Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) Well, apparently I am not dealing with rocket scientists on this thread. If they can't tell that the Zapruder is a fake from frame 374, then I can't imagine what would convince them. John and I agree with you and Jack! They want to run away from the most obvious, simple and direct proof and spend their time on other missions than confronting the mountain of evidence that impeaches its authenticity. This new fake is another illustration. 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. Edited January 7, 2012 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Dr. Fetzer, Have you looked into the ownership of Precision Film Processing of 21 W. 46th St., NY, NY? http://174.123.24.242/leagle/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=1958130330eetc1273_11169.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985J. A. MAURER, INC., PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. Docket No. 56500. United States Tax Court. Filed September 26, 1958. ....Petitioner was incorporated on December 26, 1940, with an authorized capitalization of $25,000, consisting of 2,500 shares of capital stock having a par value of $10 per share. At that time and at all times thereafter relevant, the corporation was engaged in the business of developing and manufacturing for professional use 16-millimeter motion-picture cameras, projectors, and associated sound recording and coordinating equipment, as well as the production under subcontracts of various optical and motion-picture machinery and equipment. Precision was organized by petitioner on January 1, 1947. This wholly owned subsidiary continued a line of business which had previously been carried on as a division of the parent and its predecessor corporation, namely, 16-millimeter sound film developing and processing; and at all times relevant Precision was so engaged [ 30 T.C. 1275 ] and was recognized as one of the best (and also one of the most expensive) processing and developing concerns in the industry. All maintenance and repair work on its machinery and equipment was done by petitioner corporation, which also did its engineering work and took care of part of its accounting and bookkeeping.... http://www2.scc.rutgers.edu/ead/manuscripts/maurerf.html Biographical Sketch John Maurer was born in Massillon, Ohio, in 1905. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1928 from Adelbert College of Western Reserve University in Cleveland, graduating summa cum laude. The following year he left graduate school at Western Reserve to join the RCA Research Laboratory in New York City where he worked until 1932. During that time he was responsible for 17 patents. Maurer left RCA to work on his own, and in 1934 he joined Eric M. Berndt to form the Berndt-Maurer Corp. The company made professional 16mm cameras and sound recording equipment. In 1940 Berndt left the firm which then became J.A. Maurer, Inc. During World War II J.A. Maurer, Inc., manufactured signaling equipment, for which it received the Army-Navy "E" Award. In 1945 Maurer himself received a personal award "for exceptional service to naval ordnance development." During the 1940s Maurer promoted the use of 16mm films in education and advocated college-level training in film production. The result of this effort was the formation of the University Film Producer's Association. In 1951 Maurer developed a small, fast-cycling aerial camera and spent much of the next four years working on aerial photography. In 1955 Maurer left J.A. Maurer, Inc., and the following year established J.M. Developments. This company was intended to specialize in motion pictures, but much of the work continued his aerial photography research, including a camera with an extremely fast shutter speed. The high-speed shutter allowed low-altitude and supersonic planes to photograph continuously. This shutter was part of a camera used in reconnaissance missions over Cuba during the missile crisis of 1962. Maurer developed a 70mm camera used in the Gemini XI mission in 1966 and on the first moon landing. In 1965 J.M. Developments became Optronics Technology, Inc., and Maurer served as senior vice president for engineering until his retirement in 1971. At Optronics he developed the Optronics Mark I 16mm to Super 8 quad continuous optical printer. By the time of his death in New Brunswick, New Jersey, on March 20, 1988, Maurer held approximately 60 U.S. patents in the fields of sound recording, camera design and photographic chemistry. Maurer's professional affiliations included the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers. He joined the Society in 1930 and became a fellow in 1943. He wrote a number of articles for the Society's Journal and served in several positions, including Chairman of the Committee on Nontheatrical Motion Pictures (1940-1943), member of the Board of Governors (1943-1945) and Engineering Vice-President (1945-1950). Maurer received two awards from the Society: the first Samuel L. Warner Medal (1947) and the Eastman Kodak Medal Award (1971). Other professional organizations with which Maurer was associated included the