Jump to content

Alterationists: Thoughts from Gary Mack.


Guest Duncan MacRae
 Share

Recommended Posts

Pam,

Duncan asked permission from Gary to post this--Gary did not ask him to.

Many people post what others say. Can we look at content instead of folks involved?

Since this is an important subject, we need all of the information we can get.

Thanks, Duncan!!

Kathy

With all due respect, I think you may be missing my point.

Gary Mack is a member here and should post for himself. Or start his own blog.

I object to the process -- it just creates a slanted field, imo.

Pamela, not to defend Gary, whose recent television appearances have annoyed the heck out of me, but I believe he doesn't post here because of his job. In the eyes of many it might appear inappropriate. His sending emails to people when he wants to post has both its advantages and drawbacks. While it allows him the "privilege" of appearing above the fray, it also prevents him from adequately defending himself. Back in November, I posted an email from him regarding the program The Ruby Connection, in which he tried to defend himself. As with criticisms of his performance in Inside the Target car, however, his "defense" only got him in deeper.

As a result, I can't help but think he'd fare better if he'd just get his feet wet and post his own comments. He certainly couldn't do any worse.

Well, then, maybe he needs to weigh his job against his need to defend himself, if that is the case, which I question. It may be another ruse to try to ingratiate himself with the CTs.

It seems to me the 6FM is pretty much NARA III, with all the dictating from the OC that that involves. They are not going to want Gary to post anything that has not already been approved, or given to him by them in the first place. So when he posts through others here, we are just getting the party line anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 214
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

(Apologies to Jim DiEugenio, ahead of time)

Jim DiEugenio doesn't post here either, but folks post what he writes.

I have NEVER received an email from Mack that said "Post this for me". Usually, if I have a question, he'll answer it, or if I am looking for something, he'll send me possible sources. I find nothing wrong with that, as I am pleased to know where to look.

But as has been said twice, and now a third time, Gary did not ask anyone to post what Duncan posted--he granted permission after Duncan asked.

Instead of the content of the message being discussed, folks go off on a tirade against him.

I think many folk just like to complain--it makes us feel so much better about being ol' high and mighty us.

Kathy

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dean, Mack is a notorious obscructionist who has overplayed his hand. You are sincerely--and ably!--seeking the truth. You do not deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with Mack, except by way of contrast, as I have done here! He has disgraced himself and The Sixth Floor Museum, which is widely regarded as a bastion of disinformation about the assassination of JFK, which it is! Jim
As the OFFICIAL SPOKESMAN OF THE SIXTH FLOOR, he has been instructed to not express opinions

lest his opinions be seen as "official".

Jack

Yes, but he has no problem expressing his opinions and making fun of me and my thoughts on the assassination in PMs

Very true Jim, thank you for the kind words

I did not feel this way about Gary before and even enjoyed his PMs and talking back and forth with him

Until he started sending me PMs about the FBI film that Shaneyfelt took with Zapruders camera

Jack posted a picture of the limo over in the far right lane looking as if it was correcting the wide turn, to me and of course you and Jack that is very important because we know the wide turn as witnessed by Roy Truly was taken out of the Z-film

Well Gary started to say I need to learn the basics, he also said I need to read the Warren Report (after I have told him I have)

Well the last thing he said to me was "This is why you have so many questions - you're not dedicated to learning ABOUT the assassination, just in reinforcing your preconceived opinions. I can tell that by what you post."

He acts like im asking him questions on a daily basis, I have maybe asked him 3 questions in my whole life

But for him to say im not dedicated to the assassination was a slap in my face that I though was a BS thing for him to say to me

Because I am an alterationist and back all 3 books from you Jim and the others who wrote chapters Gary has chosen to insult me because of my stance

If I was a LNer and supported the WC im sure Gary would treat me like I was the king of the world

The funny part about all of this is that I never PMed him, he has always PMed me!

And anyone who is a member on any forum that Gary is a part of knows what I am talking about

I will no longer reply to any PM I recieve from him, even if it is to say he is sorry, which im positive will never happen so im not going to hold my breath

Dean

Edited by Dean Hagerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Jim Fetzer, for including in one post all the eyewitness testimony regarding Chaney's alleged movement ahead of the motorcade. For someone who isn't an expert on this aspect of the case, it was very helpful. Frankly, I was surprised there were that many references to it. As with all the reported observations of an indentical massive wound to the back of JFK's head, and the myriad of witnesses who reported the motorcade stopped, or nearly stopped- we have to ask ourselves how so many people could have been wrong about all these things.

The alteration debate boils down to; how do we explain the fact that the Zapruder film fails to show things that countless credible witnesses reported seeing? Without getting distracted by side issues (which seems to happen in almost every post on these threads- thus Jim's post I referred to was all the more refreshing), I'd really appreciate hearing Josiah, Jerry or any other anti-alterationist explain why so many people reported the limo stopped, Chaney rushed on past the limousine and all the medical personnnel in Dallas reported a massive blowout to the back of JFK's head, since none of this is seen in the extant Zapruder film. It seems to me that either all those witnesses were terribly mistaken in exactly the same way, about exactly the same issues, or the Zapruder film doesn't accurately reflect what happened. I have an open mind on this subject- but if you're going to blindly trust in the authenticity of the filmed record, then you have an obligation to explain, at the very least, all that medical testimony in Dallas. Merely interpreting what other photos show doesn't explain away all that inconvenient testimony from all those mysteriously "mistaken" people.

I have grown weary of all the witness bashing by LNers and neo-cons. Without all the eyewitnesses who testified to things that contradicted the official story, there would probably have never been a critical movement at all. Over the passage of time, however, I can't think of a single witness whose testimony contradicted the official story that hasn't been smeared and discredited. This was initially done by the likes of Lawrence Schiller, David Belin and Gerald Posner, but in the past few years we've seen an increasing number of self-proclaimed believers in conspiracy who have spent considerable resources on discrediting Roger Craig, Richard Carr and others. I simply don't understand this. If you look at anyone closely enough, and examine their lives thoroughly enough, you'll find something. At the same time, there is anger from many on this forum when Gary Mack, for instance, is criticized. Needless to say, Mack has become one of the most prominent public figures associated with the case and thus, in my view, should be fair game for criticism.

