David Josephs Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 What do you not understand... I AGREE WITH YOU JIM... there are many many things missing from the film that witnesses saw... My point remains... there is nothing shown on the extant film that is contradicted by the witnesses... the CONTENT of the extant film does not ADD events, only remove or cover up and when you actually count the number that said "STOPPED" as opposed to slowed, paused, etc... it is much fewer than 70.. but many said it... and from my calcs regarding Hill it had to... I know the evidence Jim... If you cannot understand my positon from what I've written.. so be it. Your position has become all to clear to me as well... Peace DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Lee, Why would you dramatically quit the forum? Nothing said in the post you referred to should have compelled you to quit posting here. You know that I value your contributions here. I hope you'll keep posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josiah Thompson Posted January 7, 2012 Author Share Posted January 7, 2012 Claims of Zapruder film alteration come and go. This particular claim has been on life-support since it was discussed in 2008 as “New Proof of Zapruder Film Fakery.” Like earlier claims, it is usually announced by Professor Fetzer as some sort of world-shaking breakthrough and remains so until the leaks are discovered and it sinks. The 2008 discussion showed that the recollections of Chief Curry, Agent Lawson and Agent Sorrels are all probably correct. After hanging back and almost coming to a stop, Officer Chaney guns his cycle and catches up with the lead car containing Curry, Lawson and Sorrels. The films of Zapruder, Nix, Bell and Daniel all are consistent with this scenario as are the still photos of Altgens and McIntire. The McIntire photo, for example, shows two motorcyclists, Chaney and Martin trailing the limousine as it blasts by the lead car at the Triple Underpass. As Chief Curry explained, Officer Chaney caught up with the lead car west of the Triple Underpass on the on-ramp to the Stemmons Freeway and told them what had happened. Hence, the photo evidence and the reports of Curry, Lawson and Sorrels all form a compact package describing what happened. Chaney was never deposed by the Warren Commission and never submitted reports to DPD as to what he observed on November 22nd. He was interviewed by the FBI on November 28, 1963 (25H284), but, oddly enough, was only asked about his chance encounter with Jack Ruby in Dealey Plaza on November 23rd. On the night of November 22nd, Chaney was interviewed by Bill Lord of ABC News at DPD headquarters. During this interview, Chaney said: “I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit.” Since all the films and photos show that Chaney did not do this, Professor Fetzer and Jack White claimed that all the films and photos have been altered (apparently to conceal this rather trivial fact). Through a lot of work, I finally obtained the mp3 of an interview Chaney did with Gil Toft posing as “John Whitney” sometime between 1971 and 1973. Toft was helping Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams with their book Murder from Within. Chaney was important to this effort because Newcomb and Adams were backing the notion that Agent Bill Greer turned around in his seat and shot Kennedy with a chrome hand-gun. On page 55, Newcomb and Adams write: “The President was facing forward and slightly to his left when he was struck by the fatal bullet fired by the driver.” In an Appendix on page 311, they even provide a detailed diagram of the limousine showing Greer turning around in his seat and shooting Kennedy. Since Greer is in the driver’s seat and Kennedy is in the rear seat on the right corner, the trajectory of the shot is from left to right with debris blown to the right rear over Officer Chaney. Clearly, Toft hoped to get confirmation for this theory by having Chaney tell him he was hit with impact debris. Chaney did not oblige and said nothing about being hit by any impact debris. Chapter Four of Murder from Within is entitled “The Filmed Assassination: How the Key Movie of the Murder Was Altered.” Newcomb and Adams describe various ways in which the Zapruder film was altered not the least being retouching of Z 313 to conceal the fact that Greer shot Kennedy in the left temple and the bullet and brain debris exited from the right rear of Kennedy’s head. They devote all of page 99 to showing graphically how this was done. With part of their thesis the claim that the Zapruder film had been altered, they sent copies of the film to Officer Chaney, to Officer Douglas Jackson, to Officer Bobby Hargis and to Sgt. Stavis Ellis. As the transcript posted on this thread makes clear, Toft was obviously hoping Chaney would provide grist for the Zapruder fakery theory and his questions to Chaney show this. Had Chaney really “went ahead of the President’s car,” he could have made Toft’s day by simply telling him this. This was just what Toft was fishing for. Yet Chaney would not oblige. Instead, he said he did not remember stopping but must have stopped because he recalled watching Officer Bobby Hargis dump his cycle by the south curb and run across the street in front of Chaney. This is not something Chaney got from watching the Zapruder film because it’s not there. It’s something he got from remembering the event and knowing what his memory entailed. In a delicious irony, by trying to get evidence for Zapruder alteration in the early 1970s, Toft ended up depriving Professor Fetzer of a witness statement he attempted to use for the same purpose forty years later! JT ..Nor is Office Chaney's motoring forward, for