into the car, and the motorcade took off at a high rate of speed." ["No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), p. 129];

It seems highly unlikely Courson was on Elm at the time he describes. He was far back of McClain and Baker, who were not even on Elm at this time. He quite possibly meant Houston, and that he could see the limo across the park. If so, of course, he may have seen all this in a split second as he made the turn up Houston. In any event, his recollections 30 years later are not exactly credible. If one disagrees, please track Courson down and get him to sign a statement swearing the limo stopped and the Z-film is fake.

6) Clemon Earl Johnson---"You could see it [the limo] speed up and then stop, then speed up, and you could see it stop while they [sic; Clint Hill] threw Mrs. Kennedy back up in the car. Then they just left out of there like a bat of the eye and were just gone." ["No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), p. 80];

Another recollection from 30 years later, this one holding that Clint Hill threw Jackie back in the car. How many other witnesses saw that? Thestop he describes, furthermore, happened after the head shot. Not exactly supportive.

10) DPD Earle Brown — The first I noticed the [JFK's] car was when it stopped ... after it made the turn and when the shots were fired, it stopped." [6 H 233];

Now we're getting somewhere. But how come he didn't notice the car until it came to what he thought was a stop? Because he was some distance from the action and could barely tell what was going on? And why didn't the closest conspiracy-beloved witnesses, Jean Hill and Mary Moorman, notice the limousine's coming to a stop? Is it remotely possible they didn't notice this stop, while Brown, hundreds of feet away, accurately observed this stop? Nope.

11) DPD motorcycle officer Bobby Hargis (one of the four Presidential motorcyclists) — "At that time [immediately before the head shot] the Presidential car slowed down. I heard somebody say 'Get going.' I felt blood hit me in the face and the Presidential car stopped almost immediately after that." [6 H 294; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams (1974), p. 71; 6/26/95 videotaped interview with Mark Oakes & Ian Griggs: "That guy (Greer) slowed down, maybe his orders was to slow down slowed down almost to a stop." Like Posner, Hargis feels Greer gave Oswald the chance to kill Kennedy.];

Slowed does not mean stopped. Hargis is most definitely not a limousine stopped witness, and is most definitely a limousine slowed and did not stop witness. If you honestly believe he is a limousine stopped witness track him down and get him to say so, will ya? He appears to be more than forthcoming.

13) DPD James Chaney (one of the four Presidential motorcyclists) — stated that the Presidential limousine stopped momentarily after the first shot (according to the testimony of Mark Lane; corroborated by the testimony of fellow DPD motorcycle officer Marion Baker: Chaney told him that " at the time, after the shooting, from the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped. Now I have heard several of them say that, Mr. Truly was standing out there, he said it stopped. Several officers said it stopped completely." [2 H 44-45 (Lane)---referring to Chaney's statement as reported in the "Houston Chronicle" dated 11/24/63; 3 H 266 (Baker)];

Did Chaney really say it stopped? Maybe. A report on Chaney later claimed "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." So he was looking around, and then turned back and thought he was gonna hit the limo and slammed on HIS brakes (as shown in the Nix film). Under these circumstances, it seems as likely the limo slowed (as we know it did) but that to Chaney it appeared it had stopped.

14) DPD motorcycle officer B.J. Martin (one of the four Presidential motorcyclists) — saw JFK's car stop "just for a moment." ["Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 71];

Here's what Martin testified to in the trial of Clay Shaw: "it was after the third shot it had almost came to a stop, it was going very slow." So, here we have Hargis' partner confirming that the limo slowed, but did not stop. He is another limo did not stop witness misrepresented as a limo stopped witness. Of course, if Newcomb's taped interviews ever become available, and it is discovered Martin did say the limo did more than slow, it stopped, we'll have to re-assess.

33) Alan Smith---" the car was ten feet from me when a bullet hit the President in the forehead the car went about five feet and stopped." ["Chicago Tribune", 11/23/63, p. 9; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 71];

Smith was a schoolkid who got his name in the papers with a fantastic story at odds with all the other witnesses. His statements are not remotely credible.

