Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 (edited) Great work, David! You have made some excellent discoveries. One of them is that, in order for Office Chaney to have "looked back just in time to see the president STRUCK IN THE FACE", he had to have motored forward of the president's position, which is not shown in the film. At 39 seconds in, Chaney says, "2nd shot came and I looked back just in time to see the president STRUCK IN THE FACE by the second bullet" Moreover--and this may be even more important than his having motored forward--Officer Hargis' reports about the limo having stopped: Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two shots hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor. Mr. BELIN - Where was he? Mr. BAKER - He was on the right rear of the car or to the side, and then at that time the chief of police, he didn't know anything about this, and he moved up and told him, and then that was during the time that the Secret Service men were trying to get in the car, and at the time, after the shooting, from the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped. Mr. BELIN - The President's car? Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. Now, I have heard several of them say that, Mr. Truly was standing out there, he said it stopped. Several officers said it stopped completely. Mr. DULLES - You saw it stop, did you? Mr. BAKER - No, sir; I didn't see it stop. Mr. DULLES - You just heard from others that it had stopped? Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; that it had completely stopped, and then for a moment there, and then they rushed on out to Parkland. Does anyone doubt that this evidence refutes Tink's position or that it does not offer stunning new proof of Zapruder fakery? At 39 seconds in, Chaney says, "2nd shot came and I looked back just in time to see the president STRUCK IN THE FACE by the second bullet" No wonder they didn't call Ofc Chaney, huh? * James Chaney (motorcycle patrolman on right rear of the Presidential limousine): “I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. And then he instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hospital and that Parkland was standing by.” Chaney does indeed say this.... yet don't they have radios for those types of communications? This seems eerily similiar to the discrepancies between Baker's affidavit and testimony... what started as a man on the stairs becomes Oswald in the lunchroom... just sayin. Chaney would have had to get to the lead car by the time it reaches the overpass.... and I don't believe the LEAD CAR STOPPED - or did it? Dispatcher 12:30 p.m. KKB 364. 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Go to the hospital - Parkland Hospital. Have them stand by. 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there. 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Have Parkland stand by. Dallas 1 (Sheriff J.E. "Bill" Decker) I am sure it's going to take some time to get your man in there. Pull every one of my men in there. Dispatcher Dallas 1, repeat, I didn't get all of it. I didn't quite understand all of it. Dallas 1 (Sheriff J.E. "Bill" Decker) Have my office move all available men out of my office into the railroad yard to try to determine what happened in there and hold everything secure until Homicide and other investigators should get there. * Bobby Hargis (motorcycle patrolman on left rear of the Presidential limousine): “The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward and announced to the Chief that the President had been shot.” Well, that's not what NIX shows.... see below... Chaney basically stops... as he says later... "I MUST have stopped" Mr. BALL. At that time were you with Mr. Hargis? Mr. MARTIN. No, sir; I don't believe that he went to the hospital with us. I believe he stopped there at the scene of the shooting. Not Funny that Martin - who went along with the motorcade to Parkland, did not see the CHANEY episode... Bill Decker says nothing about it either... * Winston Lawson (Secret Service Agent in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “A motorcycle escort officer pulled along side our Lead Car and said the President had been shot. Chief Curry gave a signal over the radio for police to converge on the area of the incident.” * Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service Agent in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “A motorcycle patrolman pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled, ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer responded in the affirmative.” Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service agent, in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine), November 28, 1963: “I noted that the President’s car had axcelerated [sic] its speed and was closing fast the gap between us. A motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer replied in the affirmative, and Chief Curry immediately broadcast to surround the building. By that time we had gotten just about under the underpass when the President’s car pulled up alongside, and at that time Chief Curry’s car had started to pick up speed, and someone yelled to get to the nearest hospital, and Chief Curry broadcast for the hospital to be ready.” [statement: 21H548] Jim... Curry did NOT say anything about "surrounding the building" - here are all Curry's transmissions and their times... Why would Sorrels make that up ? When he was right there when he directs them to the RR yard? 12:28 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Big crowd, yes. 12:28 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Just crossing Market Street. 