Alterationists: Thoughts from Gary Mack.

[Josiah Thompson]

This was all discussed and Fetzer's claims disposed of some time ago on this very Forum. The Zapruder, Nix and Bell films all agree in showing the motorcyclists did not speed ahead of the President's car to reach Chief Curry. A photographer on the other (west) side of the railroad overpass took a photo of the Presidential limousine just reaching the Chief Curry's car in the underpass. In this photo, Officer Chaney's motorcycle can be seen far in the rear just entering the underpass. In short, the photo record from Dealey Plaza refutes this claim. Fetzer, White, etc. then claimed that the Zapruder, Bell and Nix films all were altered. When the photo of Chaney trailing the limousine and pilot car by a large distance, they were asked if they believed that photo too was faked. They declined to answer.

In this instance, like the claim of Moorman-in-the-Street, a lot of work is done and the claim is refuted. However, Fetzer and company resuscitate it months later as it it had never been touched.

Your question was right on target, Mr. Dugan.

Josiah Thompson

Do the motorcycle patrolman say WHEN they went ahead of the President's car to inform Chief Curry?

Does SSA Winston Lawson ever say where the lead car was when the motorcycle cops rode up beside him?

or are there any pics that show them in Dealey, where they SHOULD be on the Z-film?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

John Costella discovered the problem with the film, where you can find his analysis of the witness reports in Dealey Plaza at assassinationresearch.com. It apparently occurred while the vehicles were stopped and before the limo reached the Triple Underpass. Tink his recycling is old claim that the films show the same thing, but if you stop and ask yourself how they could all show something that didn't happen--such as the bulging out of brains to the right-front--then you begin to see the game that he is playing. The car stop, Chaney riding forward, Mary and Jean in the street, and the blow-out to the left-rear had to be removed. Ask yourself, do you understand the medical evidence? Because you are being sold a bill of goods that disregards the massive blow-out to the left and rear. He was misleading his audience when he wrote SIX SECONDS (1967) and he continues to mislead you today--more than 40 years later! The man makes his living as a private investigator, yet he pretends not to know that photographs and films have to be authenticated to be admissible in court. He turns proper procedure on its head. Study the witness reports from Dealey Plaza and you will have a far better idea of what actually happened than by viewing the film, which he has repeatedly said is "the closest thing to absolute truth" we have about the assassination. That is poppycock! Read HOAX (2003), "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery", "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", and most of all Doug Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), Vol. IV, where he explains that film restoration experts have studied a 6k version of the forensic copy of the film, which is provided as such by the National Archives, and has discovered that the blow-out to the back of the head has been painted over in black and that the "blob" and the blood spray have been painted in. Go to "JFK: History, Memory, Legacy" on google and download Chapter 30, "Dealey Plaza Revisited", where you will find a copy of frame 374 and you can see the blow out to the back of the head and compare it to earlier frames. Go through that and you will not be taken in by the "pied piper" of JFK!

This was all discussed and Fetzer's claims disposed of some time ago on this very Forum. The Zapruder, Nix and Bell films all agree in showing the motorcyclists did not speed ahead of the President's car to reach Chief Curry. A photographer on the other (west) side of the railroad overpass took a photo of the Presidential limousine just reaching the Chief Curry's car in the underpass. In this photo, Officer Chaney's motorcycle can be seen far in the rear just entering the underpass. In short, the photo record from Dealey Plaza refutes this claim. Fetzer, White, etc. then claimed that the Zapruder, Bell and Nix films all were altered. When the photo of Chaney trailing the limousine and pilot car by a large distance, they were asked if they believed that photo too was faked. They declined to answer.

In this instance, like the claim of Moorman-in-the-Street, a lot of work is done and the claim is refuted. However, Fetzer and company resuscitate it months later as it it had never been touched.

Your question was right on target, Mr. Dugan.

Josiah Thompson

Do the motorcycle patrolman say WHEN they went ahead of the President's car to inform Chief Curry?

Does SSA Winston Lawson ever say where the lead car was when the motorcycle cops rode up beside him?

or are there any pics that show them in Dealey, where they SHOULD be on the Z-film?

Edited January 10, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack has put it well: That Greer pulled the limo to the left and stopped was such powerful proof of Secret Service complicity that it had to be taken out. Jack White, a legendary photo-analyst, has detected dozens and dozens of anomalies in the photos and films from the assassination and has been the most consistent critic of the presumption of authenticity of the film in the history of its study. “The Zapruder film was a necessary part of the plot so the conspirators could control the official story,” White observed. “The motorcade stopping and anything associated with that sequence had to be removed. The lead car pulled to the curb, along with the other cars, and Chaney rode forward to advise Curry. Any actual film of the motorcade at that moment would show chaos—conflicting with the needs of the official story. It had to be massively edited to keep control.” And here is my article about it.

NEW PROOF OF JFK FILM FAKERY

Description: A new study of eyewitness reports in assassinationresearch.com has revealed a major discrepancy between the sequence of events as these witnesses observed it and the sequence presented in home movies of the assassination known as the Zapruder film and the Nix film. The witnesses reported that a motorcycle patrolman rode forward to the lead car to advise the Chief of Police the President had been shot. Neither film shows it.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ji..._of_jfk_fil.htm

Madison, WI (OpEdNews) February 5, 2008 — The editor of Assassination Research, James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., has announced the discovery of new proof that the home movies of the assassination of JFK known as the Zapruder film and a second known as the Nix film are fakes. (The Nix film was taken from the opposite side looking toward “the grassy knoll.”) Both were subject to extensive alteration to fabricate evidence of the crime and keep the truth about the sequence of events in Dealey Plaza from the American people. Fetzer, McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota, observed that the films are authentic only if the visible events they record correspond to the actual sequence of events at the time. “This proof is based upon the convergent testimony of motorcycle patrolmen, members of the Secret Service, and the Dallas Chief of Police. That it contradicts the official account of the assassination recorded in the films qualifies as a major breakthrough.”