34) Mrs. Ruth M. Smith — confirmed that the Presidential limousine had come to a stop. [CD 206, p. 9; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 97];

[b]Not sure about Ruth Smith. She was watching the motorcade from the Old Courthouse. From her perspective a slow down might have seemed like a stop. Once again, why didn't close-up witnesses like Charles Brehm notice this stop?

35) TSBD Supervisor Roy Truly---after the first shot " I saw the President's car swerve to the left and stop somewheres down in the area [it stopped] for a second or two or something like that I just saw it stop." [3 H 221, 266];

Truly was way back at Houston and Elm. He stopped looking when the crowd panicked within a split second of the head shot. He is not exactly credible in his belief it actually stopped, as opposed to slowing down. He does, after all, claim the limo swerved to the left. If the limo swerved to the left and stopped, it would have been Martin and Hargis slamming on their brakes, and not Chaney and Jackson.r

39) Billy Lovelady---"I recall that following the shooting, I ran toward the spot where President Kennedy's car had stopped." [22 H 662];

He was probably repeating what he'd been told by someone else. He didn't even see the shooting. See for yourself.

William Lovelady (11-22-63 statement to Dallas County Sheriff’s Department, 24H214) “When the President came by, Bill Shelley and I was standing on the steps in front of the building where I work. After he had passed and was about 50 yards past us I heard three shots. There was a slight pause after the first shot then the next two was right close together. I could not tell where the shots came from but sounded like they were across the street from us. However, that could have been caused by the echo.” (11-22-63 FBI report, CD5 p332-333) "On November 22, 1963, Lovelady and his foreman, Bill Shelley, were standing on the front doorstep at 411 Elm Street at about 12:30 P.M. watching the Presidential motorcade pass. At about this time he heard three shots. At first he thought it was a firecracker or the backfire of a motorcycle." (3-19-64 statement to the FBI, 22H662) “I recall that following the passing of the Presidential motorcade, as the car in which the President was riding traveled down the Elm Street extension, I heard several loud reports which I first thought to be firecrackers, and which appeared to me to be in the direction of the Elm Street viaduct just ahead of the motorcade. I did not at any time believe the shots had come from the Texas School Book Depository Building.” (4-7-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 6H336-341) “I thought it was firecrackers or somebody celebrating the arrival of the President. It didn’t occur to me at first what had happened until this Gloria came running up to us and told us the President had been shot…She had been right close to it to see and she had saw the blood and knew he had been hit…We went as far as the first tracks and everybody was hollering and crying…and we said we better get back into the building, so we went back into the west entrance on the back dock had that low ramp and went into the back dock back inside the building.”

42) Peggy Burney — she stated that JFK's car had come to a stop. ["Dallas Times Herald", 11/24/63; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 97; interestingly, during the 11/20/93 C-SPAN "Journalists Remember" conference, Vivian Castleberry of the Dallas Times Herald made the claim that her first cousin, Peggy Burney, was Abraham Zapruder's assistant "and was next to him when he shot his famous film. She called and said, 'Vivian, today I saw the President die.'"!---See Sheldon Inkol's article on this conference in the January 1994 "Fourth Decade"];

Is Peggy Burney the same person as Peggy Hawkins? If so, the FBI report on an interview with her indicates she later corrected her initial statements. Peggy Hawkins (3-26-64 FBI report, CD897 p.35-36) “Mrs. Hawkins said that the car containing the Presidential party had just passed in front of the building shortly after noon when she heard two or three shots fired in the near vicinity. She said she immediately recognized them as firearm shots and not as fireworks and had the impression that they came from the direction of the railroad yards adjacent to the TSBD building…She said that she was looking at the President’s car at the time and saw the President straighten up in the back and then slump over on his side…She estimated that the President was less than fifty feet away from her when he was shot, that the car slowed down almost coming to a full stop and then started off again.”