If one or two people reported the limo stopped, that would be one thing. However, over 50 did. Jim posted all the testimony, from those directly involved, indicating Chaney sped ahead to catch up to Curry. As for the medical testimony, everyone who attended the President at Parkland reported the same massive wound in the rear of the head. It's been my observation that individuals, or small groups closely connected to each other, can easily makes mistakes and testify inaccurately about something. However, large groups of witnesses, who are unknown and unconnected to each other, are very unlikely to all be mistaken in exactly the same way. So, what is the alternate explanation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don,

Duke Lane's study on the witnesses who said the limo stopped or slowed:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=50316

Well worth looking at.

Kathy

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don, FWIW, when I created my database for the eyewitnesses a few years back, I noticed the confluence of Chaney stories, with the claim he sped up just after the shots, etc. The Nix film, however, shows both Chaney and Douglas Jackson slamming on their brakes at the time of the head shot. (This, in turn, led to other cars slamming on their brakes and quite possibly led to the perception the limo itself came to a stop.) Chaney and Jackson were supposed to be serving as BODYGUARDS and not just escorts. Thus, their slamming on their brakes to protect themselves at a time when the President needed their protection would almost certainly have been considered an embarrassment to the City of Dallas and the State of Texas, etc.

We should recall here that the Attorney General of Texas made a side deal with Warren that he would not conduct his own investigation as long as the WC treated Texas fairly, which one can only interpret as ignoring the evidence of DPD incompetence and possible complicity. It should come as no surprise then to see that neither Chaney nor Jackson was interviewed by the FBI about what they saw and did during the motorcade, and were not called to testify by the WC.

In this light, I suspect the "Chaney sped up" story was an orchestrated lie designed to hide that Dallas' finest cowered in terror when put to the ultimate test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was tempted to start a new thread titled "Gary Mack and the word 'presumably'. . ." but I decided to just register my thoughts here.

This concerns the matter of "full flush left" and the "test films" that Duncan MacRae informed us about, based on Shaneyfelt's testimony. In Gary's statement (as posted by Duncan MacRae, and dated 9 January 2010 at 6:06 PM), Gary Mack makes two statements, and I'd like to comment on each of them.

The first, QUOTE: "The films presumably contain similar intersprocket images and artifacts as those in the assassination

film. " UNQUOTE

. . . "presumably contain similar intersprocket images". . ??

. . . "presumably". . .?

Let's consider that statement carefully, with particular emphasis on the word "presumably."

I do not know what the "intersprocket images" on those test films will show, and (apparently) neither does Gary Mack--so he employs the word "presumably."

My response to this situation is simply this: Let's retrieve the test films in question, lay them on a light box, take a good sample or two--each perhaps a foot in length, perhaps before the limo enters behind the sign, and then after it emerges--and make full width (edge-to-edge) contact prints. And then let's compare what the test films show with the so-called "original Zapruder film."

In other words, I'm unwilling to assume anything, or "presume" anything.

By contrast, Gary (apparently) places great weight on the fact that neither I (nor Doug Horne, for example) were aware that such test films existed--ergo, such films, when produced, will (Gary thinks) prove him correct.

I don't believe such a presumption is warranted in this case, inasmuch as the image content in the Zapruder film is so at variance with what witnesses observed. Specifically, I am referring to the car stop witnesses, and the fact that the back of the head is blacked out, plus the fact that a huge wound appears on the forward right hand side of JFK's head which was not seen four minutes later at Parkland Hospital.

In short, there's plenty of reason--based on image content alone--to suspect the film is a forgery. Indeed, the reason I focused on "full flush left" is that it seemed to be a shortcut to proving the film was a forgery. It was UNrelated to "image content" and had only to do with the optics of the camera--i.e., the architecture of the camera and its lens. Furthermore, it appeared to be a simple (and testable) criterion. Should it turn out that test films (shot at full zoom, the way Zapruder supposedly filmed) show that the image goes all the way to the left, and even beyond the left margin (as it apparently does, so much of the time, in what is supposedly the "camera original Zapruder film,") then all that would do is show that this particular method of attempting to prove the film is a forgery will have failed. All very well. I will go wherever the evidence leads. Should the "full flush left" (or even "beyond full flush left" ) test fail to prove the film is a forgery, that would certainly not prove the Z film is NOT a forgery, and anyone who has studied logic will understand the difference between a "necessary" and a "sufficient" condition. But from all the years I studied engineering and physics, I remember well that the interesting phenomena occur "at the boundary" and the inter-sprocket area represents a most interesting "boundary," so of course I'm most interested in seeing whether those who forged this film (yes, I'm admitting that I believe its a forgery) took care to create a credible inter-sprocket image area. If they did, they get high marks. But if they did not, then the ballgame is over. Its that simple.

Now that brings me to the second statement Gary Mack made; and again I quote: "(The extremely poor quality You Tube version of one of the

reels is not an accurate representation of its image quality.) UNQUOTE

Note Gary Mack's words in describing what he saw on U-Tube: "the extremely poor quality"; and then he adds his own observation (which, again, appears to be his own speculation): that the "extremely poor quality" shown on U-Tube "is not an accurate representation of its image quality.")

Well now: how does he know that? Does he have the test film at hand? If he does, then he should say so, and/or make it available.

In the absence of such evidence, let me speculate as to why Gary included that caveat, and here's my speculation. I speculate that Gary , following Todd Vaughn's lead, clicked on the link that Todd provided, and looked at the test film. (Yes, that's what I did, too.) And what did he find? He probably found exactly what I found. The very first thing that struck me was the perfectly awful quality of the film. I showed it to a friend of mine and said, "Is THIS what the FBI calls a 'test film' made in Zapruder's camera? How awful!" (Indeed, its so bad you can barely make out the features on the FBI agents' faces!) In other words, if what's on U-Tube is in any way indicative of what's on the FBI "test film," then folks--the ball game is over.

So I've simply got to believe that the "test film"--when actually retrieved from NARA, and put on a light box--will surely produce imagery that is comparable in quality to the frames published in Life magazine. Otherwise (and this is completely aside from the issue of "full flush left,") there's no way that the Zapruder film" (as we know it) was taken in Zapruder's camera.

I'm sure Gary had that reaction, too--and that's why he wrote the caveat he did. For he must have seen the terrible quality of the FBI test film (as shown on U-tube) and realized the implications.

Now as I write this, I truly do not know how all this will play out.