The evidence emerged as an unexpected outcome of the collation of eyewitness reports in Dealey Plaza conducted by John P. Costella, Ph.D., who co-edits assassinationresearch.com with Fetzer. Costella earned his Ph.D. in physics with a specialty in electromagnetism, including the physics of light and of moving objects. What he discovered were multiple, consistent and reinforcing reports that James Chaney, a motorcycle patrolman who was to the right rear of the presidential limousine, rode forward to tell Jesse Curry, Dallas Chief of Police—who was in the lead car with the head of the Secret Service in Dallas, Agent Forrest Sorrels, and a second Secret Service Agent, Winston Lawson—that the President had been shot. This led Chief Curry to issue instructions for the limousine to be escorted to Parkland Hospital, where the President would be pronounced dead 30 minutes later. Bobby Hargis, a motorcycle patrolman riding on the left rear, confirmed Chaney’s report. But this sequence is in neither the Zapruder film nor the Nix film.

During the past dozen years, substantial evidence of the Zapruder film’s alteration has accumulated in a research effort that became serious in 1996 during a symposium at the JFK Lancer Conference in November. Fetzer brought together numerous experts on the film, including Jack White, David W. Mantik, and Noel Twyman, the author of Bloody Treason (1997), which includes scientific studies of the film’s authenticity. Twyman, a retired engineer, had noticed that the driver of the President’s limousine, SSA William Greer, had turned to look at JFK and then turned back with preternatural speed. He hired a professional tennis player to study how fast human head turns could be made and determined that Greer’s head turns were approximately twice as fast as humanly possible. That might not sound like much initially, but it would be like converting a 4 minute mile into a 2 minute mile. Based upon this research, Twyman had discovered objective evidence of the removal of frames from the film.

Studies published in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003), provide overwhelming additional proof of alteration, including technical studies by Costella. For example, Frame 232, which had previously been published in LIFE magazine, turned out to have optically impossible features. He also discovered that, in recreating the film, which had to have its frames re-shot using sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects—in order to avoid disclosing the deception via “ghost images” in the sprocket area, which cannot be reproduced—the conspirators had made mistakes during their reinsertion of images of the Stemmons Freeway sign and of a lamppost. Moreover, Erwin Schwartz, an associate of Abraham Zapruder, reported seeing JFK’s brains blown outward to the left and to the rear, while several agents of the Secret Service had reported being nauseated by the blood and the brains splattered across the trunk of the car. Neither is visible today in “the Zapruder film”. A visual seminar of Costella’s research is archived at assasssinationscience.com.

Part of the power of Costella’s new findings is that they can be appraised by anyone with access to the film, which is archived at the same site, and his collation of reports at Assassination Research 5/1 (2007), assassinationresearch/v5n1/v5n1costella.pdf . As illustrations of what he has uncovered, here are some of the reports from the officials who were involved:

* James Chaney (motorcycle patrolman on right rear of the Presidential limousine): “I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. And then he instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hospital and that Parkland was standing by.”

* Bobby Hargis (motorcycle patrolman on left rear of the Presidential limousine): “The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward and announced to the Chief that the President had been shot.”

* Winston Lawson (Secret Service Agent in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “A motorcycle escort officer pulled along side our Lead Car and said the President had been shot. Chief Curry gave a signal over the radio for police to converge on the area of the incident.”

* Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service Agent in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “A motorcycle patrolman pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled, ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer responded in the affirmative.”

* Chief Jesse Curry (in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “. . . about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney, rode up beside us and I asked if something happened back there and he said, ‘Yes,’ and I said ‘Has somebody been shot?” And he said, ‘I think so.’”

There are multiple sources for their testimony, which is corroborated by that of others, including, for example, Marrion Baker, a Dallas Police Officer, who immediately thereafter entered the Book Depository and confronted Lee Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom. Costella’s study provides additional citations.

This stunning new proof of the fabrication of the two most important films of the assassination focuses attention on the agency in immediate control of the most important evidence in the assassination, which was the Secret Service. Indeed, there are more than 15 indications of Secret Service complicity in setting up JFK for the hit, including leaving two Secret Service agents at Love Field; ordering the vehicles in the wrong sequence, with the President’s first instead of in the middle of the motorcade; not welding manhole covers; not covering the open windows; allowing the crowd to spill out into the street; ordering the 112th Military Intelligence unit to “stand down”; directing the accompanying motorcycle officers to not ride forward beyond the rear wheels; taking an improper motorcade route; not responding when shots began to be fired; pulling the limo to the left and to a halt to insure he would be killed; using a bucket of water and sponge to clean blood and brains from the back seat at Parkland Hospital; sending the limo back to Ford Motor Company to be dismantled and rebuilt; and removing autopsy photos and X-rays from Bethesda, making them unavailable during preparation of the autopsy report. The fabrication and distortion of the photographic record is the final missing piece of the complex puzzle of the cover-up in the assassination.