American Standards Association, for which he chaired the Committee PH-22 (Motion Picture Standardization) from 1951 to 1952. Maurer was also a member of the Society of Photographic Engineers, becoming a fellow in 1955 and serving as Engineering Vice-President. He was a charter member of the Acoustical Society of America. Maurer was awarded two honorary degrees. The first was Doctor of Science from his alma mater, Western Reserve University, in 1953. The other was Doctor of Science from the Ohio State University for his work in film education, awarded in 1971. Sources for this biography were: Maurer's obituaries in The Home News (March 21 and 24, 1988) and New York Times (March 23, 1988); "Biographical Notes" in the Journal of the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (March 1972); and personal biographical information in the collection. THE 16-MM COMMERCIAL FILM LABORATORY* http://journal.smpte.org/content/41/8/157.full.pdf by WH Offenhauser Jr - 1943 - Cited by 3 - Related articles Several years ago J. A. Maurer reported' upon the graininess of direct 16-mm prints .... a very productive one for industry as well as for our Armed Services. ..... secret among designers that there are only a very few microscope objectives on the . http://www.sheetzfuneralhome.com/obituarydatabase_i5416363.html?catId=163671 Alexander Sikorsky, 87, passed away peacefully in the arms of his loving Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, at Maple Farms Nursing Center, Akron on June 16, 2006. He was witnessed into heaven by his loving wife, Ethel Weinhold Sikorsky. Formerly of Washington DC, and most recently Mount Joy, Mr. Sikorsky was a dedicated husband, father, veteran, and civil servant. His Naval and military career spanned over 31 years, beginning with his enlistment in 1937 and included participation in the December 7th, 1941 battle of Pearl Harbor, where he was in charge of the Radar Laboratories. .... ...His post Naval and Civil Service career in Washington DC was equally impressive as Mr. Sikorsky served as Vice-President for Radio Receptor Co, one of two General Instrument Company subsidiaries which developed electronics, and anti-submarine warfare. Later the J.A. Maurer Company, a research and development company for air and space photo reconnaissance employed him as Vice President of Government Relations. Furthering his career, he later was employed as Vice President of SYSCON Corporation, Falls Church VA, which specialized in management and engineering consultants and the development of computer science. While at SYSCON, he was implemental in business development practices, and “AEGIS” a division which involved ship building programs in association with the Navy. His last position was with Raytheon Corp, as weapons systems sales manager. Other accomplishments accorded to Lieutenant Commander Sikorsky was his appointment as a candidate elect for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, he was a member of the American Society of Naval Engineers, a member of MENSA, , as well as being listed in the “Who’s Who” Journal of Washington DC. He was a graduate of George Washington University where he specialized in electrical engineering. A talented writer, he published articles regarding the business management of complex weapon systems, and was a well known lecturer regarding weapons systems. ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Jim Fetzer... That you cannot realize what you are doing... or do realize it and continue anyway, is a shame... IF it was real??? so scroll down a little and buy the REAL $500,000 reel to reel tapes of AF-1's discussions with the outside world... 3 simple rules: 1 - dont attack the poster 2 - present the evidence that supports your conclusions 3 - authenticate this evidence and #4 for Mr. F here... stay on topic... posting whatever you;ve discussed over the past 20 years in other areas of the case has no bearing on THIS area... in this thread alone you make repeated mistakes... and conclusions that do not follow from the analysis... and then YOU IGNORE ME when I show you where and how you are wrong Moorman shows the man looking directly at JFK... so does Nix... yet you get completely condescending with me and your insincere THANKS... for your coming to a conclusion that is completely wrong.... I agree with some of the things you offer Jim... and have concluded that there is NO EVIDENCE related to this case that is not tainted in some way.... 3 rules - pretty simple.... Peace DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) David, What's the deal? That there is something being promoted as a Secret Service version of the film is rather startling. I mentioned that it is out there--that it exists!