I'm simply writing this from the standpoint of a reasonably skeptical person who is looking forward to the proper test films being examined (and/or a new test being performed, should that be necessary). And remember: the Zapruder camera has to be at full zoom to get the maximum image penetration into the intersprocket area.

As I've noted in other posts, the Zapruder frames on the supposedly "camera original Zapruder film" go ALL the way out to the left margin, and even 5% beyond "full penetration."

I'm truly interested in whether the FBI test films--using Zapruder's camera, set at full zoom--can achieve that effect.

I'm betting that the answer is "no." Gary Mack seems to be saying, "Of course it will!"

Let's retrieve the test films at NARA, do the proper photography, and see what the answer really is.

DSL

1/11/10; 1:10 AM

Los Angeles, CA

Post script:

Here's what Gary wrote (at the end of his post), QUOTE:

There was no need in 1996 for the ARRB to borrow Zapruder’s camera for

use in Dallas, nor was there a need in 2000 for Rollie Zavada to use

it for his follow-up study of the original film. There was no need

because test films already existed and they are available for

examination in one form or another.

And yet, the alterationists remain completely ignorant of their

existence. Amazing! UNQUOTE

DSL RESPONSE: No, Gary. What is "amazing" is YOUR assumption that you know the answer to what the test films will show, before any such proper examination is made.

Gary, the betting window is now closed--for you, and for me, and for everyone else, too. Its time to stop looking at U-Tube, stop speculatiing, and to examine the actual FBI films, and see what the answer is.

Let's agree on that, OK? Like the lesson learned from the story about Aristotle: its time to stop speculating and count the teeth in the mouth of the horse.

DSL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was tempted to start a new thread titled "Gary Mack and the word 'presumably'. . ." but I decided to just register my thoughts here.

This concerns the matter of "full flush left" and the "test films" that Duncan MacRae informed us about, based on Shaneyfelt's testimony. In Gary's statement (as posted by Duncan MacRae, and dated 9 January 2010 at 6:06 PM), Gary Mack makes two statements, and I'd like to comment on each of them.

The first, QUOTE: "The films presumably contain similar intersprocket images and artifacts as those in the assassination

film. " UNQUOTE

. . . "presumably contain similar intersprocket images". . ??

. . . "presumably". . .?

Let's consider that statement carefully, with particular emphasis on the word "presumably."

I do not know what the "intersprocket images" on those test films will show, and (apparently) neither does Gary Mack--so he employs the word "presumably."

My response to this situation is simply this: Let's retrieve the test films in question, lay them on a light box, take a good sample or two--each perhaps a foot in length, perhaps before the limo enters behind the sign, and then after it emerges--and make full width (edge-to-edge) contact prints. And then let's compare what the test films show with the so-called "original Zapruder film."

In other words, I'm unwilling to assume anything, or "presume" anything.

By contrast, Gary (apparently) places great weight on the fact that neither I (nor Doug Horne, for example) were aware that such test films existed--ergo, such films, when produced, will (Gary thinks) prove him correct.

I don't believe such a presumption is warranted in this case, inasmuch as the image content in the Zapruder film is so at variance with what witnesses observed. Specifically, I am referring to the car stop witnesses, and the fact that the back of the head is blacked out, plus the fact that a huge wound appears on the forward right hand side of JFK's head which was not seen four minutes later at Parkland Hospital.

In short, there's plenty of reason--based on image content alone--to suspect the film is a forgery. Indeed, the reason I focused on "full flush left" is that it seemed to be a shortcut to proving the film was a forgery. It was UNrelated to "image content" and had only to do with the optics of the camera--i.e., the architecture of the camera and its lens. Furthermore, it appeared to be a simple (and testable) criterion. Should it turn out that test films (shot at full zoom, the way Zapruder supposedly filmed) show that the image goes all the way to the left, and even beyond the left margin (as it apparently does, so much of the time, in what is supposedly the "camera original Zapruder film,") then all that would do is show that this particular method of attempting to prove the film is a forgery will have failed. All very well. I will go wherever the evidence leads. Should the "full flush left" (or even "beyond full flush left" ) test fail to prove the film is a forgery, that would certainly not prove the Z film is NOT a forgery, and anyone who has studied logic will understand the difference between a "necessary" and a "sufficient" condition. But from all the years I studied engineering and physics, I remember well that the interesting phenomena occur "at the boundary" and the inter-sprocket area represents a most interesting "boundary," so of course I'm most interested in seeing whether those who forged this film (yes, I'm admitting that I believe its a forgery) took care to create a credible inter-sprocket image area. If they did, they get high marks. But if they did not, then the ballgame is over. Its that simple.

Now that brings me to the second statement Gary Mack made; and again I quote: "(The extremely poor quality You Tube version of one of the

reels is not an accurate representation of its image quality.) UNQUOTE

Note Gary Mack's words in describing what he saw on U-Tube: "the extremely poor quality"; and then he adds his own observation (which, again, appears to be his own speculation): that the "extremely poor quality" shown on U-Tube "is not an accurate representation of its image quality.")

Well now: how does he know that? Does he have the test film at hand? If he does, then he should say so, and/or make it available.

In the absence of such evidence, let me speculate as to why Gary included that caveat, and here's my speculation. I speculate that Gary , following Todd Vaughn's lead, clicked on the link that Todd provided, and looked at the test film. (Yes, that's what I did, too.) And what did he find? He probably found exactly what I found. The very first thing that struck me was the perfectly awful quality of the film. I showed it to a friend of mine and said, "Is THIS what the FBI calls a 'test film' made in Zapruder's camera? How awful!" (Indeed, its so bad you can barely make out the features on the FBI agents' faces!) In other words, if what's on U-Tube is in any way indicative of what's on the FBI "test film," then folks--the ball game is over.

So I've simply got to believe that the "test film"--when actually retrieved from NARA, and put on a light box--will surely produce imagery that is comparable in quality to the frames published in Life magazine. Otherwise (and this is completely aside from the issue of "full flush left,") there's no way that the Zapruder film" (as we know it) was taken in Zapruder's camera.

I'm sure Gary had that reaction, too--and that's why he wrote the caveat he did. For he must have seen the terrible quality of the FBI test film (as shown on U-tube) and realized the implications.

Now as I write this, I truly do not know how all this will play out.

I'm simply writing this from the standpoint of a reasonably skeptical person who is looking forward to the proper test films being examined (and/or a new test being performed, should that be necessary). And remember: the Zapruder camera has to be at full zoom to get the maximum image penetration into the intersprocket area.