These are not the only indications of Secret Service complicity, Fetzer said. In the wake of the enormous resurgence of interest in the assassination following the release of Oliver Stone’s “JFK”, Congress passed a JFK Records Act creating a five-member civilian board entrusted with the responsibility of declassifying documents and records held by the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service, and other government organizations, where the panel’s decisions could only be overridden by the President himself, who was then Bill Clinton. Although Clinton never intervened to stop the release of evidence, when the Secret Service learned that the panel wanted copies of Presidential Protection Records for other motorcades involving President Kennedy, instead of releasing them it destroyed them. “I can’t imagine a more telling indication of consciousness of guilt,” said Fetzer, who has edited three books and chaired or co-chaired four conferences on the death of JFK.

Among the most important proofs of film alteration have been those provided by Doug Horne, who became Senior Analyst for Military Affairs for the civilian board (technically, the Assassination Records Review Board or the “ARRB”), and by Rich DellaRosa, who reports having viewed the unaltered film on three occasions. Horne interviewed Homer McMahon, who was then in charge of the color photo section of the National Photo Interpretation Center, who told him that an agent identifying himself as “William Smith” brought him a copy of the film the night of the assassination, asking him to prepare a briefing board for an unidentified official. He said he had viewed the film at least ten times and determined that there had been six to eight impacts from at least three different directions. Horne’s report appears in Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000) along with studies of the medical evidence demonstrating that JFK was hit four times: once in the throat (from in front), once in the back (from behind), and twice in the head (from behind and from in front). So if Connally was hit as many as three times (from the side), there were as many as seven impacts from three directions.

Another fascinating source of information has come from Rich DellaRosa, who today moderates a research site at JFKresearch.com. He reports having seen what appears to be the original film on three occasions. He observed the limo driver steer to the left. The stop was so sudden that it jostled the occupants. This observation is confirmed by close study of the Zapruder film itself, where frames show passengers being thrown forward immediately after the head shot at Frame 313. This indicates that the sequence of events has been reversed. There were actually two head shots before the vehicle resumed its forward movement. DellaRosa’s report can be found as Appendix E of The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003), which includes a color photo section that reveals the massive blow-out to the President’s head, which is visible in Frame 374. It corresponds closely to diagrams from physicians and Mantik’s study of the alteration of the cranial X-rays. These fabrications were used to discount witness reports (at least 40, including at Parkland and at Bethsda) of such a blowout.

That Greer pulled the limo to the left and stopped was such powerful proof of Secret Service complicity that it had to be taken out. Jack White, a legendary photo-analyst, has detected dozens and dozens of anomalies in the photos and films from the assassination and has been the most consistent critic of the presumption of authenticity of the film in the history of its study. “The Zapruder film was a necessary part of the plot so the conspirators could control the official story,” White observed. “The motorcade stopping and anything associated with that sequence had to be removed. The lead car pulled to the curb, along with the other cars, and Chaney rode forward to advise Curry. Any actual film of the motorcade at that moment would show chaos—conflicting with the needs of the official story. It had to be massively edited to keep control.”

Earlier studies of the film’s authenticity have included disagreements between eyewitnesses and the film; disagreements between early viewers of the film in November 1963 versus what is currently available; disagreements between the film and other photographs and movies; disagreements between the film and the first two reenactments; and internal inconsistencies in the film. In Assassination Science (1998), David W. Mantik, Ph.D., M.D., laid out a summary of the evidence then available of Zapruder alteration. He observed that Milicent Cranor, an independent investigator, had noticed reports that Chaney had traveled to the lead car, which is not present in the Nix film in PROBE (November-December 1997). Costella's independent research thus substantiates and corroborates earlier studies by Mantik and Cranor, which were not fully appreciated at the time.

In The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003), Mantik, who earned a Ph.D. in physics from Wisconsin and an M.D. from Michigan, demonstrated that an early study by Luis Alvarez, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, often cited in support of the film’s authenticity, involved the selective use of evidence, and that an analysis of the Muchmore film­—another of perhaps a half-dozen most important films covering various parts of the assassination—showed that it, too, had been subjected to alteration and could not be taken to be authentic. Those who attempt to defend the authenticity of the Zapruder film by contending that its alteration would have required alterations to these other films have lost their presumption that the other films have not been altered. Costella’s proof not only demonstrates the alteration of the Zapruder film in a fashion that even non-experts can see with their own eyes, but also adds the Nix film to the list of those whose authenticity has been impeached.

“The official account presented in The Warren Report (1964) and in Gerald Posner’s Case Closed (1992),” Fetzer said, “is predicated upon the ‘magic bullet’ theory and the authenticity of the films and photographs." The "magic bullet" theory, however, is not only provably false but not even anatomically possible as his study, “Reasoning about Assassinations” (2005), assassinationscience.com/ReasoningAboutAssassinations.pdf , explains. "I have been stunned by the lengths to which some have gone in their attempts to defend the Zapruder film from criticism. Josiah Thompson, author of Six Seconds in Dallas (1967), an analysis based on the film, recently appeared in ‘Oswald’s Ghost,’ an obvious work of disinformation, and asserted, ‘The Zapruder film is the basic evidence in this case’! That is not only an abuse of language—since, as David Lifton, author of Best Evidence (1980), has emphasized, the body is the best evidence—but we have conclusive evidence that the film has been faked.”

