Alterationists: Thoughts from Gary Mack.

[Jack White]

Lee, I have no axe to grind with you. I am observing that there is clear and convincing evidence, from witnesses who were highly qualified, that Greer brought the limo to a stop. How could Hargis, Chaney, and Martin, who were ridding beside it as its motorcycle escort, be mistaken about this? The improbability of these three being wrong about this is miniscule. You are welcome to believe whatever you want, but that does not make your beliefs either rational or true. In light of the evidence I have cited, there really is no reasonable alternative to the conclusion that the limo came to a halt. No one was watching Greer's feet! But the limo was the most conspicuous feature of the witnesses visual field.

All our beliefs are "in our head", as Jack observed, but I am dumbfounded that you would so blatantly disregard the evidence. It follows that, since the car stop is not in the film, if there was a stop, then the film has been altered. But take it one step at a time. Notice that, given their various locations, some may only have seen it slow down--but, since it had to slow down in coming to a stop, that would be expected in a case like this. There is no inconsistency between those who saw it slow down and those who saw it come to a stop, unless they were positioned where it would have been obvious to them had it not come to a stop. Taken in its totality, there is no reasonable alternative to the car having stopped.

Hi Jim

I want to make few points to your reply:

1. I believe there were frames spliced from the limo turn onto Elm

2. There is something not quite right about the head-shot. There is the possibility that it has been painted over.

3. I don’t believe the limo stopped – I believe it slowed (dramatically – to the point where is very damn well near stopped) and then accelerated.

In answer to your direct question regarding Officer’s Martin, Hargis, Chaney’s statements that the limo stopped – I “believe” that they, and the other witnesses who said the limo stopped, really believe it stopped. But as you point out regularly, just because you believe something is the case doesn’t make it so.

Here’s what I think influenced the whole slowed versus stopped observations.

• Whether your observation was from the front or the rear of the limo

• Whether the brake-lights influenced your judgement

Whether you quickly looked at the stopped cavalcade behind after looking at the limousine

• Whether you were operating a brake yourself

Let me just explain my judgement on that last point. Martin, Hargis and Chaney were all on motorcycles. When the limo braked they too had to quickly brake (the Nix film shows Martin and Hargis on the left side STOPPING).

Are you 100% convinced, given your understanding of cognitive brain processes, that the fact that the Officers THEMSELVES had to brake sharply and therefore STOP would have absolutely NO bearing on their recollection of what the limousine did? There is no possible chance that this had an influence of their memory of the event?

Same goes for Bill and Gayle Newman. Is their seeing the entire cavalcade STOP behind the presidential limousine having NO influence over their overall perception of the event? They didn’t make the memory of the limousine STOPPING by just observing the limousine. Other factors – before, during and after will have had a direct influence over their memory and recollection. Surely you “believe” at the very least that this is possible Jim?

Plus, as an aside, I don’t need to believe the film is fake in this detail (stopping) to KNOW that most of the SS team were involved. The evidence of fakery needs to be proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) in the area of the head shot to support David Lifton’s thesis regarding surgical alteration of the wounds before and after arrival at Bethesda.

I wish you, David Lifton and Doug Horne the sincerest best of luck.

Thanks for listening Jim

Lee

I doubt that you have talked to Bill Newman. Right?

Which is superior...your imagining what he says he saw, or actually talking to him?

What YOU think makes little difference in what witnesses SAY they saw.

Jack

[Jack White]

That's a valid point, Paul. But how many of these witnesses later claimed the limo did come to a complete stop and that they'd been pressured into saying it did not? And that they believed the Z-film is fake?

That would be zero, I believe.

Your problem here, Pat, is that you know, I know, and every one reading this knows, that you've never conducted any properly systematic survey of the eyewitnesses' responses to the Z fake - which renders your insistence that "zero" believe the film to be fake, well, at most generous, a nonsense. You don't know, and we know you don't.

