Alterationists: Thoughts from Gary Mack.

[Dean Hagerman]

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 January 11, 2010 by Dean Hagerman

[Don Jeffries]

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?

[Pat Speer]

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.

[David Lifton]

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

[Craig Lamson]

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.

[Jack White]

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

[Pat Speer]

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 January 11, 2010 by Pat Speer

[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 January 11, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

"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

[Dean Hagerman]

"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 January 11, 2010 by Dean Hagerman

[Paul Rigby]

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

Purely out of curiosity, Kathy, where else one might be convinced but "in the mind"?

Down a "Lane," perhaps?

I have MIDP...

Speedy recovery. I've heard it can be most painful. Almost as agonizing, I fear, as reading about John McAdams:

Junkkarinen’s appeal to the Langleyians

John McAdams for Beginners

http://www.ctka.net/2009/target_car_jd3.html

Inside the Target Car, Part Three

How Gary Mack became Dan Rather

By James DiEugenio

Which brings us to the second overt way Loomis and the Dark Side struck back. See, Paul Nolan is an alias. More accurately, it is an undercover name. Paul Nolan's real name is John McAdams. And to understand why Loomis and company would use him to go after COPA and defend David Phillips, you have to understand a bit about his background.

McAdams first surfaced after Stone's film was released. But he first reared his ugly visage not in public, but on the Internet. He began to frequent many of the JFK forums that sprang up around the time period of 1992-93. Except he outdid almost anyone in the number of posts he delivered. At times they were around fifty per day. (Probe Vol. 3 No. 3 p. 13) But as I wrote at the time, his personality was so repellent and his style so pugnacious that many new to the field saw through him quickly. One wrote in an e-mail: "McAdams is a spook isn't he ... I am concerned about McAdams and his ilk. The stuff he puts up on the 'Net is pure disinformation ... The stuff McAdams puts on the 'Net is pure acid. He doesn't respond to the facts, he just discredits witnesses and posters." (ibid.)

At the time, I noted that McAdams liked to forge false messages in order to insult people in the JFK field, like Jim Garrison, and to promote others, like Posner. He would jump around from forum to forum posting disinformation. Like for example that Clay Shaw was never really on the Board of Directors of Permindex. According to McAdams, that was a myth promoted by Oliver Stone. Well, finally someone actually scanned Shaw's own Who's Who entry in which he himself noted he was on the board of Permindex. This shut up McAdams on that forum. So what did McAdams do? He went to another forum and said the same thing about Shaw—knowing it had been proven false! Nothing tells us more about the man than that fact. And nothing tells us more about the people who choose to associate with McAdams in spite of that, e.g. Dave Reitzes and David Von Pein.

But one good thing about McAdams at the time, at least for the Dark Side, was that his presence in the JFK case had been confined to the Internet. So very few people in the critical community had ever seen him. That facial anonymity, plus his willingness in using a false name made him useful in the attack against COPA. In 1995, McAdams/Nolan attended the COPA Conference in Washington. Unfortunately for him, there actually was another JFK researcher whose real name was Paul Nolan. When he found out about the McAdams deception, he posted a web message: "I was just doing some research over the net. I wanted to see if anything came up that had my name in it. Guess what? My REAL name is Paul Nolan! Apparently some asshole wants to use my name as an alias." (ibid)

Using this phony name, McAdams went to the above conference. He happened to meet a conservative reporter named Matt Labash there. Labash was on assignment for City Paper out of Washington D.C. Nolan/McAdams told Labash that he managed a computer store in Shorewood, Wisconsin—which he did not. In Labash's resultant negative article on that conference, Nolan was the only participant quoted at length. And what was one of the things Labash quoted him on? Shades of Mark Zaid. It was Dr. Luis Alvarez' nutty "jet effect" explanation of Kennedy's back and to the left reaction in the Zapruder film. (ibid, p. 26)

Coincidence? Hardly. Labash had worked for rightwing propaganda mills like American Spectator and the intelligence riddled Washington Times. At the time of his hit piece on COPA he was working at Rupert Murdoch's Weekly Standard. Further, Labash is believed to have done this kind of infiltration assignment before for the Washington Times. His target then was the Institute for Policy Studies. When Gary Aguilar called Labash, he admitted that he had his "marching orders" from on high for his COPA assignment (ibid). To most people, it would appear that Colby and Shackley had fulfilled their mission. Except it was not through Russo. It was through McAdams masquerading as Paul Nolan.