--without endorsing its authenticity. John has done more on this and has actually found other copies of this same image around the internet as follows: Did a quick search and here's an old web page with that photo from above: http://www.facts-are-facts.com/magazin/2-jfk.ihtml From the context of that page, I'm assuming it comes from the Oliver Stone movie. Google Image Search gives dozens of web pages with the same image on it. I think this one's a hoax, folks. Now what I do not understand is why you would "abandon ship" for my having indentified the existence of WHAT WAS ALLEGED TO BE a "Secret Service" version of the film, which I was not taking for granted is authentic. IT IS NOT AUTHENTIC. But the film you seem intent on defending is PROVABLY FAKE. So which is worse: ignoring a mountain of evidence that proves the extant Zapruder film is fake or giving a link to a PURPORTED NEW VERSION, where you were leaving the thread within five minutes of my post FOR NO GOOD REASON. Now if you have ANY GOOD REASONS to reject the limo stop witnesses, then present it. If you go back to John's collation of the witnesses from Elm Street on assassinationresearch, you should not have a difficult time determining that Tink's defense--that this happened AFTER THE LIMO HAD PASSED THE TRIPLE UNDERPASS--has no foundation in the evidence. I told John I knew that but that it had to come from someone else. I had thought it was going to come from you, since you have--up until this point--seemed to be interested in actually sorting this out. I have detected a certain bias on your part, but not complete closed-mindedness. So please pursue the evidence that the Nix and the Zapruder have or have not been fabricated, because we have been making progress. OK? Jim Fetzer... That you cannot realize what you are doing... or do realize it and continue anyway, is a shame... IF it was real??? so scroll down a little and buy the REAL $500,000 reel to reel tapes of AF-1's discussions with the outside world... 3 simple rules: 1 - dont attack the poster 2 - present the evidence that supports your conclusions 3 - authenticate this evidence and #4 for Mr. F here... stay on topic... posting whatever you;ve discussed over the past 20 years in other areas of the case has no bearing on THIS area... in this thread alone you make repeated mistakes... and conclusions that do not follow from the analysis... and then YOU IGNORE ME when I show you where and how you are wrong Moorman shows the man looking directly at JFK... so does Nix... yet you get completely condescending with me and your insincere THANKS... for your coming to a conclusion that is completely wrong.... I agree with some of the things you offer Jim... and have concluded that there is NO EVIDENCE related to this case that is not tainted in some way.... 3 rules - pretty simple.... Peace DJ Edited January 7, 2012 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) Does this accenting help you to understand that I was mentioning the existence of this other film WITHOUT THEREBY ENDORSING ITS AUTHENTICITY? This response is not only silly but completely ridiculous. I was in fact raising a series of questions about it that call into question its authenticity. Read it again. In fact it does appear to be another form of film fakery, which makes it on a par with the Zapruder and the Nix, which is what we were debating, where proof of fakery abounds: 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.stingrays...m/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. Now, if you have any arguments to undermine the mountain of evidence that proves the Zapruder and the Nix films are fake--Chaney's motoring forward, the limo stop witnesses, Clint Hill's reports of his actions, the blacking of the wound at the back of the head, which is exposed by frame 374 (as well as by the Hollywood experts, whose work is cited in "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication"), for example--then please present it. Otherwise, I agree that you probably have better things to do, because that is the subject under discussion. 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 Edited January 7, 2012 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) Tom, How can this brain trust be so quick to identify this film as a fake and so slow to recognize that the Zapruder and the Nix are fakes? I have spent years and years explaining how this growing body of proof impacts these films' authenticity, yet when I reiterate some of that proof, it seems to fall on deaf ears. The film is not even self-consistent, since frame 374 contradicts earlier frames; the painting out of the wound has been confirmed by Hollywood film restoration experts; no one in the plaza reported seeing the back-and-to-the-left motion seen in the film; many in the plaza--as many as 70 or more--reported the limo stop, including the motorcycle escort officers (see Costella's collation); Clint Hill's own descriptions of his actions are inconsistent with the extant film; Officer Chaney's motoring forward is not present in the film, even though the sources who confirm it--Chief Curry, Winston Lawson, Forrest Sorrels, and Bobby Hargis, not to mention Chaney himself--are difficult to impeach. We know one film--an 8mm split film (developed in Dallas) was taken to the NPIC on Saturday, while another--a 16mm unsplit film (developed in Rochester) was taken to the NPIC on Sunday, where there are five physical differences that distinguish between the real film and the fake. Yet you would think that Tink is the "pied piper" who can mesmerize members of this forum into