Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Law of Unintended Consequences


Recommended Posts

For the last month or so, I have been trying to determine whether Officer Chaney was splattered with blood and brain tissue from the Z 313 impact. Certain members of this Forum were quite helpful to me in providing leads. Yesterday, I was able to listen to an mp3 file of a 58 minute interview with Chaney carried out by Fred Newcomb’s research team in 1971-1973. It is referred to in his book, Murder from Within.

Like two other tapes, this tape begins with “John Whitney” on the line for James Chaney. “Whitney” is a pseudonym for Gil Toft, who was helping Fred Newcomb with his book. It becomes immediately apparent that “Whitney” has talked to Chaney before and sent him both a copy of the Zapruder film and the Altgens photo. It is clear from “Whitney’s” questions to Chaney that “Whitney” was hoping Chaney would be able to point out features of the actual event that do not coincide with what the Zapruder film shows. Chaney says he has watched the film a couple of times. “Whitney” then tells Chaney to look for various things: (1) look for “splices” in the film where there is some sort of jerk in the movement of the limousine, (2) watch Connally after the limousine emerges from behind the sign, (3) note that the limousine doesn’t even seem to slow down. This sets up the following exchange:

(4 minutes, 53 seconds)

Q: There are certain ways on film to be able to tell where someone has monkeyed around with the film.

A: I know.. I don’t know whether the lead car ever stopped or not. I know that.. I mean Kennedy’s car. The one behind them apparently did because an officer could run from the left hand side in front of me. I know I stopped. Whatever happened there. I know Hargis, one of the officers riding escort on the other side, run across in front of me.

Q: Yeah, Bobby. I just spoke to him a few minutes ago. There are, I think, at least between 60 and 75 people that day who claimed the car stopped. But even if it didn’t stop..

A: Whether or not the lead car stopped.. I don’t believe that it did. It slowed down though. What was this agent’s name? Clint Hill?

Q: Right.

A: Slowed down enough that he did get on that car. Now whether he was on there or not on.. Several different times during the procession there he would run up and jump on those little steps and ride there for a couple of seconds and jump off. It all depended on how fast it was going along and where we were at. So whether.. I don’t believe that it actually stopped. It could have but I just don’t.. The second car.. cause I recall it was Officer Hargis jumped off his motor and run across in front of me.

Q: Cause that’s another..

A: I don’t recall myself stopping but as I stopped to think of it I must have come almost to a stop for Hargis to have got off his motor over on the left-hand side and run between those two cars and run in front of me. Apparently, I did too. I don’t recall stopping but I must have.

Q: That stop is another thing to look for. And then another thing you can look for is to study Kennedy himself. It’s interesting then he gets that main shot that hits him in the head, blows his head up. Ah, all of a sudden you don’t see any blood or matter splashing anywhere, just one quick shot.

A: On this film I’ve got, everything looks like its powdered in white, still white.

Q: Right, right. You just see it that one split second. You don’t see anything flying anywhere.

A: No.

Q: Which is kind of strange..

A: Well, it was all over with as soon as you see it. It did splatter everything.

Q: Right, right. You notice the way Kennedy’s body after he’s hit goes. Lots of things like that. Oh, by the way, did you get that picture we sent also?

A: Yeah, the picture came with the film. (7 minutes, 43 seconds)

Remember the discussion of a year or so back about Chaney accelerating ahead in front of the limousine to reach the lead car and tell Chief Curry what had happened? The claim was that since the Zapruder film (or any other film for that matter) failed to show this, the Zapruder film (and the others) were all faked up. This seems to put the nail in the coffin of that particular claim. Chaney says that “I don’t recall myself stopping but as I stopped to think of it, I must have come almost to a stop for Hargis to have got off his motor on the left-hand side and run between those two cars and run in front of me. Apparently, I did too. I don’t recall stopping but I must have.”

Chalk this one up to the law of unintended consequences.

JT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 695
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

For the last month or so, I have been trying to determine whether Officer Chaney was splattered with blood and brain tissue from the Z 313 impact. Certain members of this Forum were quite helpful to me in providing leads. Yesterday, I was able to listen to an mp3 file of a 58 minute interview with Chaney carried out by Fred Newcomb’s research team in 1971-1973. It is referred to in his book, Murder from Within.

Like two other tapes, this tape begins with “John Whitney” on the line for James Chaney. “Whitney” is a pseudonym for Gil Toft, who was helping Fred Newcomb with his book. It becomes immediately apparent that “Whitney” has talked to Chaney before and sent him both a copy of the Zapruder film and the Altgens photo. It is clear from “Whitney’s” questions to Chaney that “Whitney” was hoping Chaney would be able to point out features of the actual event that do not coincide with what the Zapruder film shows. Chaney says he has watched the film a couple of times. “Whitney” then tells Chaney to look for various things: (1) look for “splices” in the film where there is some sort of jerk in the movement of the limousine, (2) watch Connally after the limousine emerges from behind the sign, (3) note that the limousine doesn’t even seem to slow down. This sets up the following exchange:

(4 minutes, 53 seconds)

Q: There are certain ways on film to be able to tell where someone has monkeyed around with the film.

A: I know.. I don’t know whether the lead car ever stopped or not. I know that.. I mean Kennedy’s car. The one behind them apparently did because an officer could run from the left hand side in front of me. I know I stopped. Whatever happened there. I know Hargis, one of the officers riding escort on the other side, run across in front of me.

Q: Yeah, Bobby. I just spoke to him a few minutes ago. There are, I think, at least between 60 and 75 people that day who claimed the car stopped. But even if it didn’t stop..

A: Whether or not the lead car stopped.. I don’t believe that it did. It slowed down though. What was this agent’s name? Clint Hill?

Q: Right.

A: Slowed down enough that he did get on that car. Now whether he was on there or not on.. Several different times during the procession there he would run up and jump on those little steps and ride there for a couple of seconds and jump off. It all depended on how fast it was going along and where we were at. So whether.. I don’t believe that it actually stopped. It could have but I just don’t.. The second car.. cause I recall it was Officer Hargis jumped off his motor and run across in front of me.

Q: Cause that’s another..

A: I don’t recall myself stopping but as I stopped to think of it I must have come almost to a stop for Hargis to have got off his motor over on the left-hand side and run between those two cars and run in front of me. Apparently, I did too. I don’t recall stopping but I must have.

Q: That stop is another thing to look for. And then another thing you can look for is to study Kennedy himself. It’s interesting then he gets that main shot that hits him in the head, blows his head up. Ah, all of a sudden you don’t see any blood or matter splashing anywhere, just one quick shot.

A: On this film I’ve got, everything looks like its powdered in white, still white.