But these things must be done if we are to regain our full health.

[David G. Healy]

...

I don't have TGZFH book, but I saw the movie. The pedestal cross bothered me a long time ago.

Kathy

what movie? I'm in a movie and know nothing about it? Explain please...

[Jack White]

I would like to point out that the testimony of one of the officers (Hargis, I think) said

that HE PULLED OUT OF THE PROCESSION IMMEDIATELY AND MADE A U-TURN ON

ELM STREET, AND PARKED HIS BIKE BY THE SOUTH CURB NEAR MOORMAN AND HILL,

THEN RAN ACROSS THE STREET TO THE KNOLL, CAME BACK AND MADE ANOTHER

U-TURN AND THEN REJOINED THE MOTORCADE.

My question for the obstructionists: Can you point me to any film which shows this?

Also, other witnesses said AN OFFICER RAN HIS MOTORCYCLE UP THE HILL AND

THREW HIS BIKE DOWN TO LOOK OVER THE FENCE.

Can anyone point me to any films which show this?

Jack

[Todd W. Vaughan]

I would like to point out that the testimony of one of the officers (Hargis, I think) said

that HE PULLED OUT OF THE PROCESSION IMMEDIATELY AND MADE A U-TURN ON

ELM STREET, AND PARKED HIS BIKE BY THE SOUTH CURB NEAR MOORMAN AND HILL,

THEN RAN ACROSS THE STREET TO THE KNOLL, CAME BACK AND MADE ANOTHER

U-TURN AND THEN REJOINED THE MOTORCADE.

My question for the obstructionists: Can you point me to any film which shows this?

Also, other witnesses said AN OFFICER RAN HIS MOTORCYCLE UP THE HILL AND

THREW HIS BIKE DOWN TO LOOK OVER THE FENCE.

Can anyone point me to any films which show this?

Jack

Jack,

I'm very familiar with the various statements and testimonies of Hargis - I'm unaware of him EVER saying anything about making any "U-turns".

The Weigman film shows (blurred) Hargis parking his cycle near the south curb of Elm Street. Other films and photos (Bell, , Darnell, Couch, Bond, Bothun, Atkins, etc.) show that he then ran over to the lightpost near the Newmans before running back to his cycle and continuing down Elm.

Todd

[Pat Speer]

I would like to point out that the testimony of one of the officers (Hargis, I think) said

that HE PULLED OUT OF THE PROCESSION IMMEDIATELY AND MADE A U-TURN ON

ELM STREET, AND PARKED HIS BIKE BY THE SOUTH CURB NEAR MOORMAN AND HILL,

THEN RAN ACROSS THE STREET TO THE KNOLL, CAME BACK AND MADE ANOTHER

U-TURN AND THEN REJOINED THE MOTORCADE.

My question for the obstructionists: Can you point me to any film which shows this?

Also, other witnesses said AN OFFICER RAN HIS MOTORCYCLE UP THE HILL AND

THREW HIS BIKE DOWN TO LOOK OVER THE FENCE.

Can anyone point me to any films which show this?

Jack

Oy Vey, Jack. Hargis and his bike are shown in the Bell film, here:

He pulled his bike to the side. Later in the film you can see Haygood's bike on the opposite side. The Couch film also shows Haygood's bike. He left it at the base of the hill. Are you now claiming the Couch film, shown on TV within hours of the assassination, is a fake? If so, is there any assassination film you know of that is, in your opinion, not a fake?

Edited January 11, 2010 by Pat Speer