As I've noted in other posts, the Zapruder frames on the supposedly "camera original Zapruder film" go ALL the way out to the left margin, and even 5% beyond "full penetration."

I'm truly interested in whether the FBI test films--using Zapruder's camera, set at full zoom--can achieve that effect.

I'm betting that the answer is "no." Gary Mack seems to be saying, "Of course it will!"

Let's retrieve the test films at NARA, do the proper photography, and see what the answer really is.

DSL

1/11/10; 1:10 AM

Los Angeles, CA

Post script:

Here's what Gary wrote (at the end of his post), QUOTE:

There was no need in 1996 for the ARRB to borrow Zapruder’s camera for

use in Dallas, nor was there a need in 2000 for Rollie Zavada to use

it for his follow-up study of the original film. There was no need

because test films already existed and they are available for

examination in one form or another.

And yet, the alterationists remain completely ignorant of their

existence. Amazing! UNQUOTE

DSL RESPONSE: No, Gary. What is "amazing" is YOUR assumption that you know the answer to what the test films will show, before any such proper examination is made.

Gary, the betting window is now closed--for you, and for me, and for everyone else, too. Its time to stop looking at U-Tube, stop speculatiing, and to examine the actual FBI films, and see what the answer is.

Let's agree on that, OK? Like the lesson learned from the story about Aristotle: its time to stop speculating and count the teeth in the mouth of the horse.

DSL

The test films will be mostly worthless for testing full flush left. Anyone with decent eyesight can see they were shot in CLOUDY condiditons, as is evidenced by the soft edged shadows. As such the light levels were much lower than a full sun day. Lower light levels means a larger lens aperture, which in turn means less sharpness and more darkness of the vignette

None of this is rocket science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don, FWIW, when I created my database for the eyewitnesses a few years back, I noticed the confluence of Chaney stories, with the claim he sped up just after the shots, etc. The Nix film, however, shows both Chaney and Douglas Jackson slamming on their brakes at the time of the head shot. (This, in turn, led to other cars slamming on their brakes and quite possibly led to the perception the limo itself came to a stop.) Chaney and Jackson were supposed to be serving as BODYGUARDS and not just escorts. Thus, their slamming on their brakes to protect themselves at a time when the President needed their protection would almost certainly have been considered an embarrassment to the City of Dallas and the State of Texas, etc.

We should recall here that the Attorney General of Texas made a side deal with Warren that he would not conduct his own investigation as long as the WC treated Texas fairly, which one can only interpret as ignoring the evidence of DPD incompetence and possible complicity. It should come as no surprise then to see that neither Chaney nor Jackson was interviewed by the FBI about what they saw and did during the motorcade, and were not called to testify by the WC.

In this light, I suspect the "Chaney sped up" story was an orchestrated lie designed to hide that Dallas' finest cowered in terror when put to the ultimate test.

This is complete and utter nonsense.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don, FWIW, when I created my database for the eyewitnesses a few years back, I noticed the confluence of Chaney stories, with the claim he sped up just after the shots, etc. The Nix film, however, shows both Chaney and Douglas Jackson slamming on their brakes at the time of the head shot. (This, in turn, led to other cars slamming on their brakes and quite possibly led to the perception the limo itself came to a stop.) Chaney and Jackson were supposed to be serving as BODYGUARDS and not just escorts. Thus, their slamming on their brakes to protect themselves at a time when the President needed their protection would almost certainly have been considered an embarrassment to the City of Dallas and the State of Texas, etc.

We should recall here that the Attorney General of Texas made a side deal with Warren that he would not conduct his own investigation as long as the WC treated Texas fairly, which one can only interpret as ignoring the evidence of DPD incompetence and possible complicity. It should come as no surprise then to see that neither Chaney nor Jackson was interviewed by the FBI about what they saw and did during the motorcade, and were not called to testify by the WC.

In this light, I suspect the "Chaney sped up" story was an orchestrated lie designed to hide that Dallas' finest cowered in terror when put to the ultimate test.

This is complete and utter nonsense.

Jack

Yeah, of course it is. I see a contradiction between a film and a few statements and consider the possibility those making the statements lied, or at least exaggerated. (It certainly seems possible Chaney raced up to the lead car after the car left the plaza). You, on the other hand develop a theory that the film is fake, and then insist the film is fake and worthless beyond the fact it is fake EVEN IF it suggests a conspiracy. Because, by golly, the Dallas Police would never lie about such a thing...

Here is a link to the Nix film:

Nix Film

Chaney and Jackson slam on their brakes about 15 seconds in. Do you 1) deny they slammed on their brakes? 2) think the Nix film was faked to include their slamming on their brakes even though this was never brought out in testimony, and would be highly embarrassing to the Dallas Police?

Here are the descriptions of the shooting by Chaney and Jackson. Note that Chaney initially claimed Kennedy was hit in the face by the second shot, and then corrected his story to be that JFK was hit in the head by the third shot. Note also that Jackson admitted his coming to a stop, but later claimed the limo stopped when talking to a conspiracy theorist. Note also that both men noted a large wound on the right side of Kennedy's head and/or face, but made no mention of a blow out on the back of his head.

From patspeer.com, chapter 5:

James Chaney rode to the right and rear of the President. Despite the fact he was the closest witness behind the President and that he had a private conversation with Jack Ruby on the day following the assassination, Chaney was not questioned by the Warren Commission. (11-22-63 interview on WFAA, as shown on Youtube) “I was riding on the right rear fender...We had proceeded west on Elm Street at approximately 15-20 miles per hour. We heard the first shot. I thought it was a motorcycle backfiring and uh I looked back over to my left and also President Kennedy looked back over his left shoulder. Then, the, uh, second shot came, well, then I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the face by the second bullet. He slumped forward into Mrs. Kennedy’s lap, and uh, it was apparent to me that we were being fired upon. I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. And then he instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hospital and he had Parkland Hospital stand by. I went on up ahead of the, to notify the officers that were leading the escort that he had been hit and we're gonna have to move out." (When asked if he saw the person who fired on the President) "No sir, it was back over my right shoulder.” (Note: some sources have it that Chaney also mentioned “a third shot that was fired that (he) did not see hit the President” and that he did see “Governor Connally’s shirt erupt in blood..” but I can not find a primary source for this part of the interview.) ((3-24-64 testimony of Mark Lane before the Warren Commission, 2H32-61) “James A. Chaney, who is a Dallas motorcycle policeman, was quoted in the Houston Chronicle on 11-24-63, as stating that the first shot missed entirely. He said he was 6 feet to the right and front of the President's car, moving about 15 miles an hour, and when the first shot was fired, "I thought it was a backfire." (12-8-63 AP article by Sid Moody) "His head erupted in blood" said Dallas patrolman James Chaney, who was 6 feet away from the president." (3-25-64 testimony of Marrion Baker before the Warren Commission, 3H242-270) “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.” (9-12-75 FBI report) “Chaney stated that as the President’s car passed the…(TSBD), he was four to six feet from the President’s right shoulder. He heard three evenly spaced noises coming seconds apart, which at first he thought to be motorcycle backfire. Upon hearing the second noise, he was sure it was not a motorcycle backfire. When he heard the third noise he saw the President’s head “explode” and realized the noises were gunshots. He said that the shots did not come from his immediate vicinity and is positive that all the shots came from behind him.” (9-17-75 FBI report) “after making a left turn off Houston Street and shortly after the car had passed the School Book Depository, Chaney heard a noise which sounded like one of the motorcycles close to the President’s car had backfired…Chaney said he glanced to his left at the two motorcycles on the opposite side of the President’s car…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. Chaney said while he was looking at President Kennedy, he saw his head “explode.” Chaney said he was positive that all the noises he heard were coming from behind his motorcycle and none of these noises came from the side or the front of the position in which Chaney was located. Chaney said the noises were evenly spaced.”

Douglas Jackson rode on the far right of the President. (Notes written on the night of 11-22-63 as reprinted in The Kennedy Assassination Tapes, 1979): Officer C “we turned west onto Elm Street. Drove only a short way traveling very slowly. About that time I heard what I thought was a car back fire and I looked around and then to the President’s car in time for the next explosion and saw Mr. Connally jerk back to his right and it seemed that he look right at me. I could see a shocked expression on his face…I began stopping my motor…I looked back toward Mr. Kennedy and saw him hit in the head; he appeared to have been hit just above the right ear. The top of his head flew off away from me.” (As quoted by Fred Newcomb in Murder from Within, an unpublished manuscript from 1974) ""Mr. Connally was looking toward me. And about that time then the second shot went off. That's the point when I knew that somebody was shooting at them because that was the time he [Connally] got hit - because he jerked. I was looking directly at him…he was looking…kind of back toward me and…he just kind of flinched." "…that car just all but stopped…just a moment." (9-17-75 FBI report) “As the presidential vehicle was proceeding down Elm Street, and Jackson was turning the corner from Houston to Elm Street, he heard a loud (noise) which he first thought to be a motorcycle backfire. (He looked) at the Presidential car to see what the reaction was and observed Texas Governor John Connally turn to his right in the car. At the same time he heard a second noise and saw Connally jerk to his right. At this point, Jackson had just rounded the corner from Houston to Elm Street and he recognized the second noise as a definite gunshot…At this point, he was 15 to 20 feet away from the Presidential vehicle and he stopped his motorcycle in the street and looked toward the railroad overpass, directly in front of the Presidential car. He observed a police officer with his hands on his hips, looking toward the Presidential car. As this appeared normal, he then looked to his right and rear in the direction of the Texas School Book Depository and the intersection of Houston and Elm Street and observed many bystanders falling to the ground. He looked toward the Presidential vehicle and at the same time heard a third shot fired. He observed President Kennedy struck in the head above his right ear and the impact of the bullet exploded the top portion of his head, toward the left side of the Presidential vehicle. Jackson immediately knew that Kennedy had been hit and that the shot had been fired from his right rear.”

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

This is a simply excellent post, Don! Thanks for offering a straightforward assessment of some basic ways we know the film is fake.

Thank you, Jim Fetzer, for including in one post all the eyewitness testimony regarding Chaney's alleged movement ahead of the motorcade. For someone who isn't an expert on this aspect of the case, it was very helpful. Frankly, I was surprised there were that many references to it. As with all the reported observations of an indentical massive wound to the back of JFK's head, and the myriad of witnesses who reported the motorcade stopped, or nearly stopped- we have to ask ourselves how so many people could have been wrong about all these things.

The alteration debate boils down to; how do we explain the fact that the Zapruder film fails to show things that countless credible witnesses reported seeing? Without getting distracted by side issues (which seems to happen in almost every post on these threads- thus Jim's post I referred to was all the more refreshing), I'd really appreciate hearing Josiah, Jerry or any other anti-alterationist explain why so many people reported the limo stopped, Chaney rushed on past the limousine and all the medical personnnel in Dallas reported a massive blowout to the back of JFK's head, since none of this is seen in the extant Zapruder film. It seems to me that either all those witnesses were terribly mistaken in exactly the same way, about exactly the same issues, or the Zapruder film doesn't accurately reflect what happened. I have an open mind on this subject- but if you're going to blindly trust in the authenticity of the filmed record, then you have an obligation to explain, at the very least, all that medical testimony in Dallas. Merely interpreting what other photos show doesn't explain away all that inconvenient testimony from all those mysteriously "mistaken" people.

I have grown weary of all the witness bashing by LNers and neo-cons. Without all the eyewitnesses who testified to things that contradicted the official story, there would probably have never been a critical movement at all. Over the passage of time, however, I can't think of a single witness whose testimony contradicted the official story that hasn't been smeared and discredited. This was initially done by the likes of Lawrence Schiller, David Belin and Gerald Posner, but in the past few years we've seen an increasing number of self-proclaimed believers in conspiracy who have spent considerable resources on discrediting Roger Craig, Richard Carr and others. I simply don't understand this. If you look at anyone closely enough, and examine their lives thoroughly enough, you'll find something. At the same time, there is anger from many on this forum when Gary Mack, for instance, is criticized. Needless to say, Mack has become one of the most prominent public figures associated with the case and thus, in my view, should be fair game for criticism.

If one or two people reported the limo stopped, that would be one thing. However, over 50 did. Jim posted all the testimony, from those directly involved, indicating Chaney sped ahead to catch up to Curry. As for the medical testimony, everyone who attended the President at Parkland reported the same massive wound in the rear of the head. It's been my observation that individuals, or small groups closely connected to each other, can easily makes mistakes and testify inaccurately about something. However, large groups of witnesses, who are unknown and unconnected to each other, are very unlikely to all be mistaken in exactly the same way. So, what is the alternate explanation?