Fetzer also expressed disillusionment with Noam Chomsky, who has dismissed the very idea that JFK was taken out by a conspiracy. “Major policy issues were involved here, including withdrawing our advisors from Vietnam, reforming or abolishing the Fed, cracking down on organized crime, and cutting the oil depletion allowance. LBJ wanted to be ‘President of all the people’ and his chance was slipping through his fingers. Even Nixon was quoted in the Dallas paper that morning speculating that he would not be on the ticket in 1964. Discoveries like these indicate high-level complicity by elements of various agencies, including the Secret Service and the FBI. I hope that skeptics like Chomsky and zealots like Thompson finally come to their senses. Not only is the Zapruder film a fake but other films and photographs, such as the Nix and Muchmore, have been altered to conform to it.”

Do the motorcycle patrolman say WHEN they went ahead of the President's car to inform Chief Curry?

Does SSA Winston Lawson ever say where the lead car was when the motorcycle cops rode up beside him?

or are there any pics that show them in Dealey, where they SHOULD be on the Z-film?

Edited January 10, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

Jim...In your excellent piece, I offer only one correction.

Rich DellaRosa's report does NOT consist of seeing an UNALTERED VERSION OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM.

What Rich saw is what has come to be called "THE OTHER FILM". But he has never claimed it was the

unaltered Z film. What it shows is from a very similar if not the same viewpoint with all the things

missing from the Z film shown.

He had occasion to see this same film THREE TIMES, which reinforces his memory very strongly.

The FIRST time he saw the film, he ASSUMED it was the Zapruder film. At later viewings he came

to recognize it was NOT the Z film.

This may seem like a difference without a distinction, but I think Rich will agree that I am describing

his observations correctly. He might put it differently, but I think my impression is correct.

That is why he calls it THE OTHER FILM, not THE UNALTERED Z FILM.

Jack

Edited January 10, 2010 by Jack White

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

What Happened on Elm Street? The Eyewitnesses Speak

http://assassinationresearch.com, vol. 5, no. 1, pages 85-86

Motorcycle police officer Chaney rode up to the lead car and

spoke to Police Chief Jesse Curry.

James Chaney (motorcycle policeman, on the right rear fender of the Presi-

dential limousine), November 22, 1963: “Then the, uh, second shot came,

well then I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the

face by the second bullet. He slumped forward into Mrs. Kennedy’s lap,

and uh, it was apparent to me that we’re being fired upon. I went ahead

of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been

hit. And then he instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hos-

pital, and he had Parkland standing by. I went on up ahead of the—[lead

car]—to notify the officer that was leading the escort that he [the Presi-

dent] had been hit and we’re going to have to move out.” [interview with

Bill Lord of ABC News for WFAA-TV, as quoted in Trask, That Day in Dal-

las]

Bobby Hargis (motorcycle policeman on the left rear fender of the Presiden-

tial limousine), November 23, 1963: “The motorcycle officer on the right

side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward, and an-

nounced to the Chief that the President had been shot.” [Daily News re-

port]

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

dential limousine), November 28, 1963: “I noted that the President’s car

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

motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled ‘Is any-

body hurt?’, to which the officer replied in the affirmative, and Chief

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

had gotten just about under the underpass when the President’s car

pulled up alongside, and at that time Chief Curry’s car had started to

pick up speed, and someone yelled to get to the nearest hospital, and

Chief Curry broadcast for the hospital to be ready.” [statement: 21H548]

Winston Lawson (Secret Service agent, in the lead car ahead of the Presi-

dential limousine), December 1, 1963: “A motorcycle escort officer pulled

alongside our Lead Car and said the President had been shot. Chief

Curry gave a signal over his radio for police to converge on the area of the

incident.” [statement: CE772: 17H632]

James Chaney (motorcycle policeman, on the right rear fender of the Presi-

dential limousine), from the testimony of Marrion Baker (Dallas Police

Officer, on Houston Street when the shots started), March 25, 1964: “I

talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two shots hit

Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor. (Mr. Belin:

“Where was he?”) Mr. Baker: “He was on the right rear to the car or to

the side, and then at that time the chief of police, he didn’t know any-

thing about this [the shooting], and he [Chaney] moved up and told him

[the chief], and then that was during the time that the Secret Service

men were trying to get in the car ….” [Warren Commission testimony:

3H266]

Bobby Hargis (motorcycle policeman on the left rear fender of the Presiden-

tial limousine), April 8, 1964: “… when President Kennedy straightened

back up in the car the bullet hit 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 a bloody water. It wasn’t really blood. And at that

time the Presidential car slowed down. I heard someone 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 Of-

ficer 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 [the Presi-

dent] was coming through, and that is when the Presidential limousine

shot off ….” [Warren Commission testimony: 6H294]

Chief Jesse Curry (in lead car, in front of the Presidential limousine),

April 15, 1964: “I heard a sharp report. We were near the railroad yards

at the time, and I didn’t know—I didn’t know exactly where this report

came from, whether it was above us or where, but this was followed by

two more reports, and at that time I looked in my rear view mirror and I

saw some commotion in the President’s caravan and realized that proba-

bly something was wrong, and it seemed to be speeding up, and about

this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney rode up be-

side us and I asked if something happened back there and he said, ‘Yes,’

and I said, ‘Has somebody been shot?’ And he said, ‘I think so.’ ” [Warren

Commission testimony: 12H28]

Winston Lawson (Secret Service agent, in the lead car ahead of the Presi-

dential limousine), April 23, 1964: “… I recall noting a police officer

pulled up in a motorcycle alongside of us, and mentioned that the Presi-

dent had been hit.” [Warren Commission testimony: 4H353]

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

dential limousine), May 7, 1964: “Within about 3 seconds, there were two

more similar reports. And I said, ‘Let’s get out of here’ and looked back,

all the way back, then, to where the President’s car was, and I saw some

confusion, movement there, and the car just seemed to lurch forward.