Q: Right, right. You just see it that one split second. You don’t see anything flying anywhere.

A: No.

Q: Which is kind of strange..

A: Well, it was all over with as soon as you see it. It did splatter everything.

Q: Right, right. You notice the way Kennedy’s body after he’s hit goes. Lots of things like that. Oh, by the way, did you get that picture we sent also?

A: Yeah, the picture came with the film. (7 minutes, 43 seconds)

Remember the discussion of a year or so back about Chaney accelerating ahead in front of the limousine to reach the lead car and tell Chief Curry what had happened? The claim was that since the Zapruder film (or any other film for that matter) failed to show this, the Zapruder film (and the others) were all faked up. This seems to put the nail in the coffin of that particular claim. Chaney says that “I don’t recall myself stopping but as I stopped to think of it, I must have come almost to a stop for Hargis to have got off his motor on the left-hand side and run between those two cars and run in front of me. Apparently, I did too. I don’t recall stopping but I must have.”

Chalk this one up to the law of unintended consequences.

JT

That's a great find, Tink. Thanks for sharing it with us... Do you still have access to the mp3? I have an ever-growing list of witness statements on my website and would love to add Chaney's comments regarding the shooting itself (where he was when he heard the shots...how many shots were fired...where he thought they came from...where he thought they landed, etc...). If you can transcribe that part of the tape, or send it my way so I can transcribe it, it would be very much appreciated... Thanks again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting, Josiah. Thanks for sharing.

I'm curious about Gil Toft's seeming inference that the Zapruder film was altered. Chaney doesn't really seem to dispute this notion. Also, clearly Newcomb was aware of all the indications that the motorcade had at least greatly slowed down, if not completely stopped, at the time of the assassination. Chaney's reaction is such that he appears to be familiar with such notions himself.

This is great material- please continue to post this kind of information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

This is very bad. Typical Thompson, he doesn't even dare identify the source of the story. It originated John Costella and was published in my "New Proof of JFK film fakery", http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jim_fetz_080205_new_proof_of_jfk_fil.htm Do any of you think Chaney motoring forward is seen in the film? Here is a summary:

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

Notice that EVEN CHANEY acknowledges that there were "at least between 60 and 75 people that day who claimed the car stopped". My inference would be that Chaney is unsure because, as John observed, Chaney was motoring forward and, given his relative motion, did not recognize that it had stopped.

A: I know.. I don’t know whether the lead car ever stopped or not. I know that.. I mean Kennedy’s car. The one behind them apparently did because an officer could run from the left hand side in front of me. I know I stopped. Whatever happened there. I know Hargis, one of the officers riding escort on the other side, run across in front of me.

Q: Yeah, Bobby. I just spoke to him a few minutes ago. There are, I think, at least between 60 and 75 people that day who claimed the car stopped. But even if it didn’t stop..

A: Whether or not the lead car stopped.. I don’t believe that it did. It slowed down though. What was this agent’s name? Clint Hill?

Q: Right.

Clint Hill, on the other hand, has consistently reported actions he took that are also not included in the film: getting on the back step and then pushing Jackie down, lying across their bodies, peering into the hole in JFK's head, given his colleagues a "thumb's down" before reaching the Underpass:

"JFK: Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?"

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/25/jfk-whos-telling-the-truth-clint-hill-or-the-zapruder-film/

Moreover, WE KNOW THE FILM IS A FAKE AND WHERE AND WHEN IT WAS DONE. So what's going on here? Are the members of this forum so absent minded that they do not remember what has already been proven? Are none of you even bothering to read summaries of some of the most important work ever done on the film?

"US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication"

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/10/03/us-government-official-jfk-cover-up-film-fabrication/

He is attempting to undermine every proof of conspiracy in the assassination of JFK (by disavowing his "double hit" theory, even though Feynman pointed it out to Lifton; his fraudulent attempt to explain away the Umbrella man, who turns out, ironically, to be a witness to the limo stop; and now this):

"JFK, the CIA and The New York Times"

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/29/jfk-the-cia-and-the-new-york-times-2/

Where will it end? Now Pat Speer and Don Jeffries are here THANKING JOSIAH THOMPSON FOR ATTEMPTING TO PUT ANOTHER ONE OVER ON THE JFK COMMUNITY? Do I have to be eternally vigilant to point out he is trading in sleight-of-hand arguments and trying to obfuscate what has already been well-established?

And he pulls this "cutsie" about "chalking up to the law of unintended consequences"! How dumb are the members of this forum to be taken in by Tink? I already exposed what he was doing in the elaborate planned series with The New York Times. I guess The Times pulled the plug so, even resourceful, he came here to play the saps.

First, he praised Aguilar's chapter in MURDER, which argues for a hole in the back of JFK's head, which is also not in the film. Then, he vouched for Louis Witt's presence in Dealey Plaza, but Witt testified to the limo stop. So his own preferred sources offer proof the film has been faked. THOSE are cases of "unintended consequences"!

For the last month or so, I have been trying to determine whether Officer Chaney was splattered with blood and brain tissue from the Z 313 impact. Certain members of this Forum were quite helpful to me in providing leads. Yesterday, I was able to listen to an mp3 file of a 58 minute interview with Chaney carried out by Fred Newcomb’s research team in 1971-1973. It is referred to in his book, Murder from Within.

Like two other tapes, this tape begins with “John Whitney” on the line for James Chaney. “Whitney” is a pseudonym for Gil Toft, who was helping Fred Newcomb with his book. It becomes immediately apparent that “Whitney” has talked to Chaney before and sent him both a copy of the Zapruder film and the Altgens photo. It is clear from “Whitney’s” questions to Chaney that “Whitney” was hoping Chaney would be able to point out features of the actual event that do not coincide with what the Zapruder film shows. Chaney says he has watched the film a couple of times. “Whitney” then tells Chaney to look for various things: (1) look for “splices” in the film where there is some sort of jerk in the movement of the limousine, (2) watch Connally after the limousine emerges from behind the sign, (3) note that the limousine doesn’t even seem to slow down. This sets up the following exchange:

(4 minutes, 53 seconds)

Q: There are certain ways on film to be able to tell where someone has monkeyed around with the film.

A: I know.. I don’t know whether the lead car ever stopped or not. I know that.. I mean Kennedy’s car. The one behind them apparently did because an officer could run from the left hand side in front of me. I know I stopped. Whatever happened there. I know Hargis, one of the officers riding escort on the other side, run across in front of me.

Q: Yeah, Bobby. I just spoke to him a few minutes ago. There are, I think, at least between 60 and 75 people that day who claimed the car stopped. But even if it didn’t stop..