believing whatever he wants! I do not understand this at all. If you can explain it to me, I would like to know. After he goes out of his way to certify that Louis Witt was the Umbrella man, it turns out that he is a "limo stop" witness, too. And his endorsement of Gary Aguilar's work on the consistency of the reports about the wound at the back of the head, which he also endorses, also refutes the authenticity of the film. No matter how much proof is adduced, there are those here who don't want to hear it. I feel as though I am in fantasy land, where true is false, black is white, and no amount of proof is ever enough. I hope you can explain this phenomenon, because it completely baffles me. Jim Dr. Fetzer, Have you looked into the ownership of Precision Film Processing of 21 W. 46th St., NY, NY? http://174.123.24.242/leagle/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=1958130330eetc1273_11169.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985J. A. MAURER, INC., PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. Docket No. 56500. United States Tax Court. Filed September 26, 1958. ....Petitioner was incorporated on December 26, 1940, with an authorized capitalization of $25,000, consisting of 2,500 shares of capital stock having a par value of $10 per share. At that time and at all times thereafter relevant, the corporation was engaged in the business of developing and manufacturing for professional use 16-millimeter motion-picture cameras, projectors, and associated sound recording and coordinating equipment, as well as the production under subcontracts of various optical and motion-picture machinery and equipment. Precision was organized by petitioner on January 1, 1947. This wholly owned subsidiary continued a line of business which had previously been carried on as a division of the parent and its predecessor corporation, namely, 16-millimeter sound film developing and processing; and at all times relevant Precision was so engaged [ 30 T.C. 1275 ] and was recognized as one of the best (and also one of the most expensive) processing and developing concerns in the industry. All maintenance and repair work on its machinery and equipment was done by petitioner corporation, which also did its engineering work and took care of part of its accounting and bookkeeping.... 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 As I ponder the past 15+ years of "Research in the Age of the Internet" I am often reminded how valuable this medium is to all of us. The ability to instantly access and/or exchange massive amounts of information is truly something for which we can all be grateful. The amount of photographic, film, audio, and documentary (written) evidence that can be reviewed by some of the best-qualified researchers on the planet is enormous. And yet, out of this wealth of information, we still find time to bicker. A pity. But, there's probably a good reason for it. Or not. While it is true that much division exists among those who do not accept the official story, it is also true that there exists overwhelming agreement on a sufficient number of key items to enable these "mostly like-minded" researchers to form a coalition of sorts in order to pursue a common goal. But, unfortunately, that is not what we witness. We witness bickering about, what some observers believe are, tedious details. These details are very important if we could categorically demonstrate their cogency in a manner easily comprehended and/or duplicated in an experimental setting. As it is, what is "proof" to one is not necessarily "proof" to another. And so it goes. Perhaps the issue isn't so much that the key researchers, who are at each other’s throats, might disagree on the most important issue: conspiracy itself. The most disturbing issue could well be uncovering the magnitude of the cover-up; the blatant obstruction of justice committed not only by members of the government but also by agencies of the government acting in an official capacity. It is in the last area that I believe the heart of the conflict lies. FBI Special Agent James Hosty once commented [paraphrased]: "If there was a cover-up, it was a benign cover-up". The thrust of his argument was founded in the notion that thermo-nuclear war was narrowly averted because the Warren Commission served its purpose, which was (in his view) the rightful exoneration of the Soviet Union in the assassination of the 35th President of the United States. Sorry, that is unacceptable. Where I come from it is called obstruction of justice, conspiracy to obstruct and--especially when tied to a capital crime such as murder--it is not subject to any Statute of Limitations. Gerald Ford manipulated the wording in the Warren Report to reflect an inaccurate location of JFK's back wound. Did he do this for the same approximate reason that Hosty attempted to justify obstruction of justice? Perhaps. But, it is of no consequence, in any event. We are left with lies and obfuscation in the place of clarity and truth. A pity. So, where do we go from here? Indeed. In my view it is essential for all interested parties to "grab their butts" with both hands and get ready for the ride. Prepare yourselves for a most disturbing truth: We may never know, to any degree of agreed upon certainty--beyond the most basic conclusions--exactly what occurred on November 22, 1963. But, do not be fooled. There was a massive cover up AFTER the fact that had its genesis prior to the event, details be damned. Jim Garrison: "There is nothing that they will not do...nothing. They murdered your president and there is nothing that they will not do". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) David, To make an obvious logical point, when two films are in conflict, how do you know which is authentic? The extant Zapruder may have been in the public domain longer, but that would also be true if the genuine unaltered original were to surface. The fact that the extant Zapruder has been around a long time does not make it authentic. Since these two are inconsistent, they cannot both be authentic, but they could both be fake--which, apparently, is indeed the case. So your standards of proof seem to me to be vastly different, given the monumental proof that I have adduced. Why is a simple inconsistency between two films enough for you to conclude that the one that is less familiar must be the fake? This is not simply a double-standard, but virtually no standard at all. Your dismissal in light of these considerations is simply begging the question by taking for granted which film is the fake, where your attitude about this is commits a blunder in logic. Jim 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...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) Monk, I know you have a firm grounding in logic and reasoning. Is there something I am explaining that David Josephs or Lee Farley should be unable to understand? that when there is a conflict between two films, you need to have good reasons to decide which is which? that these conflicting films could not both be authentic but could both be faked? that if the original authentic film were to appear in the public domain, that it would also be inconsistent with the extant film, but that that would not mean that the original authentic film was the fake? Is it too much to ask that they should grasp points as elementary as these--because it seems to me neither of them has any appreciation for inconsistencies and what they do or do not mean--which, of course, is why we need witness reports, medical evidence, and ballistics as forms of evidence to decide between them? So far as I can tell, they don't even understand that the extant film is not even self-consistent, since frame 374 is inconsistent with earlier frames--which means that the extant film cannot possibly be authentic! Is it too much to ask that they should understand this elementary point? Many thanks! Jim David, To make an obvious logical point, when two films are in conflict, how do you know which is authentic? The extant Zapruder may have been in the public domain longer, but that would also be true if the genuine unaltered original were to surface. The fact that the extant Zapruder has been around a long time does not make it authentic. Since these two are inconsistent, they cannot both be authentic, but they could both be fake--which, apparently, is indeed the case. So your standards of proof seem to me to be vastly different, given the monumental proof that I have adduced. Why is a simple inconsistency between two films enough for you to conclude that the one that is less familiar must be the fake? This is not simply a double-standard, but virtually no standard at all. Your dismissal in light of these considerations is simply begging the question by taking for granted which film is the fake, where your attitude about this is commits a blunder in logic. Jim 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...
Pat Speer Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 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. 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 Best wishes, Lee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Jim, I noticed that in several of your posts you've presented Chaney's claim he "looked back" at Kennedy as evidence supporting your position. Pardon me if I've misunderstood, but I take from this you believe Chaney was ahead of Kennedy when the fatal shot impacted, and that he "looked back" as in backward to see Kennedy. But that's not what he was saying. When one looks at his words in context it's clear he was saying he looked to his left at the sound of the first shot, and then "looked back" as in back toward Kennedy, who was still in front of him, as the fatal shot impacted. (11-22-63 interview on WFAA, as shown on Youtube) “I was riding on the right rear fender...We had proceeded west on Elm Street at approximately 15-20 miles per hour. We heard the first shot. I thought it was a motorcycle backfiring and uh I looked back over to my left and also President Kennedy looked back over his left shoulder. Then, the, uh, second shot came, well, then I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the face by the second bullet. He slumped forward into Mrs. Kennedy’s lap, and uh, it was apparent to me that we were being fired upon. I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. And then he instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hospital and he had Parkland Hospital stand by. I went on up ahead of the, to notify the officers that were leading the escort that he had been hit and we're gonna have to move out." (When asked if he saw the person who fired on the President) "No sir, it was back over my right shoulder.” (Note: some sources have it that Chaney also mentioned “a third shot that was fired that (he) did not see hit the President” and that he did see “Governor Connally’s shirt erupt in blood..” but I can not find a primary source for this part of the interview.