12:28 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Approaching Triple Underpass. 12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Go to the hospital - Parkland Hospital. Have them stand by. 12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there. 12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Have Parkland stand by. 12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Looks like the President has been hit. Have Parkland stand by. 12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Headed to Parkland. Something's wrong with Channel 1. 12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Just go on to Parkland Hospital [with me]. 12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Get these trucks out of the way. Hold everything. Get out of the way. 12:34 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Keep everything out of this emergency entrance. 12:51 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) It's very doubtful. 12:51 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Not at this time that I know of. I don't know but I feel reasonably sure that he will not. 1:34 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) With as little attention as possible, get up and break traffic ahead of the cars. 1:37 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Yes, but don't put it on the air. (1:37 p.m.) 1:37 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Don't let anyone follow us into the field. 1:37 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) 10-4. 1:51 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) What are the circumstances of J.D. Tippit? 1:51 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Did they get the suspects? 1:51 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) 10-4. 1:52 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) 10-4. * Chief Jesse Curry (in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “. . . about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney, rode up beside us and I asked if something happened back there and he said, ‘Yes,’ and I said ‘Has somebody been shot?” And he said, ‘I think so.’” The McIntyre crop is maybe 2 seconds later... that must be MARTIN at the back right... and maybe Chaney at the back left? Now someone not mentioned is Baker... and his account adds even more to the notion that CHANEY did go to the lead car... BUT WHEN THE ENTIRE MOTORCADE HAD STOPPED... AS I keep investingating this there is obviously something amiss with the film around the headshot... with the STOPPING added to the CHANEY accounts... there is something strange here, yet with Nix and McIntyre, and now these revelations about Chaney being mistaken... (you know Jim, like Hill was mistaken about the automatic rounds at the Tippit scene ) This requires more work... imo. Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two shots hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor. Mr. BELIN - Where was he? Mr. BAKER - He was on the right rear of the car or to the side, and then at that time the chief of police, he didn't know anything about this, and he moved up and told him, and then that was during the time that the Secret Service men were trying to get in the car, and at the time, after the shooting, from the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped. Mr. BELIN - The President's car? Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. Now, I have heard several of them say that, Mr. Truly was standing out there, he said it stopped. Several officers said it stopped completely. Mr. DULLES - You saw it stop, did you? Mr. BAKER - No, sir; I didn't see it stop. Mr. DULLES - You just heard from others that it had stopped? Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; that it had completely stopped, and then for a moment there, and then they rushed on out to Parkland. Edited January 6, 2012 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josiah Thompson Posted January 6, 2012 Author Share Posted January 6, 2012 Yes, David, I guess I misunderstood you. The MPI transparencies confirmed what I had earlier seen in my own copy of frame 317 from 1966, in a copy of the frame that I got from Robert Groden and in a copy of the frame posted by Jack White. In all these, I detected no discernible difference in the shadow on the back of JFK's head and other shadows in the frame (on Connally, on JFK's back, etc.) If the back of JFK's head was doctored, it ought to show, don't you think? I found nothing unusual about the shadow. JT Yes, I noticed the same thing, David. Last June I spent two afternoons studying the MPI 4" by 5" transparencies at the 6th Floor Museum. They are glorious. Looking at Z317, it struck me that the shadow on the back of JFK's head is exactly like the shadows that appear at other places in the frame. This is what you noticed and it is even clearer in the MPI transparencies.What ever happened to the much-vaunted "Hollywood Seven." We don't even know who they are supposed to be and all we've heard from them is a deafening silence? And for how many years has their silence been deafening? Not sure if I understand the post... "like the shadows that appear at other places in the frame" suggests that you think the BOH shadow is consistent with the others. What I noticed was the shadow at the back of JFK's head do not change as other similiar shadows do and in fact looks to ME like it floats over the head... I happen to do a z317 analysis just to see how these shadows behaved... as well as a gif at high contrast to see how that area changes... that area stays VERY dark comparitively... yet I of course view it with suspicious eyes... and I agree with you again JT... been hearing about these glorious 35mm Hollywood frames that make it obvious... maybe saving it for the 50th? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 (edited) As a point of clarification, we are really talking about the Nix film rather than the Zapruder. Here is a copy: Josiah has been consistent in claiming that all the films show the same sequence of events. While Chaney is not seen in the Zapruder, he does not motor forward in the Nix--not even sufficiently to have "looked back just in time to see the president STRUCK IN THE FACE", which is not seen in the Nix. Incidentally, I notice that Josiah appears to be moving his posts around in this thread. His latest was previously before my most recent. I suppose he thinks he gains some kind of rhetorical advantage, but it may be merely to create the false impression that, if you pick up with his latest, there is nothing new to go back to review. NOTE: The capture of the projectile, if such it is, would appear to be consistent with a shot from the above-ground sewer opening on the north side of the Triple Underpass half way between Elm Street and the top. Great work, David! You have made some excellent discoveries. One of them is that, in order for Office Chaney to have "looked back just in time to see the president STRUCK IN THE FACE", he had to have motored forward of the president's position, which is not shown in the film. At 39 seconds in, Chaney says, "2nd shot came and I looked back just in time to see the president STRUCK IN THE FACE by the second bullet" Moreover--and this may be even more important than his having motored forward--Officer Hargis' reports about the limo having stopped: Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two shots hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor. Mr. BELIN - Where was he? Mr. BAKER - He was on the right rear of the car or to the side, and then at that time the chief of police, he didn't know anything about this, and he moved up and told him, and then that was during the time that the Secret Service men were trying to get in the car, and at the time, after the shooting, from the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped. Mr. BELIN - The President's car? Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. Now, I have heard several of them say that, Mr. Truly was standing out there, he said it stopped. Several officers said it stopped completely. Mr. DULLES - You saw it stop, did you? Mr. BAKER - No, sir; I didn't see it stop. Mr. DULLES - You just heard from others that it had stopped? Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; that it had completely stopped, and then for a moment there, and then they rushed on out to Parkland. Does anyone doubt that this evidence refutes Tink's position or that it does not offer stunning new proof of Zapruder fakery? At 39 seconds in, Chaney says, "2nd shot came and I looked back just in time to see the president STRUCK IN THE FACE by the second bullet" No wonder they didn't call Ofc Chaney, huh? * James Chaney (motorcycle patrolman on right rear of the Presidential limousine): “I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. And then he instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hospital and that Parkland was standing by.” Chaney does indeed say this.... yet don't they have radios for those types of communications? This seems eerily similiar to the discrepancies between Baker's affidavit and testimony... what started as a man on the stairs becomes Oswald in the lunchroom... just sayin. Chaney would have had to get to the lead car by the time it reaches the overpass.... and I don't believe the LEAD CAR STOPPED - or did it? Dispatcher 12:30 p.m. KKB 364. 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Go to the hospital - Parkland Hospital. Have them stand by. 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there. 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Have Parkland stand by. Dallas 1 (Sheriff J.E. "Bill" Decker) I am sure it's going to take some time to get your man in there. Pull every one of my men in there. Dispatcher Dallas 1, repeat, I didn't get all of it. I didn't quite understand all of it. Dallas 1 (Sheriff J.E. "Bill" Decker) Have my office move all available men out of my office into the railroad yard to try to determine what happened in there and hold everything secure until Homicide and other investigators should get there. * Bobby Hargis (motorcycle patrolman on left rear of the Presidential limousine): “The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward and announced to the Chief that the President had been shot.” Well, that's not what NIX shows.... see below... Chaney basically stops... as he says later... "I MUST have stopped" Mr. BALL. At that time were you with Mr. Hargis? Mr. MARTIN. No, sir; I don't believe that he went to the hospital with us. I believe he stopped there at the scene of the shooting. Not Funny that Martin - who went along with the motorcade to Parkland, did not see the CHANEY episode... Bill Decker says nothing about it either... * Winston Lawson (Secret Service Agent in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “A motorcycle escort officer pulled along side our Lead Car and said the President had been shot. Chief Curry gave a signal over the radio for police to converge on the area of the incident.” * Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service Agent in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “A motorcycle patrolman pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled, ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer responded in the affirmative.” Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service agent, in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine), November 28, 1963: “I noted that the President’s car had axcelerated [sic] its speed and was closing fast the gap between us. A motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer replied in the affirmative, and Chief Curry immediately broadcast to surround the building. By that time we had gotten just about under the underpass when the President’s car pulled up alongside, and at that time Chief Curry’s car had started to pick up speed, and someone yelled to get to the nearest hospital, and Chief Curry broadcast for the hospital to be ready.” [statement: 21H548] Jim... Curry did NOT say anything about "surrounding the building" - here are all Curry's transmissions and their times... Why would Sorrels make that up ? When he was right there when he directs them to the RR yard? 12:28 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Big crowd, yes. 12:28 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Just crossing Market Street. 12:28 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Approaching Triple Underpass. 12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Go to the hospital - Parkland Hospital. Have them stand by. 12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there. 12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Have Parkland stand by. 12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Looks like the President has been hit. Have Parkland stand by. 12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Headed to Parkland. Something's wrong with Channel 1. 12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Just go on to Parkland Hospital [with me]. 12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Get these trucks out of the way. Hold everything. Get out of the way. 12:34 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Keep everything out of this emergency entrance. 12:51 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) It's very doubtful. 12:51 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Not at this time that I know of. I don't know but I feel reasonably sure that he will not. 1:34 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) With as little attention as possible, get up and break traffic ahead of the cars. 1:37 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Yes, but don't put it on the air. (1:37 p.m.) 1:37 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Don't let anyone follow us into the field. 1:37 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) 10-4. 1:51 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) What are the circumstances of J.D. Tippit? 1:51 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Did they get the suspects? 1:51 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) 10-4. 1:52 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) 10-4. * Chief Jesse Curry (in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “. . . about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney, rode up beside us and I asked if something happened back there and he said, ‘Yes,’ and I said ‘Has somebody been shot?” And he said, ‘I think so.’” The McIntyre crop is maybe 2 seconds later... that must be MARTIN at the back right... and maybe Chaney at the back left? Now someone not mentioned is Baker... and his account adds even more to the notion that CHANEY did go to the lead car... BUT WHEN THE ENTIRE MOTORCADE HAD STOPPED... AS I keep investingating this there is obviously something amiss with the film around the headshot... with the STOPPING added to the CHANEY accounts... there is something strange here, yet with Nix and McIntyre, and now these revelations about Chaney being mistaken... (you know Jim, like Hill was mistaken about the automatic rounds at the Tippit scene ) This requires more work... imo. Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two shots hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor. Mr. BELIN - Where was he? Mr. BAKER - He was on the right rear of the car or to the side, and then at that time the chief of police, he didn't know anything about this, and he moved up and told him, and then that was during the time that the Secret Service men were trying to get in the car, and at the time, after the shooting, from the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped. Mr. BELIN - The President's car? Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. Now, I have heard several of them say that, Mr. Truly was standing out there, he said it stopped. Several officers said it stopped completely. Mr. DULLES - You saw it stop, did you? Mr. BAKER - No, sir; I didn't see it stop. Mr. DULLES - You just heard from others that it had stopped? Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; that it had completely stopped, and then for a moment there, and then they rushed on out to Parkland. Edited January 7, 2012 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 (edited) Pat, I am going back to see if I can discern what you are talking about, where in the meanwhile you have created a massive distraction so Tink can evade addressing the issues I have raised. So I have a better understanding of what you think I am doing wrong, here is one of my posts. Please bold the passages you regard as offensive--or is pointing out his incoherence forbidden? I find this intervention a bit much. Jim Posted Yesterday, 02:58 PM 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 subvert 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? Jim Jim, the forum has had a series of nasty knock 'em down, drag 'em outs lately, with the net result being that, while the moderators themselves prefer that members police themselves, many forum members are hoping for more moderation. I have proposed a compromise, which may or may not have a positive impact. My compromise is that, when MEMBERS note that another member is in violation of Rule iv of the Forum rules, which reads (iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum. they should bring it to the member in violation's attention, so that he or she can correct their post, without the involvement of a moderator. As a MEMBER, not a moderator, I am alerting you that you are in violation of Rule iv on several of your posts in this thread, and am asking you to correct these posts. (In essence, you can question Thompson's conclusions, but not his motivation. This makes references to his "pulling the wool" over people's eyes, etc. a violation.) As a MEMBER, you are equally free to invoke Rule iv should you note a violation. Please do so. By invoking Rule iv whenever it is violated, we can restore some level of decorum to the forum, and foster more discussion of the evidence, and less of each other. This, admittedly, is an experiment. I hope all members will start invoking Rule iv when violated, as opposed to responding tit for tat, or waiting for a moderator to jump in. Thanks, Pat Jim, you are well within bounds when you point out that Tink has spent a lot of time arguing against your claims. You are not within bounds, in my opinion, as both a member and a moderator, when you imply or claim his stated position as a CT is a ruse, and that he is really out to deceive or pull the wool over people's eyes, so that they don't think there was a conspiracy. As far as the post presented above, I would consider your use of the word "subvert" questionable, as it implies not an honest disagreement about the evidence, but an attempt to undermine what is already an established fact. sub·vert /səbˈvɜrt/ Show Spelled[suhb-vurt] Show IPA verb (used with object) 1. to overthrow (something established or existing). 2. to cause the downfall, ruin, or destruction of. 3. to undermine the principles of; corrupt. Few, if any, of your claims, or ANY OF OUR claims, for that matter, are established facts, in the eyes of the forum. That is why we discuss them. But, as I said, that's only questionable. Your claim he's been playing people for saps or is pulling the wool over people's eyes, is another matter. Now, in the heat of argument, we all slip up from time to time. But the objective of the forum is to discuss the evidence without pointing fingers at each other. Here's Rule iv again: (iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum. Edited January 6, 2012 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Great work, David! You have made some excellent discoveries. One of them is that, in order for Office Chaney to have "looked back just intime to see the president STRUCK IN THE FACE", he had to have motored forward of the president's position, which is not shown in the film. At 39 seconds in, Chaney says, "2nd shot came and I looked back just in time to see the president STRUCK IN THE FACE by the second bullet" Moreover--and this may be even more important than his having motored forward--Officer Hargis' reports about the limo having stopped: Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two shots hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor. Mr. BELIN - Where was he? Mr. BAKER - He was on the right rear of the car or to the side, and then at that time the chief of police, he didn't know anything about this, and he moved up and told him, and then that was during the time that the Secret Service men were trying to get in the car, and at the time, after the shooting, from the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped. Let's take this a little at a time please Jim... I do not agree with your conclusion about Chaney and his position... in fact Looks to me that in Moorman this cop is looking directly at JFK and would not have a problem at all in seeing him get hit in the face... Is this Chaney? I also tried to isolate the cops on the right in Nix... crappy images for sure but you can readily tell they are looking directly at JFK then as I show earlier, they immediately look to the right and the Knoll.... and second I believe you meant my reference to Baker, not Hargis...no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 (edited) Frames 312-314 layered. If you have a movie player which will advance individual frames (backward/forward), I suggest viewing it that way also. http://24.152.179.96:8400/D9688/HeadShot1.gif chris P.S. How does a skull fragment end up past Jackie, against the