A: Whether or not the lead car stopped.. I don’t believe that it did. It slowed down though. What was this agent’s name? Clint Hill?

Q: Right.

A: Slowed down enough that he did get on that car. Now whether he was on there or not on.. Several different times during the procession there he would run up and jump on those little steps and ride there for a couple of seconds and jump off. It all depended on how fast it was going along and where we were at. So whether.. I don’t believe that it actually stopped. It could have but I just don’t.. The second car.. cause I recall it was Officer Hargis jumped off his motor and run across in front of me.

Q: Cause that’s another..

A: I don’t recall myself stopping but as I stopped to think of it I must have come almost to a stop for Hargis to have got off his motor over on the left-hand side and run between those two cars and run in front of me. Apparently, I did too. I don’t recall stopping but I must have.

Q: That stop is another thing to look for. And then another thing you can look for is to study Kennedy himself. It’s interesting then he gets that main shot that hits him in the head, blows his head up. Ah, all of a sudden you don’t see any blood or matter splashing anywhere, just one quick shot.

A: On this film I’ve got, everything looks like its powdered in white, still white.

Q: Right, right. You just see it that one split second. You don’t see anything flying anywhere.

A: No.

Q: Which is kind of strange..

A: Well, it was all over with as soon as you see it. It did splatter everything.

Q: Right, right. You notice the way Kennedy’s body after he’s hit goes. Lots of things like that. Oh, by the way, did you get that picture we sent also?

A: Yeah, the picture came with the film. (7 minutes, 43 seconds)

Remember the discussion of a year or so back about Chaney accelerating ahead in front of the limousine to reach the lead car and tell Chief Curry what had happened? The claim was that since the Zapruder film (or any other film for that matter) failed to show this, the Zapruder film (and the others) were all faked up. This seems to put the nail in the coffin of that particular claim. Chaney says that “I don’t recall myself stopping but as I stopped to think of it, I must have come almost to a stop for Hargis to have got off his motor on the left-hand side and run between those two cars and run in front of me. Apparently, I did too. I don’t recall stopping but I must have.”

Chalk this one up to the law of unintended consequences.

JT

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

Jim,

By thanking Josiah for posting this, I wasn't saying I accept his conclusion that this somehow disproves the notion that Chaney raced ahead of the motorcade. By noting that the conversation revolved around the idea the Zapruder film might have been altered, I was gently suggesting that perhaps one might also infer that Chaney's possible willingness to accept that the film didn't show everything the way it actually happened may be an "unintended consequence," too.

Regardless, I do thank him for posting the information, as I hadn't seen it before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is very bad. Typical Thompson, he doesn't even dare identify the source of the story. It originated John Costella and was published in my "New Proof of JFK film fakery", http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jim_fetz_080205_new_proof_of_jfk_fil.htm Do any of you think Cheney motoring forward is seen in the film? Here is a summary:

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

Notice that EVEN CHENEY acknowledges that there were "at least between 60 and 75 people that day who claimed the car stopped". My inference would be that Cheney is unsure because, as John observed, Cheney was motoring forward and, given his relative motion, did not recognize that it had stopped.

A: I know.. I don’t know whether the lead car ever stopped or not. I know that.. I mean Kennedy’s car. The one behind them apparently did because an officer could run from the left hand side in front of me. I know I stopped. Whatever happened there. I know Hargis, one of the officers riding escort on the other side, run across in front of me.

Q: Yeah, Bobby. I just spoke to him a few minutes ago. There are, I think, at least between 60 and 75 people that day who claimed the car stopped. But even if it didn’t stop..

A: Whether or not the lead car stopped.. I don’t believe that it did. It slowed down though. What was this agent’s name? Clint Hill?

Q: Right.

Clint Hill, on the other hand, has consistently reported actions he took that are also not included in the film: getting on the back step and then pushing Jackie down, lying across their bodies, peering into the hole in JFK's head, given his colleagues a "thumb's down" before reaching the Underpass:

"JFK: Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?"

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/25/jfk-whos-telling-the-truth-clint-hill-or-the-zapruder-film/

Moreover, WE KNOW THE FILM IS A FAKE AND WHERE AND WHEN IT WAS DONE. So what's going on here? Are the members of this forum so absent minded that they do not remember what has already been proven? Are none of you even bothering to read summaries of some of the most important work ever done on the film?

"US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication"

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/10/03/us-government-official-jfk-cover-up-film-fabrication/

He is attempting to undermine every proof of conspiracy in the assassination of JFK (by disavowing his "double hit" theory, even though Feynman pointed it out to Lifton; his fraudulent attempt to explain away the Umbrella man, who turns out, ironically, to be a witness to the limo stop; and now this):

"JFK, the CIA and The New York Times"

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/29/jfk-the-cia-and-the-new-york-times-2/

Where will it end? Now Pat Speer and Don Jeffries are here THANKING JOSIAH THOMPSON FOR ATTEMPTING TO PUT ANOTHER ONE OVER ON THE JFK COMMUNITY? Do I have to be eternally vigilant to point out he is trading in sleight-of-hand arguments and trying to obfuscate what has already been well-established?

And he pulls this "cutsie" about "chalking up to the law of unintended consequences"! How dumb are the members of this forum to be taken in by Tink? I already exposed what he was doing in the elaborate planned series with The New York Times. I guess The Times pulled the plug so, even resourceful, he came here to play the saps.

First, he praised Aguilar's chapter in MURDER, which argues for a hole in the back of JFK's head, which is also not in the film. Then, he vouched for Louis Witt's presence in Dealey Plaza, but Witt testified to the limo stop. So his own preferred sources offer proof the film has been faked. THOSE are cases of "unintended consequences"!

For the last month or so, I have been trying to determine whether Officer Chaney was splattered with blood and brain tissue from the Z 313 impact. Certain members of this Forum were quite helpful to me in providing leads. Yesterday, I was able to listen to an mp3 file of a 58 minute interview with Chaney carried out by Fred Newcomb’s research team in 1971-1973. It is referred to in his book, Murder from Within.

Like two other tapes, this tape begins with “John Whitney” on the line for James Chaney. “Whitney” is a pseudonym for Gil Toft, who was helping Fred Newcomb with his book. It becomes immediately apparent that “Whitney” has talked to Chaney before and sent him both a copy of the Zapruder film and the Altgens photo. It is clear from “Whitney’s” questions to Chaney that “Whitney” was hoping Chaney would be able to point out features of the actual event that do not coincide with what the Zapruder film shows. Chaney says he has watched the film a couple of times. “Whitney” then tells Chaney to look for various things: (1) look for “splices” in the film where there is some sort of jerk in the movement of the limousine, (2) watch Connally after the limousine emerges from behind the sign, (3) note that the limousine doesn’t even seem to slow down. This sets up the following exchange:

(4 minutes, 53 seconds)

Q: There are certain ways on film to be able to tell where someone has monkeyed around with the film.