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not quite, Peter.

Duke's post #109 shown here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=50316

Here it is:(in bolds)

"Many thanks to Bernice Moore for taking the time to type in all of the quotes of the 59 witnesses in the "Delay on Elm Street" article in Murder in Dealey Plaza. I've glanced at samples of what is in MIDP and find these are faithful reproductions. I've added ellipses to some of the longer quotes, and underlined what the witnesses said about the limousine and/or motorcade for my analysis below. Some of the ellipses and comments are in the original (or may be Bernice's?).

I'm going to retract my statement that "the 59 witnesses are wrong" and say that it is merely one writer and "authority" on this issue who was mistken. (Jack, I'll trade you the phone number of your crack dealer for my remedial reading instructor's!)

I've gone through the quotes referenced and rearranged them as summarized here and quoted in full below. I've kept their "witness number" with their names so anyone can review what is said here with the book (which you have one, if you're clearly a "real researcher!").

This is what they said:

Said the limousine stopped - 14, two of whom reported it as others' observations, not as their own (net: 12)

Said the limousine slowed - 18, two of whom reported it as others' observations, not as their own (net: 15)

Said the motorcade stopped or slowed - 13.

Said the limousine sped up after the shots - seven

Did not specify according to above - seven

That's a total of 59, less the four who merely reported on other people's observations, for a net total of 55. This, as we will see, is not "59 witnesses who say the limousine stopped" as Jack White posited, but rather 12 who did (plus two who said other people said that it did ... and those other people may already be quoted ...?), or less than 25% of the people who offered a direct opinion (12/55=21.81%).

(I am taking everyone in sum total, that is, not accounting for whether it was said "on the record" - i.e., under oath - or in an informal setting, or whether it was said contemporaneously or several years after the fact.)

Note that some of these people may have said more than one thing, for example that the limo stopped, then accelerated after the shooting. In that case, they are listed under "limo stopped," and not under "limo sped up." If they only said that the limo sped up, or that it was already going slow and sped up, they are under "sped up." If they were unsure - e.g., "looked like it slowed down or stopped," this is not a positive statement as to stopping, so it is under "slowed down." Ditto, "paused" is not clear that it "stopped."

If they stated that the motorcade stopped, they are listed under the "motorcade" section because they did not specifically mention the limo or "the President's car" or anything like that, merely the "parade." (For example, one witness, L.P. Terry (#36), said "the parade stopped in front of the building." Since we know that the limo did not stop "in front of the building," it is a clear reference to the follow-up cars and busses, i.e., the rest of the parade and not the limo specifically.)

If they contradicted themselves (e.g., said one thing in 1963 and another in 1975), they are categorized under what they said earliest.

I may edit this somewhat based upon where someone was at the time, for example a motorcycle cop who was maybe still on Main Street could not have personally observed the limo do much of anything. I have added locations when known.

I don't think that anyone has disputed that the limousine slowed down and that the brake lights came on. The question is whether it stopped and, consequently, the Z-film has been faked. Well, we now know that 59 witnesses did not say the limo stopped, and out of them only 13 might actually have made this observation personally, or less than 25%. (Some of them really didn't say anything at all in this respect.)

If anyone thinks that, based upon what's in MIDP, my evaluation of their statements should change - i.e., what category they're in - let me know and maybe I will. tongue.gif

(59 Witnesses: Delay on Elm Street (Revised update-1998) by Vince Palamara)

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];

Said the limousine almost stopped, or slowed (personal observation):

3) UPI White House Reporter Merriman Smith (rode in the same car as Clark, above, 8 cars behind limo, still on Houston St) "The President's car, possibly as much as 150 or 200 yards ahead, seemed to falter briefly" [uPI story, 11/23/63, as reported in "Four Days", UPI, p. 32];

7) Malcolm Summers — "Then there was some hesitation in the caravan itself, a momentary halt, to give the Secret Service man [Clint Hill] a chance to catch up with the car and jump on. It seems to me that it started back up by the time he got to the car "["No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), p. 104];

12) DPD D.V. Harkness — "I saw the first shot and the President's car slow[ed] down to almost a stop I heard the first shot and saw the President's car almost come to a stop and some of the agents [were] piling on the car." [6 H 309];

15) DPD motorcycle officer Douglas L. Jackson (one of the four Presidential motorcyclists) — stated " that the car just all but stopped just a moment." ["Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 71];

18) Secret Service Agent Sam Kinney (driver of the follow-up car behind JFK's limo) — indicates, via his report to Chief Rowley, that Greer hit the gas after the fatal head shot to JFK and after the President's slump to the left toward Jackie. [18 H 731-732]. From the HSCA's 2/26/78 interview of Kinney: "He also remarked that 'when Greer (the driver of the Presidential limousine) looked back, his foot must have come off the accelerator' Kinney observed that at the time of the first shot, the speed of the motorcade was '3 to 5 miles an hour.'" [RIF#180-10078-10493; author's interviews with Kinney, 1992-1994];

20) Secret Service Agent John Ready (follow-up car) — "I heard what sounded like fire crackers going off from my post on the right front running board. The President's car slowed" [18 H 750];

27) Mrs. Phil (Marilyn) Willis---after the fatal head shot, "she stated the Presidential limousine paused momentarily and then sped away under the Triple Underpass." [FBI report dated 6/19/64; "Photographic Whitewash" by Harold Weisberg (1967), p. 179];

37) Ochus V. Campbell — after hearing shots, "he then observed the car bearing President Kennedy to slow down, a near stop, and a motorcycle policeman rushed up. Immediately following this, he observed the car rush away from the scene." [22 H 845];

38) Peggy Joyce Hawkins — she was on the front steps of the TSBD and " estimated that the President's car was less than 50 feet away from her when he was shot, that the car slowed down almost coming to a full stop." ["Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 97];

41) Postal Inspector Harry Holmes (from the Post Office Annex, while viewing through binoculars) "The car almost came to a stop, and Mrs. Kennedy pulled loose of him and crawled out over the turtleback of this Presidential car." [7 H 291]. He noticed the car pull to a halt, and Holmes thought: "They are dodging something being thrown." ["The Day Kennedy Was Shot" by Jim Bishop (1967), p. 176];