What we do know, and can prove, is that the WC:

a) failed to call witnesses it considered inconvenient;

sought to browbeat into submission those it considered malleable; and

c) revealed to the attentive - or should that just be "honest"? - reader the existence of two versions of the Z fake:

Mark Lane. Rush to Judgment: A Critique of the Warren Commission’s Inquiry into the Murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J. D. Tippit and Lee Harvey Oswald (London: The Bodley Head Ltd., 1966), p.66, footnote 2:

The Commission explained the method it used to designate the individual frames of the film for purposes of reference: “The pictures or frames in the Zapruder film were marked by the agents, with the number ‘1’ given to the first frame where the motorcycles leading the motorcade came into view on Houston Street. The numbers continue in sequence as Zapruder filmed the Presidential limousine as it came around the corner and proceeded down Elm,” (223).

Note 223 to chapter 3 is to be found on p.423 – it cites WCR at 98. On p.418, Lane explains that the version of the WCR he used was the one published by the “U.S. Government Printing Office (1964).”

And you ask us to discount eyewitness testimony which contradict the Z fakes and their supporting filmlets?

Now why would you want to do that?

There are dozens of witnesses of the assassination still alive. If you or anyone else seriously thinks the limo stopped, and that this proves the Z-film is fake, you are gonna need to track these witnesses down, and show them the film, and get them to state, in writing, that they believe the film to be fake. Otherwise, no non-believer will take your claims seriously.

WHY????

The witnesses ARE ALREADY ON RECORD.

That's like saying "OK, the Hollywood Seven say there is a black patch on the occiput, and you

have showed us the black patch on the occiput, but before anyone is going to believe you,

I want someone else to verify what you have done, and then an expert to verify them,

and an investigation to veryify that, and then an official report to be dissected by Vince

Bugliosi and verified by Gerald Posner...and then I will consider it.

Jack

[Jack White]

What difference does it make when he joined? Perhaps he is very interested in the subject matter, as are many others (look at the number of hits on these threads)

Peter, the truth will stand up to anything, if it's the truth. Doesn't matter who asks.

Kathy

Thanks for your support Kathy.

I'm more interested in what Peter thinks I'm "just in time" for? Is there an "Alterationists" Ball been organised?

I suppose bringing up the thread about "Questioning the motivations of posters" will fall on deaf moderator's ears? Quick off the mark getting me to change my photo though eh Peter?

It is appropriate to question the motivation of posters IF they are disruptive. So far Lee has NOT

been disruptive...just often wrong. He has impressions in his MIND of how thing ought to be

and disputes evidence contrary to his notion. This is not a game of psychological perception;

it is a murder investigation; armchair psychiatry will not solve it.

Jack

[Pamela Brown]

Greer is turned around facing JFK at least between frames 303-319. During this time, unless he was really reckless, he either had his foot off the gas pedal and/or on the brake. At the very least, we know that during this time the limo was slowing down, if not coming to a stop.

[Jack White]

Pamela is correct. Only a fool would have his foot on the accellerator while turning his head completely

to the rear twice. 59 witnesses say he STOPPED or SLOWED DRASTICALLY. Thus he had his foot on the brake.

Jack

[Pat Speer]

Agreed, I'm also most interested in the timing of Lee's entry to this Forum...coincidence, or just in time to cast a very hidden doubt on those who think the Z-film and many others [motion and still] were altered by the very same persons [entities] that murdered our President and our Polity. Just wondering out loud.....

Wait. So the powers that be have now conceded that alteration is possible, even probable, a la Lee, and are only interested in hiding that the limo stopped, as opposed to slowed-down?

Ridiculous.

If I were to propose everyone who studies the evidence and comes to a conclusion different than my own was some government plant I would be suspicious of everyone on this forum, and every other forum.

That this accusation stems from the issue of whether or not the limo came to a complete stop is particularly silly. As demonstrated in prior posts on this thread... most of the witnesses supposedly claiming the limo stopped merely said it slowed down or accelerated and would be more accurately described as limo DID NOT STOP witnesses. As demonstrated in my own post, moreover, a number of those SAYING the limo stopped didn't even see the shooting, or specified that the limo stopped AFTER the head shot, and should by no means be considered witnesses supporting that the limo stopped so JFK could be shot.