A: I know.. I don’t know whether the lead car ever stopped or not. I know that.. I mean Kennedy’s car. The one behind them apparently did because an officer could run from the left hand side in front of me. I know I stopped. Whatever happened there. I know Hargis, one of the officers riding escort on the other side, run across in front of me.

Q: Yeah, Bobby. I just spoke to him a few minutes ago. There are, I think, at least between 60 and 75 people that day who claimed the car stopped. But even if it didn’t stop..

A: Whether or not the lead car stopped.. I don’t believe that it did. It slowed down though. What was this agent’s name? Clint Hill?

Q: Right.

A: Slowed down enough that he did get on that car. Now whether he was on there or not on.. Several different times during the procession there he would run up and jump on those little steps and ride there for a couple of seconds and jump off. It all depended on how fast it was going along and where we were at. So whether.. I don’t believe that it actually stopped. It could have but I just don’t.. The second car.. cause I recall it was Officer Hargis jumped off his motor and run across in front of me.

Q: Cause that’s another..

A: I don’t recall myself stopping but as I stopped to think of it I must have come almost to a stop for Hargis to have got off his motor over on the left-hand side and run between those two cars and run in front of me. Apparently, I did too. I don’t recall stopping but I must have.

Q: That stop is another thing to look for. And then another thing you can look for is to study Kennedy himself. It’s interesting then he gets that main shot that hits him in the head, blows his head up. Ah, all of a sudden you don’t see any blood or matter splashing anywhere, just one quick shot.

A: On this film I’ve got, everything looks like its powdered in white, still white.

Q: Right, right. You just see it that one split second. You don’t see anything flying anywhere.

A: No.

Q: Which is kind of strange..

A: Well, it was all over with as soon as you see it. It did splatter everything.

Q: Right, right. You notice the way Kennedy’s body after he’s hit goes. Lots of things like that. Oh, by the way, did you get that picture we sent also?

A: Yeah, the picture came with the film. (7 minutes, 43 seconds)

Remember the discussion of a year or so back about Chaney accelerating ahead in front of the limousine to reach the lead car and tell Chief Curry what had happened? The claim was that since the Zapruder film (or any other film for that matter) failed to show this, the Zapruder film (and the others) were all faked up. This seems to put the nail in the coffin of that particular claim. Chaney says that “I don’t recall myself stopping but as I stopped to think of it, I must have come almost to a stop for Hargis to have got off his motor on the left-hand side and run between those two cars and run in front of me. Apparently, I did too. I don’t recall stopping but I must have.”

Chalk this one up to the law of unintended consequences.

JT

It's C-H-A-N-E-Y, Jim. C-H-E-N-E-Y, unfortunately, lives on. Even without a heart.

As far as Thompson, you've bet the farm he's gonna pull some orchestrated about face on the 50th. Time will tell if you're right. If he does, I'll admit you were right about him all along. I hope this makes you happy.

But in the meantime, can't you step back and thank him for tracking down a basically forgotten interview with one of the closest witnesses? I mean, odds are there is something on the tape you'll find interesting or useful. Why not wait till you hear or see the transcript of the whole tape before you denounce it?

P.S. I asked you a question on the thread you started on your recent presentation.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Why is it so typical of you that, when important issues are at stake, you can focus on the trivial?

Yes, it is "Chaney" and not "Cheney", which is correctly spelled in "New Proof" but misspelled here.

So what? Do you grasp that, in a sly attempt to deflect attention from the importance of what Chaney

did by motoring forward--which is not present in the Zapruder or the Nix--he treats him as a witness?

Do you grasp that, since Chaney's actions in motoring forward are not included in the Zapruder of the

Nix, that the absence of his actions in motoring forward are a powerful proof of Zapruder/Nix fakery?

Do you appreciate that, time after time, Tink has been attempting to deflect powerful evidence of the

existence of conspiracy in the assassination, where this is now his third or fourth OBVIOUS attempt?

(1) He has abandoned his "double-hit" analysis, which was the most important contribution of his book.

Indeed, given that analysis alone, how could he end it by claiming nothing in it proves conspiracy?

(2) He trashed MURDER and praised Aguilar's chapter alone, when Aguilar validates multiple reports of a

massive gaping wound at the back of the head. But that wound is missing from the film, proving fakery.

(3) He endorses Louis Witt as the Umbrella man in Dealey Plaza, implying that his presence there was

innocent. But Witt turns out to be a limo stop witness, which means that he, too, proves film fakery.

(4) Here he treats Chaney (C-H-A-N-E-Y) as a WITNESS, when what matters were his ACTIONS in motoring

forward, where he doing what he can to obfuscate that his ACTIONS are another proof of film fakery.

Do you discern a pattern here? Do you understand what's going on? Time after time, Tink is doing

what he can to trivialize, minimize or even completely deny the existence of proofs of conspiracy.

So you are going to "wait and see"!? That's like a man whose car is stuck on railroad tracks as he

sees the light of an approaching train coming toward him. How much proof you do need of what's next?

This is very bad. Typical Thompson, he doesn't even dare identify the source of the story. It originated John Costella and was published in my "New Proof of JFK film fakery", http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jim_fetz_080205_new_proof_of_jfk_fil.htm Do any of you think Cheney motoring forward is seen in the film? Here is a summary:

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

Notice that EVEN CHENEY acknowledges that there were "at least between 60 and 75 people that day who claimed the car stopped". My inference would be that Cheney is unsure because, as John observed, Cheney was motoring forward and, given his relative motion, did not recognize that it had stopped.

A: I know.. I don’t know whether the lead car ever stopped or not. I know that.. I mean Kennedy’s car. The one behind them apparently did because an officer could run from the left hand side in front of me. I know I stopped. Whatever happened there. I know Hargis, one of the officers riding escort on the other side, run across in front of me.

Q: Yeah, Bobby. I just spoke to him a few minutes ago. There are, I think, at least between 60 and 75 people that day who claimed the car stopped. But even if it didn’t stop..

A: Whether or not the lead car stopped.. I don’t believe that it did. It slowed down though. What was this agent’s name? Clint Hill?

Q: Right.

Clint Hill, on the other hand, has consistently reported actions he took that are also not included in the film: getting on the back step and then pushing Jackie down, lying across their bodies, peering into the hole in JFK's head, given his colleagues a "thumb's down" before reaching the Underpass:

"JFK: Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?"