And, in the meantime, a motorcycle officer had run up on the right-hand

side and the chief yelled to him, ‘Anybody hurt?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ He said,

‘Lead us to the hospital.’ And the chief took his microphone and told

them to alert the hospital, and said, ‘Surround the building.’ He didn’t

say what building. He just said, ‘Surround the building.’ ” [Warren Com-

mission testimony: 7H34

Do the motorcycle patrolman say WHEN they went ahead of the President's car to inform Chief Curry?

If you read the complete reports of the witnesses, it took place when the limo came to a stop and just

as it began to accelerate toward the Triple Underpass. Chief Curry said, We were near the railroad yards

at the time, and I didn’t know—. . . and about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer

Chaney rode up beside us . . .

Does SSA Winston Lawson ever say where the lead car was when the motorcycle cops rode up beside him?

SAA Forrest Sorrels said: A motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled ‘Is any-

body hurt?’, to which the officer replied in the affirmative, and Chief Curry immediately broadcast to

surround the building. By that time we had gotten just about under the underpass when the President’s car

pulled up alongside . . .

or are there any pics that show them in Dealey, where they SHOULD be on the Z-film?

John or Jack should be able to address that, but these events were removed from the photos and films

to conceal the limo stop. FBI agents were stationed at the photo processing plants around Dallas for

two weeks to screen the photos and films, taking anything that pertained to the assassination and

leaving a card. Richard Trask, PICTURES OF THE PAIN (1994), shows the card they left on page 590.

Edited January 10, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Short answers:

Do the motorcycle patrolman say WHEN they went ahead of the President's car to inform Chief Curry?

If you read the complete reports of the witnesses, it took place when the limo came to a stop and just

as it began to accelerate toward the Triple Underpass. Chief Curry said, We were near the railroad yards

at the time, and I didn’t know—. . . and about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer

Chaney rode up beside us . . .

Does SSA Winston Lawson ever say where the lead car was when the motorcycle cops rode up beside him?

SAA Forrest Sorrels said: A motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled ‘Is any-

body hurt?’, to which the officer replied in the affirmative, and Chief Curry immediately broadcast to

surround the building. By that time we had gotten just about under the underpass when the President’s car

pulled up alongside . . .

or are there any pics that show them in Dealey, where they SHOULD be on the Z-film?

John or Jack should be able to address that, but these events were removed from the photos and films

to conceal the limo stop. FBI agents were stationed at the photo processing plants around Dallas for

two weeks to screen the photos and films, taking anything that pertained to the assassination and

leaving a card. Richard Trask, PICTURES OF THE PAIN (1994), shows the card they left on page 590.

Do the motorcycle patrolman say WHEN they went ahead of the President's car to inform Chief Curry?

Does SSA Winston Lawson ever say where the lead car was when the motorcycle cops rode up beside him?

or are there any pics that show them in Dealey, where they SHOULD be on the Z-film?

Edited January 10, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Thanks, Jack. And based on Horne's new work, I take it that the first film reached the NIPC on

Saturday evening and the second on Sunday, where I say here it came already Friday evening!

Jim...In your excellent piece, I offer only one correction.

Rich DellaRosa's report does NOT consist of seeing an UNALTERED VERSION OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM.

What Rich saw is what has come to be called "THE OTHER FILM". But he has never claimed it was the

unaltered Z film. What it shows is from a very similar if not the same viewpoint with all the things

missing from the Z film shown.

He had occasion to see this same film THREE TIMES, which reinforces his memory very strongly.

The FIRST time he saw the film, he ASSUMED it was the Zapruder film. At later viewings he came

to recognize it was NOT the Z film.

This may seem like a difference without a distinction, but I think Rich will agree that I am describing

his observations correctly. He might put it differently, but I think my impression is correct.

That is why he calls it THE OTHER FILM, not THE UNALTERED Z FILM.

Jack

[John Dugan]

How could any of the motorcylces get ahead of the presidential limo to tell Chief Curry the President has been shot, in the few seconds that the shots were fired, and still be in the Z-film? Did the cops say they rode up ahead of the limo while IN Dealy Plaza or did they just state that they DID at some point on the way to the hospital?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

John, William Greer, the driver, pulled the limo to the left and to a halt to make sure JFK would be killed. (See Costella's review of the witness testimony on this point, too.) While it was stopped (for a few seconds), Officer Chaney rode forward to tell Chief Curry that the president had been shot. Mary and Jean had stepped into the street to take a Polaroid and JFK was hit in the right temple, blowing his brains to the left-rear. All of this revealed that the Secret Service had been involved and had to be taken out. So they took it out when they recreated the film, painted over the blow-out at the back of his head and painted in the "blob" and blood spray to make it look as if he had been shot from behind, when the blow out to the left-rear showed he had been shot from in front! Now Doug Horne has had film restoration experts took at a 6k version of the forensic copy provided by the National Archives, and they have found that the back of the head wound was painted over in black and the "blob" and blood spray was painted in. And today there are as many as eight experts who concur! If you go to http://www.und.edu/instruct/jfkconference/ and download Chapter 30, "Dealey Plaza Revisited", I think you will gain a better understanding, especially when you see that in frame 374 you can actually see the blow-out to the back of his head, which has been painted over in black in earlier frames.