The claim the limo stopped just doesn't hold up under scrutiny. The claim the limo slowed down, however, not only holds up, it is documented in the films.

To assert as fact that the limo stopped, then, is to assert something as fact that is without a logical basis--neither the eyewitness evidence, when taken in total and analyzed, supports it, and neither does the photographic evidence. It is a tenet of a religion.

And no, I'm not the "enemy". If you read the thread linked below over at aaj, you'll see that I have exposed the religious nature of John McAdams' belief in the SBT, and that he has completely melted down rather than admit I'm right.

McAdams and the SBT

We need to be more logical than the lone nutters, not more religious.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

There are dozens of witnesses of the assassination still alive. If you or anyone else seriously thinks the limo stopped, and that this proves the Z-film is fake, you are gonna need to track these witnesses down, and show them the film, and get them to state, in writing, that they believe the film to be fake. Otherwise, no non-believer will take your claims seriously.

WHY????

The witnesses ARE ALREADY ON RECORD.

That's like saying "OK, the Hollywood Seven say there is a black patch on the occiput, and you

have showed us the black patch on the occiput, but before anyone is going to believe you,

I want someone else to verify what you have done, and then an expert to verify them,

and an investigation to veryify that, and then an official report to be dissected by Vince

Bugliosi and verified by Gerald Posner...and then I will consider it.

Jack

Jack, seeing as you were ambushed by the HSCA, I'd think you'd understand the truth of my observation. Let's say "the limo stopped and therefore the Z-film is fake and therefore there was a widespread government conspiracy" argument catches on, and is held up, circa 2013, as the proof we have been waiting for. Say, circa 2013, during the run of HBO's mini-series, Larry King invites CTs and LNs on the program to debate the evidence for a conspiracy. Say someone--I don't know--perhaps Jim Fetzer--brings up the limo stopped argument and claims all these witnesses said it stopped. Say that, in response, Gerry Posner or Vinnie Bugliosi, says, "Well, hold on there! That's a bunch of nonsense!" and pulls Bill Newman out and shows him the Z-film, and Newman says "Well, that's what I saw. I guess it didn't stop!" Point. Set. Match. The entire CT community is discredited in one second...

Do you really want that to happen? Because I don't. And you can bet your buttons it WILL happen should we continue claiming we know what eyewitnesses believe about Z-film alteration, without even asking...

Edited January 17, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Jack White]

There are dozens of witnesses of the assassination still alive. If you or anyone else seriously thinks the limo stopped, and that this proves the Z-film is fake, you are gonna need to track these witnesses down, and show them the film, and get them to state, in writing, that they believe the film to be fake. Otherwise, no non-believer will take your claims seriously.

WHY????

The witnesses ARE ALREADY ON RECORD.

That's like saying "OK, the Hollywood Seven say there is a black patch on the occiput, and you

have showed us the black patch on the occiput, but before anyone is going to believe you,

I want someone else to verify what you have done, and then an expert to verify them,

and an investigation to veryify that, and then an official report to be dissected by Vince

Bugliosi and verified by Gerald Posner...and then I will consider it.

Jack

Jack, seeing as you were ambushed by the HSCA, I'd think you'd understand the truth of my observation. Let's say "the limo stopped and therefore the Z-film is fake and therefore there was a widespread government conspiracy" argument catches on, and is held up, circa 2013, as the proof we have been waiting for. Say, circa 2013, during the run of HBO's mini-series, Larry King invites CTs and LNs on the program to debate the evidence for a conspiracy. Say someone--I don't know--perhaps Jim Fetzer--brings up the limo stopped argument and claims all these witnesses said it stopped. Say that, in response, Gerry Posner or Vinnie Bugliosi, says, "Well, hold on there! That's a bunch on nonsense!" and pulls Bill Newman out and shows him the Z-film, and Newman says "Well, that's what I saw. I guess it didn't stop!" Point. Set. Match. The entire CT community is discredited in one second...