43) David Broeder--"The President's car paused momentarily, then on orders from a Secret Service agent, spurted ahead." ["Washington Evening Star", 11/23/63, p. 8];

44) Sam Holland — stated that the Presidential limousine slowed down on Elm Street. [taped interview with Holland conducted in April, 1965];

46) Mrs. Herman (Billy P.) Clay---"When I heard the second and third shots I knew someone was shooting at the President. I did not know if the President had been hit, but I knew something was wrong. At this point the car President Kennedy was in slowed and I, along with others, moved toward the President's car. As we neared the car it sped off." [22 H 641];

51) Charles Brehm---"Brehm expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move some 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of sight." [22 H 837-838];

52) Mary Moorman---"She recalls that the President's automobile was moving at the time she took the second picture, and when she heard the shots, and has the impression that the car either stopped momentarily or hesitated and then drove off in a hurry." [22 H 838-839];

54) James Leon Simmons---"The car stopped or almost stopped." [2/15/69 Clay Shaw trial testimony; "Forgive My Grief Vol. III" by Penn Jones, p. 53; "High Treason" by Groden & Livingstone (1990 Berkley Edition), p. 22];

Said the limousine almost stopped (reported observation):

1) Houston Chronicle Reporter Bo Byers (rode in White House Press Bus) — twice stated that the Presidential Limousine "almost came to a stop, a dead stop"; in fact, he has had nightmares about this. [C-SPAN, 11/20/93, "Journalists Remember The Kennedy Assassination"; see also the 1/94 "Fourth Decade": article by Sheldon Inkol];

31) Dallas Morning News reporter Mary Woodward (Pillsworth)---" Instead of speeding up the car, the car came to a halt."; she saw the President's car come to a halt after the first shot. Then, after hearing two more shots, close together, the car sped up. [2 H 43 (Lane); DMN, 11/23/63; 24 H 520; "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" 1988]. She spoke forcefully about the car almost coming to a stop and the lack of proper reaction by the Secret Service in 1993. [C-SPAN, 11/20/93, "Journalists Remember The Kennedy Assassination"; see also the 1/94 "Fourth Decade": article by Sheldon Inkol];

Said the motorcade came to a stop or slowed (did not specify limousine):

5) DPD motorcycle officer Bobby Joe Dale (one of two rear mid-motorcade motorcycles, positioned in front of the first press bus, 12 vehicles behind JFK, still on Main Street at the time) — "After the shots were fired, the whole motorcade came to a stop. I stood and looked through the plaza, noticed there was commotion, and saw people running around his [JFK's] car. It started to move, then it slowed again; that's when I saw Mrs. Kennedy coming back on the trunk and another guy [Clint Hill] pushing her back into the car." ["No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), p. 134];

9) AP photographer Henry Burroughs (rode in Camera Car #2) — (eight cars behind the limo, still on Houston St) "we heard the shots and the motorcade stopped." [letter, Burroughs to Palamara, dated 10/14/98];

16) Texas Highway Patrolman Joe Henry Rich (drove LBJ's car) — stated that "the motorcade came to a stop momentarily." ["Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 71];

26) Phil Willis — "The [Presidential] party had come to a temporary halt before proceeding on to the underpass." [7 H 497; "Crossfire" by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 24];

30) Dallas Morning News reporter Robert Baskin (rode in the National Press Pool Car, 8 to 9 cars behind limo, still on Houston or Main (there was no "the" National Press Pool Car, there were three — stated that " the motorcade ground to a halt." ["Dallas Morning News", 11/23/63, p. 2; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 71];

36) L.P. Terry — "The parade stopped right in front of the building [TSBD]." ["Crossfire" by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 26];

40) An unnamed witness---from his vantage point in the courthouse building — stated that "The cavalcade stopped there and there was bedlam." ["Dallas Times Herald", 11/24/63; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 97];

45) Maurice Orr — noted that the motorcade stopped. [Arch Kimbrough, Mary Ferrell, and Sue Fitch, "Chronology", unpublished manuscript; see also "Conspiracy" by Anthony Summers, pages 20 & 23];

47) Mrs. Rose Clark---"She noted that the President's automobile came almost to a halt following the three shots, before it picked up speed and drove away." [24 H 533];

53) Jean Hill---"The motorcade came to almost a halt at the time the shots rang out and I would say it [JFK's limo] was just approximately, if not---it couldn't have been in the same position, I'm sure it wasn't, but just a very, very short distance from where it had been. It [JFK's limo] was just almost stunned." [6 H 208-209; Hill's testimony on this matter was dramatized in the Oliver Stone movie "JFK" (1991): "The driver had stopped-I don't know what was wrong with that driver." See also "JFK: The Book of the Film" (1992), p. 122. Therein is referenced a March 1991 conversation with Jean Hill.];

55) Norman Similas---"The Presidential limousine had passed me and slowed down slightly." ["Liberty" Magazine, 7/15/64, p. 13; "Photographic Whitewash" by Harold Weisberg (1967), p. 233];

57) Presidential aide Dave Powers (rode in the follow-up car)---" At that time we were traveling very slowly At about the time of the third shot, the President's car accelerated sharply." [7 H 473-475]. On 11/22/88, Powers was interviewed by CBS' Charles Kuralt. Powers remarked about the remorse Greer felt about not speeding up in time to save JFK"s life and agreed with Kuralt that, if Greer had sped up BEFORE the fatal head shot instead of afterwards, JFK might still be alive today [CBS, 11/22/88---this is a very dramatic and compelling short interview]. If that weren't enough, the ARRB's Tom Samoluk told me that, during the course of an interview he conducted in 1996 in which the Board was in the process of obtaining Powers' film, Powers said that he agreed with my take on the Secret Service!;

58) Texas Senator Ralph Yarborough (rode in LBJ's car) — "When the noise of the shot was heard, the motorcade slowed to what seemed to me a complete stop (though it could have been a near stop) After the third shot was fired, but only after the third shot was fired, the cavalcade speeded up, gained speed rapidly, and roared away to the Parkland Hospital."; " The cars all stopped. I put in there [his affidavit], 'I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but for the protection of future Presidents, they [the Secret Service] should be trained to take off when a shot is fired." [7 H 439-440; "Crossfire" by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 482; see also "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" 1988: "The Secret Service in the car in front of us kind of casually looked around and were rather slow to react."];

Said the limousine sped up after the shots:

19) Secret Service Agent Clint Hill (follow-up car, rear of limo) — " I jumped from the follow-up car and ran toward the Presidential automobile. I heard a second firecracker-type noise SA Greer had, as I jumped onto the Presidential automobile, accelerated the Presidential automobile forward." [18 H 742; Nix film; "The Secret Service" and "Inside The Secret Service" videos from 1995];

21) Secret Service Agent Glen Bennett (follow-up car)---after the fatal head shot "the President's car immediately kicked into high gear." [18 H 760; 24 H 541-542]. During his 1/30/78 HSCA interview, Bennett said the follow-up car was moving at "10-12 m.p.h.", an indication of the pace of the motorcade on Elm Street [RIF#180-10082-10452];

24) Secret Service Agent William "Tim" McIntyre (follow-up car) — "He stated that Greer, driver of the Presidential limousine, accelerated after the third shot." [RIF#180-10082-10454: 1/31/78 HSCA interview];

28) Mrs. John (Nellie) Connally (rode in JFK's limo) — JFK's car did not accelerate until after the fatal head shot. [4 H 147; WR 50; "Best Evidence" by David Lifton (1988), p. 122];

29) Texas Governor John Connally (rode in JFK's limo and himself a victim of the assassination) — "After the third shot, I heard Roy Kellerman tell the driver, 'Bill, get out of line.' And then I saw him move, and I assumed he was moving a button or something on the panel of the automobile, and he said 'Get us to a hospital quick' at about this time, we began to pull out of the cavalcade, out of line." [4 H 133; WR50; "Crossfire" by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 13];

32) AP photographer James Altgens — "He said the President's car was proceeding at about ten miles per hour at the time [of the shooting] Altgens stated the driver of the Presidential limousine apparently realized what had happened and speeded up toward the Stemmons Expressway." [FBI report dated 6/5/64; "Photographic Whitewash" by Harold Weisberg (1967), p. 203] "The car's driver realized what had happened and almost if by reflex speeded up toward the Stemmons Expressway." [AP dispatch, 11/22/63; "Cover-Up" by Stewart Galanor (1998), Document 28];

59) First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy (rode in the Presidential limousine)---"We could see a tunnel in front of us. Everything was really slow then [immediately after shooting] And just being down in the car with his head in my lap. And it just seemed an eternity And finally I remember a voice behind me, or something, and then I remember the people in the front seat, or somebody, finally knew something was wrong, and a voice yelling, which must have been Mr. Hill, "Get to the hospital," or maybe it was Mr. Kellerman, in the front seat.We were really slowing turning the corner [Houston&Elm] I remember a sensation of enormous speed, which must have been when we took off those poor men in the front" [5 H 179-181]

Did not specify fully:

17) DPD J.W. Foster — stated that " immediately after President Kennedy was struck the car in which he was riding pulled to the curb." [CD 897, pp. 20, 21; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 97];

22) Secret Service Agent " " Johns (V.P. follow-up car) — "I felt that if there was danger [it was] due to the slow speed of the automobile." [18 H 774]. During his 8/8/78 HSCA interview, Johns said that "Our car was moving very slowly", a further indication of the pace of the motorcade on Elm Street [RIF# 180-10074-10079; Altgens photo];

23) Secret Service Agent Winston Lawson (rode in the lead car) — "I think it [the lead car on Elm Street] was a little further ahead [of JFK's limo] than it had been in the motorcade, because when I looked back we were further ahead." [4 H 352], an indication of the lag in the limo during the assassination.;

25) Mrs. Earle ("Dearie") Cabell (rode in the Mayor's car, positioned 4 cars behind the limo, taking turn onto Elm St.) — the motorcade "stopped dead still when the noise of the shot was heard." [7 H 487; "Accessories After the Fact" by Sylvia Meagher (1967), p. 4; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 71];

48) Hugh Betzner---"I looked down the street and I could see the President's car and another one and they looked like the cars were stopped then the President's car sped on under the underpass." [19 H 467];

49) John Chism---after the shots he saw "the motorcade beginning to speed up." ["Crossfire" by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 29];

56) Presidential Aide Ken O'Donnell (rode in the follow-up car)---" If the Secret Service men in the front had reacted quicker to the first two shots at the President's car, if the driver had stepped on the gas before instead of after the fatal third shot was fired, would President Kennedy be alive today? [as quoted in Marrs' "Crossfire", p. 248, based off a passage from O'Donnell & Powers' book "Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye"] On page 40 of O'Donnell's book "Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye", the aide reports that "Greer had been remorseful all day, feeling that he could have saved President Kennedy's life by swerving the car or speeding suddenly after the first shots." Indeed, William E. Sale, an airman first class aircraft mechanic assigned to Carswell AFB and who was stationed at Love Field before, during, and after the assassination, stated that "when the agent who was driving JFK's car came back to Air Force One he was as white as a ghost and had to be helped back to the plane *[undated Sale letter, provided to the author by Martin Shackelford];

So there ya have it. Does this prove the Z-film a "hoax" or "altered" with regard to the limousine stopping or not based upon 59 witnesses' statements "all" saying it stopped? I think not; what thinks ye?"

--------------------

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"So there ya have it. Does this prove the Z-film a "hoax" or "altered" with regard to the limousine stopping or not based upon 59 witnesses' statements "all" saying it stopped? I think not; what thinks ye?"

I thinks that Duke is full of it, if you gets my drift.

Jack

So do I

He takes 13 of the witnesses and puts them in a group of "Said the motorcade stopped or slowed" even when they at some point siad the limo stopped

All Duke is trying to do is scatter the truth around and make it seem like the 59 witnesses were confused

Its funny how anyone that is against alteration Kathy takes their research as holy gospel (Mack, Zavada, Duke Lane)

I dont think she cares to ever read TGZFH, I wish you would Kathy, I wish you would....

Edited by Dean Hagerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its funny how anyone that is against alteration Kathy takes their research as holy gospel (Mack, Zavada, Duke Lane)

What alot of hoohoo!! I make up my own mind.Don had asked what the alternate explanation was in an earlier post, and so posted one(There are probably many more.)

I am not going to stand behind someone's research until I study it and am convinced in my mind.

I have MIDP, but am reading currently about the newspersons and their actions 11/22/63. I don't have TGZFH book, but I saw the movie. The pedestal cross bothered me a long time ago.

Kathy

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...