side of the car, unless the bullet trajectory is coming from a 6th floor southwest window? Chris, you gif shows graphically what no one wants to talk about when discussing JFK's head movement...parallax and perspective. It's really clear how how changes in camera/limo position effects the images in respect to the head movement. Just look at how the 'rollbar' changes shape and position in just those few frames. Any study that attempts to determine the movement of JFK's head that does not fully account for this is fatally flawed. Edited January 6, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 (edited) This is very strange, Chris. Have you never reviewed John Costella's study of the film, where one of the proofs he adduces that the film is a fabrication is the rapid disappearance of the blood spray? I think you should take a look. It can be found here: http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/ I am astonished at how much readily available information about the film and proofs of its fabrication seems to become so effortlessly lost in these "debates". Frames 312-314 layered. If you have a movie player which will advance individual frames (backward/forward), I suggest viewing it that way also. http://24.152.179.96:8400/D9688/HeadShot1.gif chris P.S. How does a skull fragment end up past Jackie, against the side of the car, unless the bullet trajectory is coming from a 6th floor southwest window? Big problem Jim, Costella's "proof" is nothing more than a hand wave. Please point out his detailed analysis of the resolving power of the Zapruder camera/film/shutter speed/camera stability combination as it pertains the the very frames in question. The question here Jim, is how does Costella determine the blood is not really there rather than simply under the ability of the above combination to resolve. Edited January 6, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 (edited) Baker, yes, not Hargis. How is that image (which I assume is Chaney) consistent with "At 39 seconds in, Chaney says, "2nd shot came and I looked back just in time to see the president STRUCK IN THE FACE by the second bullet"? If you had been in that place at that time, would you have said, "I LOOKED BACK JUST IN TIME to see the president struck in the face by the second bullet"? I don't want to suggest that your bias is showing, but I think your interpretation is quite a stretch and doesn't fit that location. And I am VERY CURIOUS now as to where you stand on all of this. Do you think that the very large number of witnesses to the limo stop--which, we have just discovered, includes Louis Witt--were mistaken about that? Do you find that at all credible? Studies have shown that, when features they are observing are salient (significant) to witnesses, their recollections are 98% accurate and 98% complete. That would certainly fit the limo stop (as having been salient). If you denying the large number of witness reports, then on what basis? Here is what Witt said in his sworn testimony to the HSCA. And remember that Tink has vouched for his presence in Dealey Plaza. What possible reason would there be to deny what he reported to them at that time, given that no less an authority than Josiah Thompson himself has confirmed his presence and explained why he believes he was an innocent and not involved in any conspiracy? Is it your view that students of the assassination can pick and choose what parts of a witnesses testimony they should accept and which reject? Great work, David! You have made some excellent discoveries. One of them is that, in order for Office Chaney to have "looked back just intime to see the president STRUCK IN THE FACE", he had to have motored forward of the president's position, which is not shown in the film. At 39 seconds in, Chaney says, "2nd shot came and I looked back just in time to see the president STRUCK IN THE FACE by the second bullet" Moreover--and this may be even more important than his having motored forward--Officer Hargis' reports about the limo having stopped: Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two shots hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor. Mr. BELIN - Where was he? Mr. BAKER - He was on the right rear of the car or to the side, and then at that time the chief of police, he didn't know anything about this, and he moved up and told him, and then that was during the time that the Secret Service men were trying to get in the car, and at the time, after the shooting, from the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped. Let's take this a little at a time please Jim... I do not agree with your conclusion about Chaney and his position... in fact Looks to me that in Moorman this cop is looking directly at JFK and would not have a problem at all in seeing him get hit in the face... Is this Chaney? I also tried to isolate the cops on the right in Nix... crappy images for sure but you can readily tell they are looking directly at JFK then as I show earlier, they immediately look to the right and the Knoll.... and second I believe you meant my reference to Baker, not Hargis...no? Edited January 6, 2012 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 (edited) I am fairly astonished to report that there appears to be YET ANOTHER assassination film, which is being attributed to the Secret Service--and which was taken from above. You can learn more about it at http://www.stingraysstudios.com/JFK_Film.html Who took this and from what