Do you really want that to happen? Because I don't. And you can bet your buttons it WILL happen should we continue claiming we know what eyewitnesses believe about Z-film alteration, without even asking...

No. Newman will stick to his same story that he has told for 45 years. The LIMO DID STOP.

Game is over.

Jack

[Bernice Moore]

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

Totally wrong about what exactly Jack? Cast your "black & white" absolutist perception that has been built only on facts over what I have written.

Please?

LEE I FELT I SHOULD BRING DOWN THIS COMPLETE POST...AS FOR ALTGENS YES I KNOW HIS INFO I HAVE DONE HIS STUDIES..AND HE DID SAY THAT THE LIMO NEVER STOPPED..TO THE W/C..BUT ON THE OTHERHAND HE ALSO CHANGED HIS RECALL TO THEM IN LEAVING OUT ABOUT SHOTS HE FELT CAME FROM THE AREA OF THE PERGOLA RIGHT ACROSS FROM HIM ON ELM...AND THE PEOPLES. AND DPD AND SUCH IN THAT AREA AT THAT TIME...I DO NOT VERY OFTEN QUESTION THE RECALL OF ANY WITNESS I DO HOWEVER PICK UP ON WHAT THEY MAY LEAVE OUT OR CHANGE AS TIME WENT ON, WHETHER IT WAS THE INFLUENCE OF THOSE WHO QUESTIONED HIM OR THEM BEFORE THEY ACTUALLY PARTICIPATED IN THE W/C WHICH OTHER WITNESSES DID MENTION I HAVE NO IDEA THEN AGAIN HE WAS ONE OF THE MEDIA . AND THE MEDIA DID HAVE AND STILL DO PARTICIPATE IN THE COVER UP IMO ..SO WHAT HE SAID TO THE W/C TO ME IS WELL KIND OF 6 OF ONE AND A HALF A DOZEN OF ANOTHER LIKE TAKE ONES CHOICE......PLEASE EXCUSE THE CAPS...THANKS...B

Edited January 17, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Pat Speer]

LEE I FELT I SHOULD BRING DOWN THIS COMPLETE POST...AS FOR ALTGENS YES I KNOW HIS INFO I HAVE DONE HIS STUDIES..AND HE DID SAY THAT THE LIMO NEVER STOPPED..TO THE W/C..BUT ON THE OTHERHAND HE ALSO CHANGED HIS RECALL TO THEM IN LEAVING OUT ABOUT SHOTS HE FELT CAME FROM THE AREA OF THE PERGOLA RIGHT ACROSS FROM HIM ON ELM...AND THE PEOPLES. AND DPD AND SUCH IN THAT AREA AT THAT TIME...I DO NOT VERY OFTEN QUESTION THE RECALL OF ANY WITNESS I DO HOWEVER PICK UP ON WHAT THEY MAY LEAVE OUT OR CHANGE AS TIME WENT ON, WHETHER IT WAS THE INFLUENCE OF THOSE WHO QUESTIONED HIM OR THEM BEFORE THEY ACTUALLY PARTICIPATED IN THE W/C WHICH OTHER WITNESSES DID MENTION I HAVE NO IDEA THEN AGAIN HE WAS ONE OF THE MEDIA . AND THE MEDIA DID HAVE AND STILL DO PARTICIPATE IN THE COVER UP IMO ..SO WHAT HE SAID TO THE W/C TO ME IS WELL KIND OF 6 OF ONE AND A HALF A DOZEN OF ANOTHER LIKE TAKE ONES CHOICE......PLEASE EXCUSE THE CAPS...THANKS...B

I thought my compilation of Altgens' statements might prove informative in this light. As with all the eyewitness statements I've collected, I focused on the shooting itself. As a consequence, subsequent statements about the limo are not included. Still, it's clear that Altgens, from day one, described the shooting in a manner that does not support that the fatal shot came from in front of Kennedy. Apparently, he originally thought the shot came from the side of Kennedy, and then changed his mind and decided it must have come from behind. It's also interesting that, as Newman, he thought the shot impacted on the side of Kennedy's head, and not the front or the back of his head.