50) Bill Newman---after the fatal head shot "the car momentarily stopped and the driver seemed to have a radio or phone up to his ear and he seemed to be waiting on some word. Some Secret Service men reached into their car and came out with some sort of machine gun. Then the cars roared off "; "I've maintained that they stopped. I still say they did. It was only a momentary stop, but" ["Crossfire" by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 70; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 96] "I believe Kennedy's car came to a full stop after the final shot." ["JFK: Breaking The Silence" by Bill Sloan (1993), p. 169] "I believe it was the passenger in the front seat [Roy Kellerman]---there were two men in the front seat---had a telephone or something to his ear and the car momentarily stopped. Now everywhere that you read about it, you don't read anything about the car stopping. And when I say "stopped" I mean very momentarily, like they hit the brakes and just a few seconds passed and then they floorboarded [sic] and accelerated on." [11/20/97 videotaped interview with Bill Law, Mark Row, & Ian Griggs, as transcribed in "November Patriots" by Connie Kritzberg & Larry Hancock (1998), p. 362] "One of the two men in the front seat of the car had a telephone in his hand, and as I was looking back at the car covering my son, I can remember seeing the tail lights of the car, and just for a moment they hesitated and stopped, and then they floorboarded [sic] the car and shot off." ["No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), p. 96];

Newman said it stopped after the head shot. He is, therefore, not a witness for the limo stopped so the sniper could take out JFK theory, is he? He also dived on the ground to protect his children after the head shot. Time slowed down. Did this change the way he perceived the movement of the limousine? Maybe.

Said the limousine stopped (reported observation):

2) ABC Reporter Bob Clark (rode in the National Press Pool Car - one of two, nine and ten vehicles behind JFK) — Reported on the air that the limousine stopped on Elm Street during the shooting [WFAA/ ABC, 11/22/63];

Did he ever confirm this later? Did anyone ever track him down and ask if he stood by his story, and was willing to claim the Zapruder film is fake? Of course not.

8) NBC reporter Robert MacNeil (rode in White House Press Bus, in the first press bus, 12 vehicles behind JFK, still on Main Street at the time) — "The President's driver slammed on the brakes — after the third shot " ["The Way We Were, 1963: The Year Kennedy Was Shot" by Robert MacNeil (1988), p. 193];

MacNeil was in the press bus back at Houston and Elm and did not see the shooting itself. He was thereby reporting what others saw, 25 years later. Besides, he said it happened after the third shot, which doesn't support the position the slow down stop was part of the plot to kill Kennedy. And besides besides...slamming on one's brakes does not necessarily entail coming to a full stop.

Sorry to be a nay-sayer, but this evidence is paper thin. The 59 eyewitnesses cited for a stop ad nauseum are far more suggestive for a slow down, and thereby support the accuracy of the films.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Farley is defending the indefensible. This is ridiculous. It is not his eyes that are lying.

Why would one person, much less more than a dozen, report a stop if there were none?

There even appears to be some agreement between them about where the limo stopped.

Those who reported the stop included Roy Truly and at least four motorcycle patrolmen.

How can Hargis, Chaney, and Martin report that the limo stopped and be wrong about it?

They were in the best possible position to observe it. They were ridding right beside it!

The probability of the evidence (these reports) if the limo came to a stop is extremely

high; the probability of the evidence if the limo did not come to a stop is extremely low.

The evidence not only favors the hypothesis, but there is enough to make it acceptable.

Said the limousine stopped (personal observation):

4) DPD motorcycle officer James W. Courson (one of two mid-motorcade motorcycles) — "The limousine came to a stop and Mrs. Kennedy was on the back. I noticed that as I came around the corner at Elm. Then the Secret Service agent [Clint Hill] helped push her back into the car, and the motorcade took off at a high rate of speed." ["No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), p. 129];

6) Clemon Earl Johnson---"You could see it [the limo] speed up and then stop, then speed up, and you could see it stop while they [sic; Clint Hill] threw Mrs. Kennedy back up in the car. Then they just left out of there like a bat of the eye and were just gone." ["No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), p. 80];

10) DPD Earle Brown — The first I noticed the [JFK's] car was when it stopped ... after it made the turn and when the shots were fired, it stopped." [6 H 233];

11) DPD motorcycle officer Bobby Hargis (one of the four Presidential motorcyclists) — "At that time [immediately before the head shot] the Presidential car slowed down. I heard somebody say 'Get going.' I felt blood hit me in the face and the Presidential car stopped almost immediately after that." [6 H 294; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams (1974), p. 71; 6/26/95 videotaped interview with Mark Oakes & Ian Griggs: "That guy (Greer) slowed down, maybe his orders was to slow down slowed down almost to a stop." Like Posner, Hargis feels Greer gave Oswald the chance to kill Kennedy.];