Do the motorcycle patrolman say WHEN they went ahead of the President's car to inform Chief Curry?

If you read the complete reports of the witnesses, it took place when the limo came to a stop and just

as it began to accelerate toward the Triple Underpass. Chief Curry said, We were near the railroad yards

at the time, and I didn’t know—. . . and about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer

Chaney rode up beside us . . .

Does SSA Winston Lawson ever say where the lead car was when the motorcycle cops rode up beside him?

SAA Forrest Sorrels said: A motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled ‘Is any-

body hurt?’, to which the officer replied in the affirmative, and Chief Curry immediately broadcast to

surround the building. By that time we had gotten just about under the underpass when the President’s car

pulled up alongside . . .

or are there any pics that show them in Dealey, where they SHOULD be on the Z-film?

John or Jack should be able to address that, but these events were removed from the photos and films

to conceal the limo stop. FBI agents were stationed at the photo processing plants around Dallas for

two weeks to screen the photos and films, taking anything that pertained to the assassination and

leaving a card. Richard Trask, PICTURES OF THE PAIN (1994), shows the card they left on page 590.

How could any of the motorcylces get ahead of the presidential limo to tell Chief Curry the President has been shot, in the few seconds that the shots were fired, and still be in the Z-film? Did the cops say they rode up ahead of the limo while IN Dealy Plaza or did they just state that they DID at some point on the way to the hospital?

Edited January 10, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

Jim, I withdraw my "defense" of Bill Kelley. While I had assumed by his support for Horne that he was all aboard the alteration express, some of the posts you cited suggest that perhaps he is not so sure.

Now for some simple questions...

You keep saying that some Hollywood film "experts" agree that the back of Kennedy's head has been painted out on the film. You present this as proof the film is a forgery.

Jack White has similarly said that the film has been altered and is of no evidentiary value.

Isn't this a contradiction?

If the back of the head has been "altered", and this alteration can be detected, doesn't it suggest that 1) the other frames are not altered, and 2) that the unaltered frames, including the much earlier frames proving that Kennedy was not leaning far enough forward to support the single-bullet theory, are actually of value?

If not, WHY not? Do you really expect us to believe:

1) that "they" created a fake film, and THEN decided to paint in the back of the head on the fake film?

and

2) that arguing the Z-film is fake has a better chance of succeeding in discrediting the LN crowd than arguing that the single-bullet theory is a fraud, and using the evidence already accepted by the vast majority of the public--the Z-film--to do it?

Have you even studied the HSCA? Do you realize that: 1) their medical "experts" believed the single-bullet theory only possible if Kennedy was hit behind the sign in the Z-film; 2) their photo experts concluded he was hit almost a second before he was behind the sign in the Z-film, and 3) the trajectory expert hired to show Kennedy to have been leaning far enough forward before he was behind the sign was so brazenly dishonest he claimed the Z-film showed Kennedy to be leaning further forward before being hit in the back than in the frames just before the fatal impact at frame 313...a conclusion entirely out of sync with the Z-film?

So...the Z-film debunks the single-bullet theory. And the LNs know it. Which is why program after program arguing against a conspiracy has relied on cartoons and "simulations" in order to misrepresent what is shown in the Z-film...

So...should we really then push that the Z-film is a "forgery" and of "no value" when it single-handedly destroys the single-bullet theory, and thus the single-assassin conclusion?

If so, why?

I swear sometimes it appears to me that you'd rather have 20 to 30% of the people believe the government killed Kennedy and pulled off this incredibly convoluted cover-up than have 70 to 80% of the people believe some unnamed group killed Kennedy and the government covered it up. Am I wrong?

Is pointing the finger at the government itself, as opposed to a few select individuals within the government, or the mafia, or LBJ and his cronies, more important than convincing historians and the mainstream media what seems obvious to most everyone on this forum--that more than one shooter fired at President Kennedy, and that Oswald wasn't among them?

Edited January 10, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jim, I withdraw my "defense" of Bill Kelley. While I had assumed by his support for Horne that he was all aboard the alteration express, some of the posts you cited suggest that perhaps he is not so sure.

Now for some simple questions...

You keep saying that some Hollywood film "experts" agree that the back of Kennedy's head has been painted out on the film. You present this as proof the film is a forgery.

Jack White has similarly said that the film has been altered and is of no evidentiary value.

Isn't this a contradiction?

Yes. Jack is usually right, but in this case he is wrong. A faked film is proof of fakery and of the existence of a

cover-up, where only a few sources--including the Secret Service and high government officials--could have had

the film recreated. Using witness testimony and validated medical evidence, for example, we can figure out what

parts of the film are accurate and which are not. We know that the timeline has been contracted. Greer brought

the limo to a halt to make sure JFK would be killed and, during that interval, he was hit twice in the head. But it

was such a glaring indication of Secret Service complicity that it had to be taken out and the film fabricated.

If the back of the head has been "altered", and this alteration can be detected, doesn't it suggest that 1) the other frames are not altered, and 2) that the unaltered frames, including the much earlier frames proving that Kennedy was not leaning far enough forward to support the single-bullet theory, are actually of value?

Yes. In particular, I noticed that, in frame 374, you can actually see the blow-out to the back of the head and the

skull flap that interests you. The shape of the wound closely approximates David Mantik's definition of "Area P" of

the lateral-cranial X-ray, which he has defined using optical density studies, and, in a more general way, diagrams

from McClelland and Crenshaw--and, of course, reports of a blow-out at that location from more than 40 witnesses.