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/25/jfk-whos-telling-the-truth-clint-hill-or-the-zapruder-film/

Moreover, WE KNOW THE FILM IS A FAKE AND WHERE AND WHEN IT WAS DONE. So what's going on here? Are the members of this forum so absent minded that they do not remember what has already been proven? Are none of you even bothering to read summaries of some of the most important work ever done on the film?

"US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication"

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/10/03/us-government-official-jfk-cover-up-film-fabrication/

He is attempting to undermine every proof of conspiracy in the assassination of JFK (by disavowing his "double hit" theory, even though Feynman pointed it out to Lifton; his fraudulent attempt to explain away the Umbrella man, who turns out, ironically, to be a witness to the limo stop; and now this):

"JFK, the CIA and The New York Times"

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/29/jfk-the-cia-and-the-new-york-times-2/

Where will it end? Now Pat Speer and Don Jeffries are here THANKING JOSIAH THOMPSON FOR ATTEMPTING TO PUT ANOTHER ONE OVER ON THE JFK COMMUNITY? Do I have to be eternally vigilant to point out he is trading in sleight-of-hand arguments and trying to obfuscate what has already been well-established?

And he pulls this "cutsie" about "chalking up to the law of unintended consequences"! How dumb are the members of this forum to be taken in by Tink? I already exposed what he was doing in the elaborate planned series with The New York Times. I guess The Times pulled the plug so, even resourceful, he came here to play the saps.

First, he praised Aguilar's chapter in MURDER, which argues for a hole in the back of JFK's head, which is also not in the film. Then, he vouched for Louis Witt's presence in Dealey Plaza, but Witt testified to the limo stop. So his own preferred sources offer proof the film has been faked. THOSE are cases of "unintended consequences"!

For the last month or so, I have been trying to determine whether Officer Chaney was splattered with blood and brain tissue from the Z 313 impact. Certain members of this Forum were quite helpful to me in providing leads. Yesterday, I was able to listen to an mp3 file of a 58 minute interview with Chaney carried out by Fred Newcomb’s research team in 1971-1973. It is referred to in his book, Murder from Within.

Like two other tapes, this tape begins with “John Whitney” on the line for James Chaney. “Whitney” is a pseudonym for Gil Toft, who was helping Fred Newcomb with his book. It becomes immediately apparent that “Whitney” has talked to Chaney before and sent him both a copy of the Zapruder film and the Altgens photo. It is clear from “Whitney’s” questions to Chaney that “Whitney” was hoping Chaney would be able to point out features of the actual event that do not coincide with what the Zapruder film shows. Chaney says he has watched the film a couple of times. “Whitney” then tells Chaney to look for various things: (1) look for “splices” in the film where there is some sort of jerk in the movement of the limousine, (2) watch Connally after the limousine emerges from behind the sign, (3) note that the limousine doesn’t even seem to slow down. This sets up the following exchange:

(4 minutes, 53 seconds)

Q: There are certain ways on film to be able to tell where someone has monkeyed around with the film.

A: I know.. I don’t know whether the lead car ever stopped or not. I know that.. I mean Kennedy’s car. The one behind them apparently did because an officer could run from the left hand side in front of me. I know I stopped. Whatever happened there. I know Hargis, one of the officers riding escort on the other side, run across in front of me.

Q: Yeah, Bobby. I just spoke to him a few minutes ago. There are, I think, at least between 60 and 75 people that day who claimed the car stopped. But even if it didn’t stop..

A: Whether or not the lead car stopped.. I don’t believe that it did. It slowed down though. What was this agent’s name? Clint Hill?

Q: Right.

A: Slowed down enough that he did get on that car. Now whether he was on there or not on.. Several different times during the procession there he would run up and jump on those little steps and ride there for a couple of seconds and jump off. It all depended on how fast it was going along and where we were at. So whether.. I don’t believe that it actually stopped. It could have but I just don’t.. The second car.. cause I recall it was Officer Hargis jumped off his motor and run across in front of me.

Q: Cause that’s another..

A: I don’t recall myself stopping but as I stopped to think of it I must have come almost to a stop for Hargis to have got off his motor over on the left-hand side and run between those two cars and run in front of me. Apparently, I did too. I don’t recall stopping but I must have.

Q: That stop is another thing to look for. And then another thing you can look for is to study Kennedy himself. It’s interesting then he gets that main shot that hits him in the head, blows his head up. Ah, all of a sudden you don’t see any blood or matter splashing anywhere, just one quick shot.

A: On this film I’ve got, everything looks like its powdered in white, still white.

Q: Right, right. You just see it that one split second. You don’t see anything flying anywhere.

A: No.

Q: Which is kind of strange..

A: Well, it was all over with as soon as you see it. It did splatter everything.

Q: Right, right. You notice the way Kennedy’s body after he’s hit goes. Lots of things like that. Oh, by the way, did you get that picture we sent also?

A: Yeah, the picture came with the film. (7 minutes, 43 seconds)

Remember the discussion of a year or so back about Chaney accelerating ahead in front of the limousine to reach the lead car and tell Chief Curry what had happened? The claim was that since the Zapruder film (or any other film for that matter) failed to show this, the Zapruder film (and the others) were all faked up. This seems to put the nail in the coffin of that particular claim. Chaney says that “I don’t recall myself stopping but as I stopped to think of it, I must have come almost to a stop for Hargis to have got off his motor on the left-hand side and run between those two cars and run in front of me. Apparently, I did too. I don’t recall stopping but I must have.”

Chalk this one up to the law of unintended consequences.

JT

It's C-H-A-N-E-Y, Jim. C-H-E-N-E-Y, unfortunately, lives on. Even without a heart.

As far as Thompson, you've bet the farm he's gonna pull some orchestrated about face on the 50th. Time will tell if you're right. If he does, I'll admit you were right about him all along. I hope this makes you happy.

But in the meantime, can't you step back and thank him for tracking down a basically forgotten interview with one of the closest witnesses? I mean, odds are there is something on the tape you'll find interesting or useful. Why not wait till you hear or see the transcript of the whole tape before you denounce it?

P.S. I asked you a question on the thread you started on your recent presentation.

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

Guest James H. Fetzer

Do you think this excuses you from failing to acknowledge that something very strange is going on here?

(1) Why is Josiah wondering if Officer Chaney was hit with blood and brains? He was to the right/rear.

(2) The bullet entering JFK's right temple blew his brains out to the left/rear, hitting Officer Bobby Hargis.

(3) Tink is treating Officer Chaney as if he were a WITNESS and as if that is what is important about him.

(4) What matters are the ACTIONS THAT CHANEY TOOK, WHICH ARE NOT FOUND IN THE FILMS.

Tell me what "value" do you find in Chaney's saying he is uncertain but doesn't think the limo stopped?