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Monk, I know you have a firm grounding in logic and reasoning. Is there something I am explaining that David Josephs or Lee Farley should be unable to understand? No. Both are quite capable of comprehending complex issues and being unbiased. ...that when there is a conflict between two films, you need to have good reasons to decide which is [authentic and] which [is artificial]? [my edits] Yes, where Item "A" (alleged to be authentic) is demonstrably of sufficient deviation from Item "B" (also alleged to be authentic) as to be impossible for both to exist in the universe as we know it, then discovery of the truth of the matter would necessarily be predicated on carefully discerning the evidence of authenticity versus the evidence of fakery in both films. "...that these conflicting films could not both be authentic but could both be faked?" Yes, I'm certain that they can comprehend that. If both are faked then there is no set point. However, if we can determine that one is authentic then we have a set point and all other evidence can be "measured" against it to determine the likelihood of the authenticity of other films. If other films are inconsistent with the established set point then they are faked. However, if we have no established set point, then films that are inconsistent with each other could both (or all) be faked. Herein lies the rub: for many the Zapruder Film has been the "real deal" upon which they have rested their collective cases. It has become their "set point" --if you will. As they measure other evidence against it and find consistency, they conclude: It is consistent with the Z-film and therefore is authentic. That is fallacious on multiple counts. Let me re-phrase, such could be authentic and be consistent with the Z-film--even if the Z-film is not itself authentic! So too, if the Z-film's authenticity is a subject of debate, any who rely upon it to bolster their argument as if it had already been established as a set point have fallen victim to the commission of begging the question. In any event, your points are well taken, Jim. ...that if the original authentic film were to appear in the public domain, that it would also be inconsistent with the extant film, but that that would not mean that the original authentic film was the fake? As a point of, perhaps, human nature: where Jim believes that the Zapruder film is a fake and Lee and David believe the opposite, it is interesting to note the separate emphasis. Where Jim anticipates the appearance of an unaltered original film and appreciates what that would mean ... -- and where such a surfacing of an "unaltered" film is the last thing David and Lee anticipate -- they could care less--but not because they are detached, but because they are just not persuaded by the evidence as far as they know it. ...Is it too much to ask that they should grasp points as elementary as these--because it seems to me neither of them has any appreciation for inconsistencies and what they do or do not mean--which, of course, is why we need witness reports, medical evidence, and ballistics as forms of evidence to decide between them. I don't know "how much is too much" Jim. Maybe I'm the wrong guy to ask. Or perhaps it's a bad question, my friend. However, on a less personal note: Inconsistencies are just that, inconsistencies. They have limited meaning. In many situations they can rule things out. In only rather narrow circumstances can they conclusively rule things in. So far as I can tell, they don't even understand that the extant film is not even self-consistent, since frame 374 is inconsistent with earlier frames--which means that the extant film cannot possibly be authentic! Is it too much to ask that they should understand this elementary point? Many thanks! Jim Somethings aren't worth getting near, Jim. This is one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 David,To make an obvious logical point, when two films are in conflict, how do you know which is authentic? The extant Zapruder may have been in the public domain longer, but that would also be true if the genuine unaltered original were to surface. The fact that the extant Zapruder has been around a long time does not make it authentic. Since these two are inconsistent, they cannot both be authentic, but they could both be fake--which, apparently, is indeed the case. So your standards of proof seem to me to be vastly different, given the