James Altgens can be seen in Zapruder frame 345 just to the east of Malcolm Summers. (11-22-63 eyewitness account, presented as an AP dispatch and found online) "There was a burst of noise - the second one I heard - and pieces of flesh appeared to fly from President Kennedy's car. Blood covered the whole left side of his head. Mrs. Kennedy saw what had happened to her husband. She grabbed him exclaiming, "Oh, No!". (11-22-63 AP report preceding the announcement of Kennedy's death and found in the Frederick Maryland News) "AP Photographer James W. Altgens said he saw blood on the President's head. Altgens said he heard two shots but thought someone was shooting fireworks until he saw the blood on the President. Altgens said he saw no one with a gun." (11-22-63 news bulletin on WBAP, shortly after the AP report) "The Associated Press reports from Dallas that President Kennedy was shot today just as his motorcade left the downtown section. Mrs. Kennedy is said to have jumped up and grabbed her husband and cried "Oh, no!" as the motorcade sped off. Photographer J.W. Altgens of the Associated Press said that he saw blood on the President's head. The photographer said he heard two shots but thought someone was shooting fireworks until he saw the blood on the President. He said he saw no one with a gun." (11-22-63 announcement on WFAA that the President had been shot) “An Associated Press photographer, James Altgens…reports he saw blood on the President’s head. The AP man said he heard two shots but that he thought someone was shooting fireworks until he saw blood on the President.” (11-22-63 AP dispatch, as reprinted in Cover-Up) “At first I thought the shots came from the opposite side of the street. I ran over there to see if I could get some pictures...I did not know until later where the shots came from." (5-24-64 article in the New York Herald-Tribune) "I was about 30 feet in front of the President's limousine on Mrs. Kennedy's side. I remember hearing what I thought was a firecracker at the instant I snapped the picture. I was going to make another picture, the one I was really set up for, when I realized what had happened and I froze, aghast." (6-5-64 FBI report, CD 1088 p.1-6) “at about the instant he snapped the picture, he heard a burst of noise which he thought was firecrackers… he does not know how many of these reports he heard…After taking the above photograph…he heard another report which he recognized as a gunshot. He said the bullet struck President Kennedy on the right side of his head and the impact knocked the President forward. Altgens stated pieces of flesh, blood, and bones appeared to fly from the right side of the President’s head and pass in front of Mrs. Kennedy to the left of the Presidential limousine. Altgens stated Mrs. Kennedy grabbed the President and Altgens heard her exclaim “Oh, no!” as the president slumped into her lap. Altgens said he also observed blood on the left side of the President’s head and face.” (7-22-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 7H517-525) “I made one picture at the time I heard a noise that sounded like a firecracker—I did not know it was a shot, but evidently my picture, as I recall, and it was almost simultaneously with the shot—the shot was just a fraction ahead of my picture, but that much—of course—at that time I figured it was nothing more than a firecracker, because from my position down here the sound was not of such volume that it would indicate to me it was a high velocity rifle…it sounded like it was coming up from behind the car from my position—I mean the first shot, and being fireworks—who counts fireworks explosions? I wasn’t keeping track of the number of pops that took place, but I could vouch for number 1 and I can vouch for the last shot, but I can not tell you how many shots were in between. There was not another shot after the President was struck in the head.” (on the head shot) “up to that time I didn’t know that the President had been shot previously. I still thought up until that time that all I heard was fireworks and that they were giving some sort of celebration to the President by popping these fireworks. It stunned me so at what I saw that I failed to do my duty and make the picture I was hoping to make.”