Do you understand that Chaney's ACTIONS by themselves are proof of film fakery? Do you agree to that?

So what do you think Tink is about here, Don Jeffries? My opinion is that he has played you both for saps.

Jim,

By thanking Josiah for posting this, I wasn't saying I accept his conclusion that this somehow disproves the notion that Chaney raced ahead of the motorcade. By noting that the conversation revolved around the idea the Zapruder film might have been altered, I was gently suggesting that perhaps one might also infer that Chaney's possible willingness to accept that the film didn't show everything the way it actually happened may be an "unintended consequence," too.

Regardless, I do thank him for posting the information, as I hadn't seen it before.

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

For the last month or so, I have been trying to determine whether Officer Chaney was splattered with blood and brain tissue from the Z 313 impact. Certain members of this Forum were quite helpful to me in providing leads. Yesterday, I was able to listen to an mp3 file of a 58 minute interview with Chaney carried out by Fred Newcomb’s research team in 1971-1973. It is referred to in his book, Murder from Within.

Like two other tapes, this tape begins with “John Whitney” on the line for James Chaney. “Whitney” is a pseudonym for Gil Toft, who was helping Fred Newcomb with his book. It becomes immediately apparent that “Whitney” has talked to Chaney before and sent him both a copy of the Zapruder film and the Altgens photo. It is clear from “Whitney’s” questions to Chaney that “Whitney” was hoping Chaney would be able to point out features of the actual event that do not coincide with what the Zapruder film shows. Chaney says he has watched the film a couple of times. “Whitney” then tells Chaney to look for various things: (1) look for “splices” in the film where there is some sort of jerk in the movement of the limousine, (2) watch Connally after the limousine emerges from behind the sign, (3) note that the limousine doesn’t even seem to slow down. This sets up the following exchange:

(4 minutes, 53 seconds)

Q: There are certain ways on film to be able to tell where someone has monkeyed around with the film.

A: I know.. I don’t know whether the lead car ever stopped or not. I know that.. I mean Kennedy’s car. The one behind them apparently did because an officer could run from the left hand side in front of me. I know I stopped. Whatever happened there. I know Hargis, one of the officers riding escort on the other side, run across in front of me.

Q: Yeah, Bobby. I just spoke to him a few minutes ago. There are, I think, at least between 60 and 75 people that day who claimed the car stopped. But even if it didn’t stop..

A: Whether or not the lead car stopped.. I don’t believe that it did. It slowed down though. What was this agent’s name? Clint Hill?

Q: Right.

A: Slowed down enough that he did get on that car. Now whether he was on there or not on.. Several different times during the procession there he would run up and jump on those little steps and ride there for a couple of seconds and jump off. It all depended on how fast it was going along and where we were at. So whether.. I don’t believe that it actually stopped. It could have but I just don’t.. The second car.. cause I recall it was Officer Hargis jumped off his motor and run across in front of me.

Q: Cause that’s another..

A: I don’t recall myself stopping but as I stopped to think of it I must have come almost to a stop for Hargis to have got off his motor over on the left-hand side and run between those two cars and run in front of me. Apparently, I did too. I don’t recall stopping but I must have.

Q: That stop is another thing to look for. And then another thing you can look for is to study Kennedy himself. It’s interesting then he gets that main shot that hits him in the head, blows his head up. Ah, all of a sudden you don’t see any blood or matter splashing anywhere, just one quick shot.

A: On this film I’ve got, everything looks like its powdered in white, still white.

Q: Right, right. You just see it that one split second. You don’t see anything flying anywhere.

A: No.

Q: Which is kind of strange..

A: Well, it was all over with as soon as you see it. It did splatter everything.

Q: Right, right. You notice the way Kennedy’s body after he’s hit goes. Lots of things like that. Oh, by the way, did you get that picture we sent also?

A: Yeah, the picture came with the film. (7 minutes, 43 seconds)

Remember the discussion of a year or so back about Chaney accelerating ahead in front of the limousine to reach the lead car and tell Chief Curry what had happened? The claim was that since the Zapruder film (or any other film for that matter) failed to show this, the Zapruder film (and the others) were all faked up. This seems to put the nail in the coffin of that particular claim. Chaney says that “I don’t recall myself stopping but as I stopped to think of it, I must have come almost to a stop for Hargis to have got off his motor on the left-hand side and run between those two cars and run in front of me. Apparently, I did too. I don’t recall stopping but I must have.”

Chalk this one up to the law of unintended consequences.

JT

I regard the interview as valuable, but if the Z-film has been altered then Gil Toft is promoting memory pollution in Chaney. How much better for Toft to have contacted Chaney and asked him to tell him everything he could recall without showing him the film. Then if Chaney's recollections contradicted the extant film, how much more valuable the interview. Notice how Chaney demonstrates a great deal of uncertainty on the limo stop. He "doesn't know" in the early stage of the interview and then he "doesn't think it did." Toft's mistake was to send Chaney the film in the first place, the unintended consequence of which was to color the officer's memory. I would rather read as much as I could of any statements Chaney might have made contemporaneously with the assassination, or what other officers saw of Chaney. REgards, Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, some reading therapy for Professor James Fetzer, Ph.D. He writes: “Even Chaney acknowledges that there were "at least between 60 and 75 people that day who claimed the car stopped." You got it wrong. It wasn’t Chaney who said that but his questioner, Gil Toft. Check the transcript.

Like many of his failed attempts to prove the Zapruder film inauthentic, Fetzer anchored his claim here by opposing what the Zapruder film shows to what Officer Chaney said. On the night of the shooting, Chaney was interviewed by Bill Lord of ABC News. Chaney said,

“Then, when the second shot came, 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 uuh, apparently.. [unintelligible].. I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. And he instructed us over there to take him to Parkland Hospital and he had Parkland Hospital stand by. I rolled up ahead.. to notify the officers who were leading the escort that we had been hit.”

When it was pointed out that the Bell and Nix films show exactly what the Zapruder film shows, Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., claimed that all three films had been faked. Finally, it was pointed out that the Daniels film shows the limousine coming even with the lead car underneath the Triple Underpass with Officer Chaney’s cycle trailing by hundreds of feet. Since the Daniel’s film was never in government possession, it became difficult to claim it had been altered. About this time, Professor Fetzer, Ph.D’s, claim appeared to flame out.

Not so, says Professor Fetzer, Ph.D.

Yet he fails to even read what Chaney says in this tape-recorded interview. Check out the transcript. Chaney says that he still does not recollect stopping his cycle but he must have. Why? Because he does recollect Officer Bobby Hargis getting off his cycle and crossing Elm Street in front of Chaney. Just as the film evidence demonstrates, Chaney did not accelerate his cycle and pass the limousine to meet with the lead car. On the contrary, he slowed (perhaps even stopped) while watching Hargis run from left to right in front of him. This is what the film evidence showed and what Chaney now says happened.