location? It would appear to been taken from the Texas School Book Depository. But why has it not surfaced before now? And how could the ARRB have missed it? No doubt it will be consistent with films we have proven to be fake. A new chapter begins. John Costella has made this insightful comment on the YouTube page and has made other observations: The preview shows only well-known footage. It doesn't show any footage of the limousine at the time of the assassination, nor any footage corresponding to the "teaser" photo on the website. Are you going to release any footage of the moment of the assassination? Without that, this preview is useless. He, like me, is fascinated by the teaser photo, but remarks that, by itself, it could easily be a fake or from a reconstruction film shoot, such as the Oliver Stone movie. So this is probably some kind of "bait and switch". I would invite comparisons with the images of the Secret Service agents, for example, which may expose the charade. So some kind of misrepresentation appears to be going on. A fake like the others of a different kind. Edited January 7, 2012 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I am fairly astonished to report that there appears to be YET ANOTHER assassination film, which is being attributed to the Secret Service--and which was taken from above. You can learn more about it at http://www.stingraysstudios.com/JFK_Film.html Who took this and from what location? It would appear to been taken from the Texas School Book Depository. But why has it not surfaced before now? And how could the ARRB have missed it? No doubt it will be consistent with films we have proven to be fake. A new chapter begins. Y'know Jim... up until this post I was giving you the benefit of the doubt... You ARE kidding - right? Here is the Zfilm... Hill is already on the bumper and Jackie hasn't left her seat... unlike what you posted WHICH IF I WERE TO GUESS is a shot from the filming of JFK the movie... I believe we've also seen a movie that ends with a Z vantage point image of a killer on the GK... was a promo film of some sort.... Yes in deed Jim.. I am FAIRLY astonished... at you for not checking it out first... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Say it aint so Lee.... Well... Can't blame you... and after the other forums I've tried, this still remains the most "educational" Ebb and flow Lee.... Hope you rethink your position DJ btw When you hit the BUY button we find this GEM is only $100.... "unintended consequences" indeed... Your order summary Descriptions Amount JFK Film DVD JFK Film DVD$100.00 Item number: JFK-2011 Item price: $100.00 Quantity: 1 Item total $100.00 Total $100.00 US I am fairly astonished to report that there appears to be YET ANOTHER assassination film, which is being attributed to the Secret Service--and which was taken from above. You can learn more about it at http://www.stingraysstudios.com/JFK_Film.html Who took this and from what location? It would appear to been taken from the Texas School Book Depository. But why has it not surfaced before now? And how could the ARRB have missed it? No doubt it will be consistent with films we have proven to be fake. A new chapter begins. This is the straw. The thing that will go down as the reason I couldn't take being a member here any longer. I'm going to find different avenues to express myself away from this insanity. I request that my membership (user name and password) be removed immediately by John Simkin and the moderating team. Goodbye everyone. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) Say it aint so Lee.... Well... Can't blame you... and after the other forums I've tried, this still remains the most "educational" Ebb and flow Lee.... Hope you rethink your position DJ ... Ditto! ...And attempting to lighten the moment, because I see no harm in everyone in this trainwreck taking just a moment and disarming just enough to laugh at themselves and share a laugh with each other, because the competition to see just who can propel yellow liquid the furthest is not accomplishing anything for anyone here....: http://snltranscripts.jt.org/93/93pbuhbye.phtml...Steward: Okay, here we go - thanks for flying with us, buh-bye. Buh-bye! Thanks, now. Buh-bye. Stewardess: Buh-bye. Buh-bye. Buh-bye. ... ...Stewardess: Buh-bye. I'm sorry, what part didn't you understand - the buh or the bye? Buh-bye. ... ....Passenger 4: [ angry ] What did you say to me?! Steward: [ defensive ] What?! I said "Buh-bye!" I just said "Buh-bye" 40 times in a row, why would I say anything else, it doesn't make sense! Did I just say something without knowing it? No! Go! Buh-bye!... Edited January 7, 2012 by Tom Scully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Thanks, Pat. I'll go back and fix this one. I assume posts like #49 do not violate the rules that you cite. Pat, I am going back to see if I can discern what you are talking about, where in the meanwhile you have created a massive distraction so Tink can evade addressing the issues I have raised. So I have a better understanding of what you think I am doing wrong, here is one of my posts. Please bold the passages you regard as offensive--or is pointing out his incoherence forbidden? I find this intervention a bit much. Jim Posted Yesterday, 02:58 PM 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 subvert 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? Jim Jim, the forum has had a series of nasty knock 'em down, drag 'em outs