which we have evidence from Chief Curry, Winston Lawson, Forrest Sorrels, Bobby Hargis, and Chaney himself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) SUBSTITUTIONS have been made to create the impression THAT EVENTS OTHER THAN WHAT HAPPENED took place. The limo stop is a perfect example. The limo is shown in (more or less) continuous motion. But if you study the frames immediately following 313, the passengers are thrown FORWARD when they should instead be being PULLED BACK. You seem to be hung up on some perverse use of the word "MISSING". These events--such as the limo stop, which was abrupt and which actually threw the passengers forward, where some of that footage was incorporated into frames 314,315, and 316, for example--and many other events were REPLACED by false depictions, such as by painting in the "blob". And of course the photographic and film evidence has to be evaluated in relation to the medical, ballistic, and testimonial evidence, where I have been concentrating on the latter. The film is not even self-consistent, since frame 374 contradicts earlier frames, so I am baffled that you seem to have made no mention or notice of frame 374: And of course that discovery was preceded by David Mantik's discovery that the autopsy X-rays had been "patched" to conceal that massive blow-out to the back of the head, where his studies of the X-rays were published in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), including the following study, which is obviously similar to the blow-out in frame 274: Since Gary Aguilar has a nice article about the consistency of descriptions of this wound at Dealey Plaza, at Parkland, and even at Bethesda (where Humes would alter the head and throat wounds), which also contradicts the extant film since it can be seen in frame 374 but not in earlier frames, what is there you do not understand? The "blob" did not occur but was added to the film. The limo stop did occur but was removed from the film. The back-and-to-the-left motion did not occur but was added to the film. The blow out of brains to the left/rear did occur but was removed. So how can you consistently maintain that things were ONLY COVERED UP OR BLOCKED OUT? What do you not understand... I AGREE WITH YOU JIM... there are many many things missing from the film that witnesses saw... My point remains... there is nothing shown on the extant film that is contradicted by the witnesses... the CONTENT of the extant film does not ADD events, only remove or cover up and when you actually count the number that said "STOPPED" as opposed to slowed, paused, etc... it is much fewer than 70.. but many said it... and from my calcs regarding Hill it had to... I know the evidence Jim... If you cannot understand my positon from what I've written.. so be it. Your position has become all to clear to me as well... Peace DJ Edited January 8, 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) I encourage David Josephs to review the witness testimony to determine whether or not Josiah Thompson is correct in claiming that this event did not happen before the limo reached the Triple Underpass. It can be found collated as compiled by John Costella. This is a nice test case to assess our relative degrees of credibility. In the process, David will be learning more about what the witnesses had to day and can make more contributions here. Needless to add, neither Tink nor I should be conducting this research but David Josephs, Pat Speer, and others are appropriate to sort this one out. Claims of Zapruder film alteration come and go. This particular claim has been on life-support since it was discussed in 2008 as “New Proof of Zapruder Film Fakery.” Like earlier claims, it is usually announced by Professor Fetzer as some sort of world-shaking breakthrough and remains so until the leaks are discovered and it sinks. The 2008 discussion showed that the recollections of Chief Curry, Agent Lawson and Agent Sorrels are all probably correct. After hanging back and almost coming to a stop, Officer Chaney guns his cycle and catches up with the lead car containing Curry, Lawson and Sorrels. The films of Zapruder, Nix, Bell and Daniel all are consistent with this scenario as are the still photos of Altgens and McIntire. The McIntire photo, for example, shows two motorcyclists, Chaney and Martin trailing the limousine as it blasts by the lead car at the Triple Underpass. As Chief Curry explained, Officer Chaney caught up with the lead car west of the Triple Underpass on the on-ramp to the Stemmons Freeway and told them what had happened. Hence, the photo evidence and the reports of Curry, Lawson and Sorrels all form a compact package describing what happened. Chaney was never deposed by the Warren Commission and never submitted reports to DPD as to what he observed on November 22nd. He was interviewed by the FBI on November 28, 1963 (25H284), but, oddly enough, was only asked about his chance encounter with Jack Ruby in Dealey Plaza on November 23rd. On the night of November 22nd, Chaney was interviewed by Bill Lord of ABC News at DPD headquarters. During this interview, Chaney said: “I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit.” Since all the films and photos show that Chaney did not do this, Professor Fetzer and Jack White claimed that all the films and photos have been altered (apparently to conceal this rather trivial fact). Through a lot of work, I finally obtained the mp3 of an interview Chaney did with Gil Toft posing as “John Whitney” sometime between 1971 and 1973. Toft was helping Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams with their book Murder from Within. Chaney was important to this effort because Newcomb and Adams were backing the notion