If you go to http://www.und.edu/instruct/jfkconference/ and download Chapter 30, "Dealey Plaza Revisited", you will

appreciate what I am saying when you see for yourself that you can observe the blow-out to the back of his head.

If not, WHY not? Do you really expect us to believe:

1) that "they" created a fake film, and THEN decided to paint in the back of the head on the fake film?

No. Painting over the blow-out in black and painting in the "blob" and blood spray were essential to its alteration.

and

2) that arguing the Z-film is fake has a better chance of succeeding in discrediting the LN crowd than arguing that the single-bullet theory is a fraud, and using the evidence already accepted by the vast majority of the public--the Z-film--to do it?

Actually, yes--because we are such a visually-oriented society. The proof in this case is so simple that anyone can see

it and understand it, which I anticipate we will all have the opportunity to do when these experts reveal their findings.

Have you even studied the HSCA? Do you realize that: 1) their medical "experts" believed the single-bullet theory only possible if Kennedy was hit behind the sign in the Z-film; 2) their photo experts concluded he was hit almost a second before he was behind the sign in the Z-film, and 3) the trajectory expert hired to show Kennedy to have been leaning far enough forward before he was behind the sign was so brazenly dishonest he claimed the Z-film showed Kennedy to be leaning further forward before being hit in the back than in the frames just before the fatal impact at frame 313...a conclusion entirely out of sync with the Z-film?

They were pulling and stretching to try to make an impossible theory fit a lot of imperfectly falsified evidence, alas!

So...the Z-film debunks the single-bullet theory. And the LNs know it. Which is why program after program arguing against a conspiracy has relied on cartoons and "simulations" in order to misrepresent what is shown in the Z-film...

You mean, because of the back-and-to-the-left motion, which turns out to be an artifact--an unintended consequence

of how the film was faked (by merging two shots into one)? But it is therefore only an illusory "refutation" of the LNs.

So...should we really then push that the Z-film is a "forgery" and of "no value" when it single-handedly destroys the single-bullet theory, and thus the single-assassin conclusion?

If so, why?

Because we have to base our arguments on authentic evidence. But once the public sees how blatantly the film has

been faked, it is going to be no contest! These Hollywood guys have broken through the cover-up once and for all.

I swear sometimes it appears to me that you'd rather have 20 to 30% of the people believe the government killed Kennedy and pulled off this incredibly convoluted cover-up than have 70 to 80% of the people believe some unnamed group killed Kennedy and the government covered it up. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong. I want 100% of the people to "get it" on the basis of genuine evidence, this time of fabrication!

Is pointing the finger at the government itself, as opposed to few select individuals within the government, or the mafia, or LBJ and his cronies, more important than convincing historians and the mainstream media what seems obvious to most everyone on this forum--that more than one shooter fired at President Kennedy, and that Oswald wasn't among them?

Once the people understand the massiveness of the cover-up, it will not be difficult to explain the who and why of the

assassination. James Douglass, JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE (2007), has already done a magnificent job of that!

Thanks for your open-mindedness, Pat. I admire you for that. Your example will be an inspiration for others!

Edited January 10, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Paul Rigby]

Is pointing the finger at the government itself, as opposed to a few select individuals within the government, or the mafia, or LBJ and his cronies, more important than convincing historians and the mainstream media what seems obvious to most everyone on this forum--that more than one shooter fired at President Kennedy, and that Oswald wasn't among them?

It isn't "the government," Pat, to whom the finger is pointed by alterationism, as you well know: The alterationists, this writer included, point the finger directly at an element of the Secret Service, the presidential bodyguard, as the primary instrument of the assassination. The distinction is of profound significance, as a moments reflection will disclose.

Establishing that a plot hatched within the intelligence establishment, of which the SS is a small, but crucial component, claimed Kennedy's life offers America the possibility of reform and renewal: a broad, vague assertion of conspiracy, by figures unknown, does not.

The crucial nexus is that between the CIA and the SS, for what is the plot, in the last analysis but a counterintelligence operation with a domestic target? It was, after all, James Jesus Angleton and his SIG unit who ran Oswald and dominated the plot. And, through a figure like Epstein, intervened so interesting within the literature of the case.

[William Kelly]

Is pointing the finger at the government itself, as opposed to a few select individuals within the government, or the mafia, or LBJ and his cronies, more important than convincing historians and the mainstream media what seems obvious to most everyone on this forum--that more than one shooter fired at President Kennedy, and that Oswald wasn't among them?

It isn't "the government," Pat, to whom the finger is pointed by alterationism, as you well know: The alterationists, this writer included, point the finger directly at an element of the Secret Service, the presidential bodyguard, as the primary instrument of the assassination. The distinction is of profound significance, as a moments reflection will disclose.

Establishing that a plot hatched within the intelligence establishment, of which the SS is a small, but crucial component, claimed Kennedy's life offers America the possibility of reform and renewal: a broad, vague assertion of conspiracy, by figures unknown, does not.

The crucial nexus is that between the CIA and the SS, for what is the plot, in the last analysis but a counterintelligence operation with a domestic target? It was, after all, James Jesus Angleton and his SIG unit who ran Oswald and dominated the plot. And, through a figure like Epstein, intervened so interesting within the literature of the case.

Indeed,

And Pat,

You don't have to defend me or my opinions.

But I have asked you a question re: Spencer and your belief that Horne is wrong in using her as a source, which you quote from the Black Op Radio interview.