13) DPD James Chaney (one of the four Presidential motorcyclists) — stated that the Presidential limousine stopped momentarily after the first shot (according to the testimony of Mark Lane; corroborated by the testimony of fellow DPD motorcycle officer Marion Baker: Chaney told him that " at the time, after the shooting, from the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped. Now I have heard several of them say that, Mr. Truly was standing out there, he said it stopped. Several officers said it stopped completely." [2 H 44-45 (Lane)---referring to Chaney's statement as reported in the "Houston Chronicle" dated 11/24/63; 3 H 266 (Baker)];

14) DPD motorcycle officer B.J. Martin (one of the four Presidential motorcyclists) — saw JFK's car stop "just for a moment." ["Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 71];

33) Alan Smith---" the car was ten feet from me when a bullet hit the President in the forehead the car went about five feet and stopped." ["Chicago Tribune", 11/23/63, p. 9; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 71];

34) Mrs. Ruth M. Smith — confirmed that the Presidential limousine had come to a stop. [CD 206, p. 9; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 97];

35) TSBD Supervisor Roy Truly---after the first shot " I saw the President's car swerve to the left and stop somewheres down in the area [it stopped] for a second or two or something like that I just saw it stop." [3 H 221, 266];

39) Billy Lovelady---"I recall that following the shooting, I ran toward the spot where President Kennedy's car had stopped." [22 H 662];

42) Peggy Burney — she stated that JFK's car had come to a stop. ["Dallas Times Herald", 11/24/63; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 97; interestingly, during the 11/20/93 C-SPAN "Journalists Remember" conference, Vivian Castleberry of the Dallas Times Herald made the claim that her first cousin, Peggy Burney, was Abraham Zapruder's assistant "and was next to him when he shot his famous film. She called and said, 'Vivian, today I saw the President die.'"!---See Sheldon Inkol's article on this conference in the January 1994 "Fourth Decade"];

50) Bill Newman---after the fatal head shot "the car momentarily stopped and the driver seemed to have a radio or phone up to his ear and he seemed to be waiting on some word. Some Secret Service men reached into their car and came out with some sort of machine gun. Then the cars roared off "; "I've maintained that they stopped. I still say they did. It was only a momentary stop, but" ["Crossfire" by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 70; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 96] "I believe Kennedy's car came to a full stop after the final shot." ["JFK: Breaking The Silence" by Bill Sloan (1993), p. 169] "I believe it was the passenger in the front seat [Roy Kellerman]---there were two men in the front seat---had a telephone or something to his ear and the car momentarily stopped. Now everywhere that you read about it, you don't read anything about the car stopping. And when I say "stopped" I mean very momentarily, like they hit the brakes and just a few seconds passed and then they floorboarded [sic] and accelerated on." [11/20/97 videotaped interview with Bill Law, Mark Row, & Ian Griggs, as transcribed in "November Patriots" by Connie Kritzberg & Larry Hancock (1998), p. 362] "One of the two men in the front seat of the car had a telephone in his hand, and as I was looking back at the car covering my son, I can remember seeing the tail lights of the car, and just for a moment they hesitated and stopped, and then they floorboarded [sic] the car and shot off." ["No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), p. 96];

Said the limousine stopped (reported observation):

2) ABC Reporter Bob Clark (rode in the National Press Pool Car - one of two, nine and ten vehicles behind JFK) — Reported on the air that the limousine stopped on Elm Street during the shooting [WFAA/ ABC, 11/22/63];

8) NBC reporter Robert MacNeil (rode in White House Press Bus, in the first press bus, 12 vehicles behind JFK, still on Main Street at the time) — "The President's driver slammed on the brakes — after the third shot " ["The Way We Were, 1963: The Year Kennedy Was Shot" by Robert MacNeil (1988), p. 193];

DSL COMMENTARY:

As set forth in Pig on a Leash, In November, 1971, I interviewed five of what I shall call the car-stop witnesses:

Mary Moorman

Bill Newman

Gayle Newman

Chism

Franzen

It was pretty obvious to me, from the accounts of these witnesses, that the car stopped, momentarily.