(Interview with CBS broadcast 6-26-67) “As I was getting ready to make some pictures why I heard this noise-- I thought it was a firecracker explosion—but I just went ahead and made the picture which shows the President right after he was struck by a bullet, struck in the neck, the first shot, and this was the picture that the Warren Report later fixed as being made two seconds after the shot was fired. And as they got in close to me, I was prepared to make the picture—I had my camera about at eye level—that’s when the President was shot in the head. And I do know that the President was still in an upright position, tilted, favoring Mrs. Kennedy. And at the time that he was struck by this blow to the head, it was so obvious that it came from behind. It had to come from behind because it caused him to bolt forward, dislodging him from this depression in the seat cushion, and already favoring Mrs. Kennedy, he automatically fell in that direction.” (No More Silence, p.41-59, published 1998) “I only recall the President hit once that I can vouch for because that first camera shot…made any definite conclusion uncertain. But this particular one where he was hit, the head shot, was obvious to everyone that it was a shooting, not fireworks. I don’t know how many shots there were. If I were guessing, I would figure that was probably the third shot. In other words, he was hit when I was taking the picture, and the fatal shot should have been somewhere around the third shot, and that should have been the last…The tissue, perhaps bone, a lot of fragments, all came my way…But the majority of the mass that was coming from his head came directly like a straight shot out my way on to the left in a straight line. When he fell over into her lap, the blood was on the left side of his face. There was no blood on the right hand side which suggested to me that the wound was more to the left than it was to the right.”

[Pat Speer]

Newman will stick to his same story that he has told for 45 years. The LIMO DID STOP.

Game is over.

Jack

Has he signed anything claiming, or have you filmed him claiming, that his belief the limo stopped is so strong that he now believes the Zapruder film is a fake? Because, if not, you're setting yourself up for another ambush.

[Bernice Moore]

b..

Having been a while since I read it, I was browsing through

LIFTON's book, "Best Evidence."

The following is from a 01NOV65 telephone conversation between LIFTON and

"Associated Press photographer/news photo editor/wire photo operator, JAMES

"Ike" WILLIAM ALTGENS,

<QUOTE>

He was friendly on the phone and mentioned quite casually that just before the

motorcade came by, a number of people suddenly appeared behind the wall on the

knoll. (84) He added that he thought it was an odd place to watch the parade

from since the car would speed up right there as it entered the Stemmons

Freeway. This was new, exciting information, but I was worried that Altgens

might be confusing this recollection with his description of people on the

overpass, which was mentioned in his Warren Commission testimony. But he

assured me he was talking about the wall on the grassy knoll--to the right of

the stairs when one faced the knoll.

When I asked Altgens if there were any police among the "people" he saw, he

replied, "I seem to remember that there were. (85)

(84) Author's memo, 11/1/65 conversation with Altgens

(85) Ibid

<END QUOTE>

Edited January 17, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Pat Speer]

Thanks, Bernice. Altgens originally reported "The procession still moved along slowly". Definitely not a limo stopped witness...

Edited January 17, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Paul Rigby]

When Stanley Marcus wrote "The absolutist is the man who thinks he alone possesses wisdom, patriotism, and virtue, who recognizes no obligation to support community decisions with which he disagrees; who...views the political process as a power struggle to impose conformity rather than (as) a means of reconciling differences." He could have been writing about you Jack.

Gosh, what a sinner Jack is - a genuine non-conformist who must be browbeaten into line. As opposed to good old Lee, who gives every indication of a fierce desire to gain brownie points by the zeal of his conformity:

“My own personal experience in such groups taught me that dissenters are frequently only inverted conformists…That is to say, he desperately wants popularity, attention (& sometimes even prestige) so that while he is willing to fight an unpopular cause, he struggles for personal popularity within the band of common dissidents…The result is that…the dissenter takes over the tactics and procedures of those he opposes.”

Harry Zitzler, “From Readers Letters: The Conforming Dissidents,” The Minority of One, May 1962, (Vol 4, No 5 [30]), p.15

And do everyone a favor and stop lumping all the witnesses together in one pot. Tell it how it is Jack. Twelve (12) people say they saw the limo STOP. Forty-Seven (47) saw is slow down.