Since Joe Backes has posted the transcript of the interview, and Dan has excerpted the pertinent paragraphs, I'd like to know more about your disagreement with Horne and Spencer regarding the autopsy photos. Thanks.

And those who have claimed the Z-film is altered, have also claimed that this is the best evidence of conspiracy when it is not, and they have failed to show when, where and how the film was altered, thus leading to individuals who can be indicted for tampering with evidence.

It's always been the "government" did it.

Well, as Paul suggets, and Doug Horne goes out of his way to prove, the Secret Service did not only allow or encourage the assassination, if it indeed was a coup, they were an integral part of it, as all agencies and departments of government were either compromised or a part of the coup, at least at the very top.

This is setting the stage for a new shift in the paradigum, as the old one LN vs CTs no longer holds water.

Now it is between those who blame someone (Oswald) or a group (CIA, Mafia, Cuba) for killing Kennedy the man with a motive of revenge (Bay of Pigs, mob prosecutions, etc.) and those who recognize the assassination as a coup, an inside job by those who took over the government and changed policy.

And if it was indeed a coup, then the evidence, as Doug Horne provides us - is within the government records, and the suspects are knowable - as they took over the government.

So now, the LNs and the CTs are in the same category, and those who want to proceed against the coup, now have a road to follow - the Constitution, and forcing it to work by getting Congress to oversee the JFK Act, identify those who have destroyed and stole records, and have a grand jury investigate these crimes, as well as homicide and conspiracy, and indict those responsible.

That's the meaning of "Forensic" copy of the film, one suitable as evidence in a court of law, and that's why it is called a "forensic" autopsy, as it creates evidence that can be used to determine not only how the victim died, but who was responsible for the murder.

So Pat, if you aren't sure where I sit on the "Alterationist" fence, it is on the side of those who want to take the film to court as evidence of conspiracy, or take those to court who tampered and destoryed the evidence.

Bill Kelly

Edited January 10, 2010 by William Kelly

[Peter McGuire]

I thought we knew the truth, so how is that burried?"

BK

We know the truth. The public at large, however, does not. They suspect something but remain confused by those who want them to remain that way.

And as long as the history books claim Oswald acted alone, the myth will live on.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Another nice post, Bill. I sense that you and I and Pat and Jack are gradually converging in our points of view! That is a welcome development.

Is pointing the finger at the government itself, as opposed to a few select individuals within the government, or the mafia, or LBJ and his cronies, more important than convincing historians and the mainstream media what seems obvious to most everyone on this forum--that more than one shooter fired at President Kennedy, and that Oswald wasn't among them?

It isn't "the government," Pat, to whom the finger is pointed by alterationism, as you well know: The alterationists, this writer included, point the finger directly at an element of the Secret Service, the presidential bodyguard, as the primary instrument of the assassination. The distinction is of profound significance, as a moments reflection will disclose.

Establishing that a plot hatched within the intelligence establishment, of which the SS is a small, but crucial component, claimed Kennedy's life offers America the possibility of reform and renewal: a broad, vague assertion of conspiracy, by figures unknown, does not.

The crucial nexus is that between the CIA and the SS, for what is the plot, in the last analysis but a counterintelligence operation with a domestic target? It was, after all, James Jesus Angleton and his SIG unit who ran Oswald and dominated the plot. And, through a figure like Epstein, intervened so interesting within the literature of the case.

Indeed,

And Pat,

You don't have to defend me or my opinions.

But I have asked you a question re: Spencer and your belief that Horne is wrong in using her as a source, which you quote from the Black Op Radio interview.

Since Joe Backes has posted the transcript of the interview, and Dan has excerpted the pertinent paragraphs, I'd like to know more about your disagreement with Horne and Spencer regarding the autopsy photos. Thanks.

And those who have claimed the Z-film is altered, have also claimed that this is the best evidence of conspiracy when it is not, and they have failed to show when, where and how the film was altered, thus leading to individuals who can be indicted for tampering with evidence.

It's always been the "government" did it.

Well, as Paul suggets, and Doug Horne goes out of his way to prove, the Secret Service did not only allow or encourage the assassination, if it indeed was a coup, they were an integral part of it, as all agencies and departments of government were either compromised or a part of the coup, at least at the very top.

This is setting the stage for a new shift in the paradigum, as the old one LN vs CTs no longer holds water.

Now it is between those who blame someone (Oswald) or a group (CIA, Mafia, Cuba) for killing Kennedy the man with a motive of revenge (Bay of Pigs, mob prosecutions, etc.) and those who recognize the assassination as a coup, an inside job by those who took over the government and changed policy.

And if it was indeed a coup, then the evidence, as Doug Horne provides us - within the government records, and the suspects are knowable - as they took over the government.

So now, the LNs and the CTs are in the same category, and those who want to proceed against the coup, now have a road to follow - the Constitution, and forcing it to work by getting Congress to oversee the JFK Act, identify those who have destroyed and stole records, and have a grand jury investigate these crimes, as well as homicide and conspiracy, and indict those responsible.

That's the meaning of "Forensic" copy of the film, one suitable as evidence in a court of law, and that's why it is called a "forensic" autopsy, as it creates evidence that can be used to determine not only how the victim died, but who was responsible for the murder.

So Pat, if you aren't sure where I sit on the "Alterationist" fence, it is on the side of those who want to take the film to court as evidence of conspiracy, or take those to court who tampered and destoryed the evidence.

Bill Kelly

Edited January 10, 2010 by James H. Fetzer