My interviews with Bill and Gayle Newman were particularly important. After they gave me their accounts, I pointed out that the Zapruder film, (then) available at National Archives, did not show such a stop. Bill Newman emphasized to me that they were standing right there, that the car stopped, and that it didn't matter what the film showed.

One statement from Franzen I remember vividly: that the car was moving so slowly that a man could comfortably walk besides it. FYI: 15 miles per hour corresponds to a four minute mile. Just to understand the key issue: Imagine someone running a 4 minute mile down Elm Street and that being confused with someone slowing sharply, much less stopping. Even 11 mph (the measured speed, during some part of the traverse down Elm) would be far to fast for Franzen to have that perception. And the notion that, after the shooting, Clint Hill overtook an accelerating vehicle--regardless of what the edited film frames show--is (to me) not just improbable, but ludicrous.

As far as I'm concerned, the issue of the car slowly sharply (to practically 1-2 mph, at most) or stopping completely, is not a "perception" problem; it is a problem for the integrity of the Zapruder film.

DSL

1/14/10 4 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

David

This is a case of who am I going to believe? You, or my lying eyes?

The vast majority of the 59 witnesses who mentioned the limousine speed stated that the car slowed down (SOME claim ALMOST to a halt).

Bill and Gayle Newman saw this tragic event in front of their eyes only once. They had fractions of seconds to make sense of their environment, recognise shots were being fired, see the president’s head explode and then instinctively protect their children. That’s a lot of pressure to take in the space of less than 1 minute.

When I watch the stabilised version of the Zapruder Film, I can see the limousine SLOWING down - ALMOST to a halt. As everyone is aware all of this happens very quickly – it’s a little difficult to keep up with all that is happening in and around the limousine, even having (what the Newman’s didn’t have at the time) the opportunity to watch it over and over again. I think if I was in Dealey Plaza at the time I would be tempted to testify that you could walk next to the limousine as it slowed down so much compared to its speed after appearing from behind the Stemmon’s freeway sign. However, I must admit that watching the non stabilised version has a different experience and "feel" to it - events are more difficult to "perceive" real-time.

I’m of the impression when watching the stabilised version that all of the witnesses who say “slowed”, “halted”, “momentary lapse” etc are correct. I have the impression that the witnesses who say “stopped” were perceiving such a dramatic limousine slow down, after it passes the lamppost, as a stop, especially if the brake lights acted as a cue during the cognitive process.

I disagree with your statement that this is not a problem concerning perception. The minute you decide to use witness testimony to back up a claim you are, by definition, dealing with perception, whether that perception is accurate or not is what is up for debate based upon the other evidence (and the stress and trauma that the event forced onto the individual’s state of mind – Helen Markham?).

I agree with Franzen’s statement when watching the stabilised version – it is very slow – you could walk next to it – and Clint Hill is running to it before the acceleration has taken place. Are my own eyes deceiving me while I’m watching this?

Lee

[Pat Speer]

ahh... shall we release all convicts convicted of the crimes due to eye witness testimony? We know there are jury consultants protecting and advancing their turf (much the same here as with "theories, theory's are like a*****es everyone has one, eh?

So let's see: YOU or anyone else here, including the ghost of Mr. Dunkle Dr. Thompson and the band of 8 can't prove the NARA housed extant Z-film is the original and, alterations cant prove the film is altered. Does this surprise anyone here? If you have something to help resolve authenticating the film, let's have it.

Best I see coming out of these Ed Forum threads lately is: folks are plain shook up by an insiders 5 volume series; and they're shucking and jiving avoiding the obvious....

What were Gary's thoughts regarding the slowing downstopping of the limo? I seemed to have missed his post in this thread....

Healy, to be clear, I am all for testing the film. I am particularly interested in whether the back of the head was painted in. But arguing that the film is fake by cherry-picking witnesses and then mis-representing either what they said and believed or the credibility of what they said and believed and then comparing that to the film is counter-productive, IMO.