Yeah, Jack, get honest like Lee - and omit all reference to the eyewitnesses who described Secret Servicemen swarming on the presidential limousine while it was stationary on Elm.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. So be it. I'll sit in the corner wearing my dunces hat and make apologies.

Quick, some one hand him the pointy hat before he slinks off to the corner...to reconsider, if nothing else, the folly of uncritically regurgitating the Duke of Earl's micro-analysis of the witnesses to the limo stop. Mind you, isn't that always the problem with conformists?

[Paul Rigby]

Jack, seeing as you were ambushed by the HSCA, I'd think you'd understand the truth of my observation. Let's say "the limo stopped and therefore the Z-film is fake and therefore there was a widespread government conspiracy" argument catches on, and is held up, circa 2013, as the proof we have been waiting for. Say, circa 2013, during the run of HBO's mini-series, Larry King invites CTs and LNs on the program to debate the evidence for a conspiracy. Say someone--I don't know--perhaps Jim Fetzer--brings up the limo stopped argument and claims all these witnesses said it stopped. Say that, in response, Gerry Posner or Vinnie Bugliosi, says, "Well, hold on there! That's a bunch of nonsense!" and pulls Bill Newman out and shows him the Z-film, and Newman says "Well, that's what I saw. I guess it didn't stop!" Point. Set. Match. The entire CT community is discredited in one second...

Yeah, let's imagine the horror of a dedicated defender of the OCT ambushing an advocate of an alternative, conspiratorial interpretation by pointing out the latter's mis-use of testimony....

Actually, no need. There are a number of interesting examples of this already out there on the web. Here's "Von Pein" doing precisely that to Vincent Salandria in a review of False Mystery from March 2006:

Mr. Salandria's earwitness selectivity, used to attempt to buttress the idea that shots came from the Grassy Knoll area of Dealey Plaza during the JFK shooting, is rather interesting, somewhat strange, and not very convincing. By utilizing, on page 2 of this publication, the selective testimony of only the witnesses who were located on the bridge atop the Triple Underpass (plus Lee Bowers in the railroad tower to the north of the bridge, who said the shots could have come from "either the Depository or the Underpass", which certainly doesn't FAVOR a Knoll shooter any more than a Depository sniper), Mr. Salandria has (IMO) actually bolstered the "Lone Assassin" position.

The reason I say that is -- Because the cited witnesses (Austin Miller, S.M. Holland, Thomas Murphy, and Frank Reilly) seemed to hear shots from ONLY the Knoll general area, although Reilly is actually closer to a "TSBD" witness than he is a "Knoll" one. And since there is no doubt at all that at least SOME shots did come from the Book Depository, it would tend to undercut and weaken these witness' claims of hearing the gunshots all coming from the front of JFK's car. Which would indicate, logically, that all of these "Triple Underpass witnesses" were located in an area of Dealey Plaza where the Depository shots sounded as if they had come from further west than they actually originated.

Witness Austin Miller, by the way, said he thought the shots had actually come from INSIDE the President's limousine itself! And yet he is still used to try and improve Mr. Salandria's theory of shots from the Knoll area, when he actually heard none from that specific location. Curious. (Although it's possible that the author was using Miller as a "pro-conspiracy" witness based only on another portion of his account of the shooting, when Miller also claimed to see "smoke or steam" on the Knoll following the shots that he thought came "from right there in the car". But this book's author doesn't mention that portion of Miller's account at all on page 2.)

"Curious," indeed, though anything but an isolated example of the gross dishonesty of the handling of Miller's testimony by advocates of a grassy knoll gunman.

Now imagine, if you will, the sheer awfulness of, say, Doug Horne representing the CT-ers in the kind of programme outlined by Pat in his post. Why, the watching audience might even be treated to an honest statement of Miller's belief that the shots came from inside the presidential limo - and that would never do, would it?