monumental proof that I have adduced. Why is a simple inconsistency between two films enough for you to conclude that the one that is less familiar must be the fake? This is not simply a double-standard, but virtually no standard at all. Your dismissal in light of these considerations is simply begging the question by taking for granted which film is the fake, where your attitude about this is commits a blunder in logic. Jim Jim... First off - refrain from telling me my own conclusions, dismissals or any other thing... restrict yourself to what YOU believe from what I've presented.... Nothing is a "simple inconcistency" to help me "conclude" anything... Unless you read minds, quote me or ASK... you simply do not know. so enough. You write as if these films live on an island of their own... and throw the term FAKE around without qualification... No one, NO ONE has ever watched the Zfilm and said "that did not happen".... we speak of what is missing ONLY... or blocked, or odd and I agree with you, fundementally, that the Zfilm is missing things that should be there.... as are other films... yet certain things cannot be changed... Moorman... Altgens... McIntyre... they tell a very compelling story... and confirm portions of the Zfilm to sell a BIG lie.... So a word or two from a fan and collaborator... EASE UP... I'm on your side and you're pissing me off All I want to do is figure a few things out... so how about staying helpful 3 simple rules - right? Peace DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) No, I did not introduced it. That was David Josephs in post #46, who located the interview with Chaney in which he made that remark. I argued in post #50, 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. 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. But even if I were to grant that you could be right in your interpretation of that remark, we do not see Chaney motoring forward as he describes in the interview you transcribe (which is excellent) in either the Nix or the Zapruder, where this occurred prior to the motorcade, especially the president's limousine, taking off for Parkland, which the reports of Chief Curry, Winston Lawson, Forrest Sorrels, Bobby Hargis and Chaney, too, all confirm. If anyone is in doubt, go to John's study, "What Happened on Elm Street? The Eyewitnesses Speak", http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v5n1.html where they can verify those reports for themselves. While I appreciate the question, Pat, but it does not have more than a marginal affect upon the evidence substantiating the absence of Chaney's actions from these films. Jim, I noticed that in several of your posts you've presented Chaney's claim he "looked back" at Kennedy as evidence supporting your position. Pardon me if I've misunderstood, but I take from this you believe Chaney was ahead of Kennedy when the fatal shot impacted, and that he "looked back" as in backward to see Kennedy. But that's not what he was saying. When one looks at his words in context it's clear he was saying he looked to his left at the sound of the first shot, and then "looked back" as in back toward Kennedy, who was still in front of him, as the fatal shot impacted. (11-22-63 interview on WFAA, as shown on Youtube) “I was riding on the right rear fender...We had proceeded west on Elm Street at approximately 15-20 miles per hour. We heard the first shot. I thought it was a motorcycle backfiring and uh I looked back over to my left and also President Kennedy looked back over his left shoulder. Then, the, uh, second shot came, well, then I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the face by the second bullet. He slumped forward into Mrs. Kennedy’s lap, and uh, it was apparent to me that we were being fired upon. I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. And then he instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hospital and he had Parkland Hospital stand by. I went on up ahead of the, to notify the officers that were leading the escort that he had been hit and we're gonna have to move out." (When asked if he saw the person who fired on the President) "No sir, it was back over my right shoulder.” (Note: some sources have it that Chaney also mentioned “a third shot that was fired that (he) did not see hit the President” and that he did see “Governor Connally’s shirt erupt in blood..” but I can not find a primary source for this part of the interview.) Edited January 7, 2012 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) Well, this is useful, David, because I have been taking for granted that you knew the evidence better than you do. If you had read Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), you would know that, in addition to his studies on Greer's head turns, which were twice as fast as humanly possible and which Roy Schaeffer had independently discovered (page 166), Roderick Ryan, an expert on special effects, told him that the limo is moving in frame 302 but standing still in frame 303 (page 159) and that the "blobs" of brains and gore gushing out to the right/front of his head had been painted in (page 160). We also know (because none of the