Will Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., say, “You know, I guess I was wrong?” I’m not holding my breath. Just as he’s done with earlier failed attempts to prove the Zapruder film a fake, he’ll find ever more ingenious ways to cover up the fact that his evidence just went ‘poof.’

JT

This is very bad. Typical Thompson, he doesn't even dare identify the source of the story. It originated John Costella and was published in my "New Proof of JFK film fakery", http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jim_fetz_080205_new_proof_of_jfk_fil.htm Do any of you think Chaney motoring forward is seen in the film? Here is a summary:

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

Notice that EVEN CHANEY acknowledges that there were "at least between 60 and 75 people that day who claimed the car stopped". My inference would be that Chaney is unsure because, as John observed, Chaney was motoring forward and, given his relative motion, did not recognize that it had stopped.

A: I know.. I don’t know whether the lead car ever stopped or not. I know that.. I mean Kennedy’s car. The one behind them apparently did because an officer could run from the left hand side in front of me. I know I stopped. Whatever happened there. I know Hargis, one of the officers riding escort on the other side, run across in front of me.

Q: Yeah, Bobby. I just spoke to him a few minutes ago. There are, I think, at least between 60 and 75 people that day who claimed the car stopped. But even if it didn’t stop..

A: Whether or not the lead car stopped.. I don’t believe that it did. It slowed down though. What was this agent’s name? Clint Hill?

Q: Right.

Clint Hill, on the other hand, has consistently reported actions he took that are also not included in the film: getting on the back step and then pushing Jackie down, lying across their bodies, peering into the hole in JFK's head, given his colleagues a "thumb's down" before reaching the Underpass:

"JFK: Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?"

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/25/jfk-whos-telling-the-truth-clint-hill-or-the-zapruder-film/

Moreover, WE KNOW THE FILM IS A FAKE AND WHERE AND WHEN IT WAS DONE. So what's going on here? Are the members of this forum so absent minded that they do not remember what has already been proven? Are none of you even bothering to read summaries of some of the most important work ever done on the film?

"US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication"

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/10/03/us-government-official-jfk-cover-up-film-fabrication/

He is attempting to undermine every proof of conspiracy in the assassination of JFK (by disavowing his "double hit" theory, even though Feynman pointed it out to Lifton; his fraudulent attempt to explain away the Umbrella man, who turns out, ironically, to be a witness to the limo stop; and now this):

"JFK, the CIA and The New York Times"

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/29/jfk-the-cia-and-the-new-york-times-2/

Where will it end? Now Pat Speer and Don Jeffries are here THANKING JOSIAH THOMPSON FOR ATTEMPTING TO PUT ANOTHER ONE OVER ON THE JFK COMMUNITY? Do I have to be eternally vigilant to point out he is trading in sleight-of-hand arguments and trying to obfuscate what has already been well-established?

And he pulls this "cutsie" about "chalking up to the law of unintended consequences"! How dumb are the members of this forum to be taken in by Tink? I already exposed what he was doing in the elaborate planned series with The New York Times. I guess The Times pulled the plug so, even resourceful, he came here to play the saps.

First, he praised Aguilar's chapter in MURDER, which argues for a hole in the back of JFK's head, which is also not in the film. Then, he vouched for Louis Witt's presence in Dealey Plaza, but Witt testified to the limo stop. So his own preferred sources offer proof the film has been faked. THOSE are cases of "unintended consequences"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat,

Why don't you ask Fetzer to put some real money on the table? Bet him $1,000. or $5,000. that he's wrong. Then, on November 22, 2013, you and I will have a great meal on Fetzer at the Cattlemen's Steak House in Dallas. It would be a supreme pleasure.

JT

It's C-H-A-N-E-Y, Jim. C-H-E-N-E-Y, unfortunately, lives on. Even without a heart.

As far as Thompson, you've bet the farm he's gonna pull some orchestrated about face on the 50th. Time will tell if you're right. If he does, I'll admit you were right about him all along. I hope this makes you happy.

But in the meantime, can't you step back and thank him for tracking down a basically forgotten interview with one of the closest witnesses? I mean, odds are there is something on the tape you'll find interesting or useful. Why not wait till you hear or see the transcript of the whole tape before you denounce it?

P.S. I asked you a question on the thread you started on your recent presentation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Josiah Thompson's position is not even coherent. He is on both sides of every issue. Consider the following:

(1) He has abandoned his "double-hit" analysis, which was the most important contribution of his book.

Indeed, given that analysis alone, how could he conclude it by claiming nothing in it proves conspiracy?

The double-hit BY ITSELF established there were at least two shooters in Dealey Plaza. So unless he has

lost all capacity to reason, his book PROVED A CONSPIRACY, yet he disavowed having proven conspiracy.

(2) He trashed MURDER and praised Aguilar's chapter alone, when Aguilar validates multiple reports of a

massive gaping wound at the back of the head. But that wound is missing from the film, proving fakery.

His dismissal of MURDER was simply absurd. Compare what a serious review had to day about it.

Of course, if Gary is right, then the film is a fake. He cannot consistently maintain both. So which is it?

(3) He endorses Louis Witt as the Umbrella man in Dealey Plaza, implying that his presence there was

innocent. But Witt turns out to be a limo stop witness, which means that he, too, proves film fakery.

This was a real doozie. He did not do his homework and hung himself out to dry. He maintains that

Witt was there, but Witt impeaches the film. So if Tink is right about Witt, he's wrong about the film.

(4) Here he is treating Chaney as a WITNESS, when what matters were his ACTIONS in motoring

forward, where he doing what he can to obfuscate that his ACTIONS are another proof of film fakery.

He objects that Toft said 60 to 75 people reported the limo stop. So does Tink think they are all liars?

And since Chaney motored forward, which is not in the film, Chaney's actions also prove it is a fake.

Do you discern a pattern here? Do you understand what's going on? Time after time, Tink is doing

what he can to trivialize, minimize or even completely deny the existence of proofs of conspiracy.

But he cannot even do that with LOGICAL CONSISTENCY. No one here seems to understand that, if

he is on both sides of issues, HIS POSITION IS INCONSISTENCY AND CANNOT POSSIBLY BE TRUE.

He may not have offered course in logic, criticial thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years, but he

has a Ph.D. in philosophy from Yale. The man has to know he has now become a walking contradiction.

Pat,

Why don't you ask Fetzer to put some real money on the table? Bet him $1,000. or $5,000. that he's wrong. Then, on November 22, 2013, you and I will have a great meal on Fetzer at the Cattlemen's Steak House in Dallas. It would be a supreme pleasure.