lately, with the net result being that, while the moderators themselves prefer that members police themselves, many forum members are hoping for more moderation. I have proposed a compromise, which may or may not have a positive impact. My compromise is that, when MEMBERS note that another member is in violation of Rule iv of the Forum rules, which reads (iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum. they should bring it to the member in violation's attention, so that he or she can correct their post, without the involvement of a moderator. As a MEMBER, not a moderator, I am alerting you that you are in violation of Rule iv on several of your posts in this thread, and am asking you to correct these posts. (In essence, you can question Thompson's conclusions, but not his motivation. This makes references to his "pulling the wool" over people's eyes, etc. a violation.) As a MEMBER, you are equally free to invoke Rule iv should you note a violation. Please do so. By invoking Rule iv whenever it is violated, we can restore some level of decorum to the forum, and foster more discussion of the evidence, and less of each other. This, admittedly, is an experiment. I hope all members will start invoking Rule iv when violated, as opposed to responding tit for tat, or waiting for a moderator to jump in. Thanks, Pat Jim, you are well within bounds when you point out that Tink has spent a lot of time arguing against your claims. You are not within bounds, in my opinion, as both a member and a moderator, when you imply or claim his stated position as a CT is a ruse, and that he is really out to deceive or pull the wool over people's eyes, so that they don't think there was a conspiracy. As far as the post presented above, I would consider your use of the word "subvert" questionable, as it implies not an honest disagreement about the evidence, but an attempt to undermine what is already an established fact. sub·vert /səbˈvɜrt/ Show Spelled[suhb-vurt] Show IPA verb (used with object) 1. to overthrow (something established or existing). 2. to cause the downfall, ruin, or destruction of. 3. to undermine the principles of; corrupt. Few, if any, of your claims, or ANY OF OUR claims, for that matter, are established facts, in the eyes of the forum. That is why we discuss them. But, as I said, that's only questionable. Your claim he's been playing people for saps or is pulling the wool over people's eyes, is another matter. Now, in the heat of argument, we all slip up from time to time. But the objective of the forum is to discuss the evidence without pointing fingers at each other. Here's Rule iv again: (iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) Did you miss the second half of my post? Go back and read it again. I am not quite sure why you have taken exception to anything I have said. If it actually were of the real event, it would be priceless, not merely $100. John Costella has made this insightful comment on the YouTube page and has made other observations: The preview shows only well-known footage. It doesn't show any footage of the limousine at the time of the assassination, nor any footage corresponding to the "teaser" photo on the website. Are you going to release any footage of the moment of the assassination? Without that, this preview is useless. He, like me, is fascinated by the teaser photo, but remarks that, by itself, it could easily be a fake or from a reconstruction film shoot, such as the Oliver Stone movie. So this is probably some kind of "bait and switch". I would invite comparisons with the images of the Secret Service agents, for example, which may expose the charade. So some kind of misrepresentation appears to be going on. A fake like the others of a different kind. I was sharing the film's existence, not endorsing its authenticity, which is obvious. Are you bailing because you can't cope with the growing body of proof that the Nix, Zapruder, and Muchmore films are faked? Is this your real reason? You have, for example, not responded to my question about your rationale for rejecting the limo stop witnesses. Of course they include Louis Witt. Do you have ANY GOOD REASON TO REJECT THEM? I am fairly astonished to report that there appears to be YET ANOTHER assassination film, which is being attributed to the Secret Service--and which was taken from above. You can learn more about it at http://www.stingraysstudios.com/JFK_Film.html Who took this and from what location? It would appear to been taken from the Texas School Book Depository. But why has it not surfaced before now? And how could the ARRB have missed it? No doubt it will be consistent with films we have proven to be fake. A new chapter begins. Y'know Jim... up until this post I was giving you the benefit of the doubt... You ARE kidding - right? Here is the Zfilm... Hill is already on the bumper and Jackie hasn't left her seat... unlike what you posted WHICH IF I WERE TO GUESS is a shot from the filming of JFK the movie... I believe we've also seen a movie that ends with a Z vantage point image of a killer on the GK... was a promo film of some sort.... Yes in deed Jim.. I am FAIRLY astonished... at you for not checking it out first... Edited January 7, 2012 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Jim, As you no doubt know, Jack replied and said "buyer beware" regarding this film auction. He said he thinks it might be the DCA film. Nothing new here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now