witnesses reported it and it is not present in "the other film", which has been viewed by William Reymond, Milicent Cranor, Rich DellaRosa, and Gregory Burnham, among others) that the back-and-to-the-left motion did not take place at the time. The massive extrusion of brain debris that impacted Bobby Hargis so hard that he initially had thought that he himself had been shot is also missing from the film (page 165), where, as I explained in HOAX (2003), Secret Service agents were nauseated when they observed JFK brain debris across the back of the trunk (page 27). So the absence of debris blowing out to the left/rear and missing from the trunk should also be there if the extant version of the film was authentic. And you should take a look at John's tutorial on Zapruder film alteration, "THE JFK ASSASSINATION FILM HOAX: AN INTRODUCTION", http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/ where he explains that the blood spray dissipates far too rapidly to be a bona fide phenomenon. Have you never watched it? Have ever read HOAX (2003), especially pages 21-28? And how can you possibly maintain that "No one, NO ONE has ever watched the Zfilm and said "that did not happen".... we speak of what is missing ONLY... or blocked, or odd"? Clint Hill's testimony, which has been consistent for (then) 47 years, as I document it in "JFK: Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?", contradicts what we see in the film, where he remains standing on the back step as the limo approaches the Triple Underpass. SO THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. Office Chaney is not shown motoring forward, which means that, with regard to where he was at the time, THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. The bulging brain matter known as the "blob" was painted in, SO THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. The blood spray also appears to have been painted in, SO THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. No witnesses reported the back-and-to-the-left motion, SO THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. Where do you come off being pissed off with me when it turns out that you are the one who is ignorant of basic discoveries about the film, which have long been known? I organized and moderated the first symposium on Zapruder film alteration at Lancer in 1996. You could have easily obtained the two DVDs of the session from Lancer, if you were seriously interested in these questions, but apparently you did not. You also appear not to have read HOAX (2003) or even watched the videos from the Zapruder film symposium I organized in Duluth, which Rich DellaRosa turned into a 66-part YouTube series on "Zapruder Fakery". If you were right and there had been only exclusions and no other alterations, your position might be justifiable. Nevertheless, I welcome your collaboration and believe you have much to contribute. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJ0s9kspL4g. For a sampler of presentations from the Duluth symposium, go to this link. David,To make an obvious logical point, when two films are in conflict, how do you know which is authentic? The extant Zapruder may have been in the public domain longer, but that would also be true if the genuine unaltered original were to surface. The fact that the extant Zapruder has been around a long time does not make it authentic. Since these two are inconsistent, they cannot both be authentic, but they could both be fake--which, apparently, is indeed the case. So your standards of proof seem to me to be vastly different, given the monumental proof that I have adduced. Why is a simple inconsistency between two films enough for you to conclude that the one that is less familiar must be the fake? This is not simply a double-standard, but virtually no standard at all. Your dismissal in light of these considerations is simply begging the question by taking for granted which film is the fake, where your attitude about this is commits a blunder in logic. Jim Jim... First off - refrain from telling me my own conclusions, dismissals or any other thing... restrict yourself to what YOU believe from what I've presented.... Nothing is a "simple inconcistency" to help me "conclude" anything... Unless you read minds, quote me or ASK... you simply do not know. so enough. You write as if these films live on an island of their own... and throw the term FAKE around without qualification... No one, NO ONE has ever watched the Zfilm and said "that did not happen".... we speak of what is missing ONLY... or blocked, or odd and I agree with you, fundementally, that the Zfilm is missing things that should be there.... as are other films... yet certain things cannot be changed... Moorman... Altgens... McIntyre... they tell a very compelling story... and confirm portions of the Zfilm to sell a BIG lie.... So a word or two from a fan and collaborator... EASE UP... I'm on your side and you're pissing me off All I want to do is figure a few things out... so how about staying helpful 3 simple rules - right? Peace DJ Edited January 7, 2012 by James H. Fetzer 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