that Agent Bill Greer turned around in his seat and shot Kennedy with a chrome hand-gun. On page 55, Newcomb and Adams write: “The President was facing forward and slightly to his left when he was struck by the fatal bullet fired by the driver.” In an Appendix on page 311, they even provide a detailed diagram of the limousine showing Greer turning around in his seat and shooting Kennedy. Since Greer is in the driver’s seat and Kennedy is in the rear seat on the right corner, the trajectory of the shot is from left to right with debris blown to the right rear over Officer Chaney. Clearly, Toft hoped to get confirmation for this theory by having Chaney tell him he was hit with impact debris. Chaney did not oblige and said nothing about being hit by any impact debris. Chapter Four of Murder from Within is entitled “The Filmed Assassination: How the Key Movie of the Murder Was Altered.” Newcomb and Adams describe various ways in which the Zapruder film was altered not the least being retouching of Z 313 to conceal the fact that Greer shot Kennedy in the left temple and the bullet and brain debris exited from the right rear of Kennedy’s head. They devote all of page 99 to showing graphically how this was done. With part of their thesis the claim that the Zapruder film had been altered, they sent copies of the film to Officer Chaney, to Officer Douglas Jackson, to Officer Bobby Hargis and to Sgt. Stavis Ellis. As the transcript posted on this thread makes clear, Toft was obviously hoping Chaney would provide grist for the Zapruder fakery theory and his questions to Chaney show this. Had Chaney really “went ahead of the President’s car,” he could have made Toft’s day by simply telling him this. This was just what Toft was fishing for. Yet Chaney would not oblige. Instead, he said he did not remember stopping but must have stopped because he recalled watching Officer Bobby Hargis dump his cycle by the south curb and run across the street in front of Chaney. This is not something Chaney got from watching the Zapruder film because it’s not there. It’s something he got from remembering the event and knowing what his memory entailed. In a delicious irony, by trying to get evidence for Zapruder alteration in the early 1970s, Toft ended up depriving Professor Fetzer of a witness statement he attempted to use for the same purpose forty years later! JT ..Nor is Office Chaney's motoring forward, for which we have evidence from Chief Curry, Winston Lawson, Forrest Sorrels, Bobby Hargis, and Chaney himself! 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 (edited) David, You are committing multiple logical blunders. However, even though your reasoning is flawed that does not mean that you are necessarily incorrect. It does mean that the proofs you are offering to support your assertions are inadequate to the task, though. Greg, Being wrong only means I'm trying... please show me the logical blunders... sincerely. I'm trying to show that what we see in the film's frames is corroborated by the witnesses... that there are no events in the film that are contradicted... only missing or blocked. where am I falling down here...? as I prefer to express this both logically, and directly. thx DJ Well said, David. I know you're trying--and mostly succeeding, I might add. In my opinion, Jim is pretty much covering the flaws in your logic. Granted, one must strive to be thick skinned in order to bear it though. Moreover, Jim wil be the first to admit that he lacks tact in some settings. Although he tends to be demanding, he doesn't intend to be. He has a tendency to "pile it on" with a multitude of examples that are sometimes redundant, and thus tedious for the recipient. His tone can come across as condescending. David, in Fetzer's defense, it is a personality quirk, not a character flaw. Back to the point. Let me just grab a random illustration: None of the witnesses--including those closest to the president, such as, Jackie--reported JFK's head violently "snapping back" at the moment of the kill shot. Yet, that is what we see in the extant film. I reckon one could argue that such "wasn't added to the film" but is rather the result of frames being excised from the film, which may in fact be the case. However, when something is removed from film it can "generate a false impression" due to the human mind's tendency to seek continuity. That tendency toward continuity can result in false impressions which can lead to false conclusions. So, even though the cause of the phenomenon (in this case) might be the removal of frames, the net effect (of the removal) is additive to the film. And, this "additive effect" is cumulative. But, I digress. That is an involved subject all by itself. More to the point is the fact that the Zapruder film cannot be relied upon as a "yardstick" by which to measure any collateral evidence. It is self-impeaching in that there are elements within it that do not occur "in the real world" because they are impossible. As an example, the film displays severe inconsistencies with regard to the blurring/sharpness of foreground and background images. While there are numerous indications that the film might be altered, there are several that actually prove it...and all it takes is one. . Edited January 7, 2012 by Greg Burnham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) As an example, the film displays severe inconsistencies with regard to the blurring/sharpness of foreground and background images. While there are numerous indications that the film might be altered, there are several that actually prove it...and all it takes is one. . BULL...ONEY! Costella produces yet ANOTHER fatally flawed argument and Burnham repeats it as fact. So tell us Burnham, can