JT

It's C-H-A-N-E-Y, Jim. C-H-E-N-E-Y, unfortunately, lives on. Even without a heart.

As far as Thompson, you've bet the farm he's gonna pull some orchestrated about face on the 50th. Time will tell if you're right. If he does, I'll admit you were right about him all along. I hope this makes you happy.

But in the meantime, can't you step back and thank him for tracking down a basically forgotten interview with one of the closest witnesses? I mean, odds are there is something on the tape you'll find interesting or useful. Why not wait till you hear or see the transcript of the whole tape before you denounce it?

P.S. I asked you a question on the thread you started on your recent presentation.

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

The point here is incredibly simple and Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., is obstinately missing it. Chaney is saying in the simplest terms that he did not motor forward as Fetzer believes. Read his lips: "I recall it was Officer Hargis jumped off his motor and run across in front of me... I don't recall myself stopping but as I stopped to think of it it, I must have come almost to a stop for Hargis to have got off his motorcycle over on the left-hand side and run between those two cars and run in front of me. Apparently, I did too. I don't recall stopping but I must have."

Instead of dealing with what Chaney is actually saying, Fetzer continues to repeat his mantra: "Chaney rode forward." Okay, perhaps Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., teacher of many courses in logic and critical thinking for a long, long, very long time, perhaps Professor Fetzer can explain how Chaney rode forward and, at the same time, has a memory of coming "almost to a stop" so that he could see Officer Hargis get off his cycle near the south curb of Elm Street and run across the street in front of Chaney. What Chaney recalls is completely consistent with exactly what we seen in all the films and photos of these moments. The photo scenario painted by the Zapruder, Nix, Bell and Daniels films ends with Chaney trailing the limousine by several hundred feet as the limousine pulls alongside the lead car under the triple underpass.

So given the various films, given what Chaney is actually saying, given what Chief Curry and the others are actually saying, what is the evidence that supports the mantra, "Chaney rode forward?"

JT

Josiah Thompson's position is not even coherent. He is on both sides of every issue. Consider the following:

(1) He has abandoned his "double-hit" analysis, which was the most important contribution of his book.

Indeed, given that analysis alone, how could he conclude it by claiming nothing in it proves conspiracy?

The double-hit BY ITSELF established there were at least two shooters in Dealey Plaza. So unless he has

lost all capacity to reason, his book PROVED A CONSPIRACY, yet he disavowed having proven conspiracy.

(2) He trashed MURDER and praised Aguilar's chapter alone, when Aguilar validates multiple reports of a

massive gaping wound at the back of the head. But that wound is missing from the film, proving fakery.

His dismissal of MURDER was simply absurd. Compare what a serious review had to day about it.

Of course, if Gary is right, then the film is a fake. He cannot consistently maintain both. So which is it?

(3) He endorses Louis Witt as the Umbrella man in Dealey Plaza, implying that his presence there was

innocent. But Witt turns out to be a limo stop witness, which means that he, too, proves film fakery.

This was a real doozie. He did not do his homework and hung himself out to dry. He maintains that

Witt was there, but Witt impeaches the film. So if Tink is right about Witt, he's wrong about the film.

(4) Here he is treating Chaney as a WITNESS, when what matters were his ACTIONS in motoring

forward, where he doing what he can to obfuscate that his ACTIONS are another proof of film fakery.

He objects that Toft said 60 to 75 people reported the limo stop. So does Tink think they are all liars?

And since Chaney motored forward, which is not in the film, Chaney's actions also prove it is a fake.

Do you discern a pattern here? Do you understand what's going on? Time after time, Tink is doing

what he can to trivialize, minimize or even completely deny the existence of proofs of conspiracy.

But he cannot even do that with LOGICAL CONSISTENCY. No one here seems to understand that, if

he is on both sides of issues, HIS POSITION IS INCONSISTENCY AND CANNOT POSSIBLY BE TRUE.

He may not have offered course in logic, criticial thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years, but he

has a Ph.D. in philosophy from Yale. The man has to know he has now become a walking contradiction.

Pat,

Why don't you ask Fetzer to put some real money on the table? Bet him $1,000. or $5,000. that he's wrong. Then, on November 22, 2013, you and I will have a great meal on Fetzer at the Cattlemen's Steak House in Dallas. It would be a supreme pleasure.

JT

It's C-H-A-N-E-Y, Jim. C-H-E-N-E-Y, unfortunately, lives on. Even without a heart.

As far as Thompson, you've bet the farm he's gonna pull some orchestrated about face on the 50th. Time will tell if you're right. If he does, I'll admit you were right about him all along. I hope this makes you happy.

But in the meantime, can't you step back and thank him for tracking down a basically forgotten interview with one of the closest witnesses? I mean, odds are there is something on the tape you'll find interesting or useful. Why not wait till you hear or see the transcript of the whole tape before you denounce it?

P.S. I asked you a question on the thread you started on your recent presentation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Whitney” then tells Chaney to look for various things: (1) look for “splices” in the film where there is some sort of jerk in the movement of the limousine, (2) watch Connally after the limousine emerges from behind the sign,

I don't know what the point was of Toft asking these questions, which would be better suited to a person filming the event than to a person in the motorcade. I'd like to see the whole transcript to decide.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As we watch Zfilm the limo speeds off and no motorcycles follow them... NONE.

the rest of Chaney also makes sense...

Mr. STERN - You were clear that the sounds were sounds of shots?

Mr. HARGIS - Yes. sir: I knew they were shots.

Mr. STERN - All right, what did you do then? You say you parked your motorcycle?

Mr. HARGIS - Yes, uh-huh----

Mr. STERN - Where?

Mr. HARGIS - It was to the left-hand side of the street from---south side of Elm Street.

Mr. STERN - And then what did you---

Mr. HARGIS - I ran across the street looking over towards the railroad overpass and I remembered seeing people scattering and running and then I looked.

Jim F....

rather than attacking JT, can you offer anything other than CHANEY's own words that he went up ahead to the lead car?

Does anyone in the car corroborate the story?

Are any of the three motocycle men in McIntyre CHANEY?

and finally... in SUPPORT of the frontal shot... I offer this look at CHANEY and his mate as the shots are fired...

WHERE ARE THEY LOOKING?

(Note: FWIW, Chaney, the man closest to JFK outside the vehicle is NOT on the WCR witness list or is listed as the author of ANYTHING in the dallas archive.... but I'll keep looking)

Jim, where did CHANEY say he motored forward to the lead car? Sorry if I missed the reference - an interview with you?

DJ

NixleftsidemotorcopslookatGK.jpg

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...