you show us the blur calculations for these "impossible" images using frame from the same source? (so you understand that means NOT using a frame from a litho printed source such as Life and comparing it to the frankenframes produced by Costella?) If you can't your statement will, how did you put it again, "mean that the proofs you are offering to support your assertions are inadequate to the task" Lets see if you, and your proof, are up to the task.... Edited January 7, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 I knew Craig Lamb's son would post next! I just knew it. So predictable. So "on call" for this subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txIismezLAo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) So are you "up to the task?" Or are you just trying to deflect from your inability to present your evidence, flawed as it is? Edited January 7, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Go ahead Craig, state your BS for the record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) Go ahead Craig, state your BS for the record. I did. No BS, just the hard truth. Even Costella has to try and squirm away from it. Learn to read. It's right there in my first post on this subject. So show us the proof based on frames from the same source... Really quite simple. Edited January 7, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed LeDoux Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 As an example, the film displays severe inconsistencies with regard to the blurring/sharpness of foreground and background images. While there are numerous indications that the film might be altered, there are several that actually prove it...and all it takes is one. . BULL...ONEY! Costella produces yet ANOTHER fatally flawed argument and Burnham repeats it as fact. So tell us Burnham, can you show us the blur calculations for these "impossible" images using frame from the same source? (so you understand that means NOT using a frame from a litho printed source such as Life and comparing it to the frankenframes produced by Costella?) If you can't your statement will, how did you put it again, "mean that the proofs you are offering to support your assertions are inadequate to the task" Lets see if you, and your proof, are up to the task.... While I agree with Craig that the sources used need to be comparable, I have to respect the statements by Mr. Burnham regarding seeing the other film. That MUST be kept in mind when discussing 'this' Z film. To not do so is a disservice to Greg and the others whom have viewed it. Thanks, Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Thanks, Ed. I dare say that Mr. Lamson and I go way back. His arguments were no more reasonable when I first encountered him than they are today. Having said that, it is sufficient to show a SINGLE frame -- ANY FRAME -- in which the foreground, the middle-ground, and the background are all CRISP. Why? Because IF the limo never stopped how can we account for the lack of motion blur within the frame? The only answer adequate to that evidence is that the limo DID stop. The fact that the extant film does not show a stop at all results in self-impeachment. I do not need more than one frame to demonstrate this. His claim that I need to make sure that the source of the frames is consistent is a lame distraction technique. This can be demonstrated using a SINGLE frame. Z-216, for example, shows the foreground, mid-ground, and background to be equally crisp. How can this be possible in the real world where the mid-ground (the limousine) is in motion? Where objects are stationary a panning camera will cause blur. Where objects are in motion, a camera panning in a synchronous manner will capture crisp images for those items in synchronous motion, but capture blur for all objects that are stationary. So, how is it that in Z-216 there is virtually NO BLUR AT ALL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) Craig, In an earlier post, I asked David Josephs if he had read Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997). If he had he 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), when Noel Twyman asked Roderick Ryan, an expert on special effects, why the background is blurred in frame 302 but sharp in frame 303, he 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 he 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. For whatever reason, he has declined to respond. But here is an example of what Noel learned about frames 302 and 303, where, when the camera is panning the limo, the limo will be sharp but the background will be blurred (as in frame 302); but both the limo and the background are sharp in frame 303, because the limo has come to a stop. So I can't wait for you to "explain away" what the laws of optics require and David should appreciate. This is another proof of alteration that, like frame 374, is internal to the film, David Josephs surely ought to find most convincing. Jim Go ahead Craig, state your BS for the record. I did. No BS, just the hard truth. Even Costella has to try and squirm away from it. Learn to read. It's right there in my first post on this subject. So show us the proof based on frames from the same source... Really quite simple. Edited January 8, 2012 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Jim, Thanks for posting 302 and 303. They illustrate a most important point. Not only did the limo come to a complete stop, but if it had been traveling at about 11 miles an hour, either Greer was braking extremely hard in order for it to complete the stop in 1/18 of a second OR it had already dramatically reduced speed prior to the kill zone... or both. 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