The Law of Unintended Consequences

[Cliff Varnell]

Like Jeremy, we would ask: Why did he change his story? Did someone get to him?

Yet, for some reason, you do not. This is troubling.

Jim, the sad fact is that Pat Speer has gone "all in" on the authenticity of the autopsy photos. It is the basis of all his pet theories regarding JFK's wounds. To acknowledge the obvious -- that the autopsy photos were poorly produced without regard to proper autopsy protocol and have no chain of possession -- would require him to re-write enormous sections of patspeer.com.

And in order to reconcile the only extant physical evidence of JFK's back wound -- the holes in the clothing -- Pat MUST carry Lamsonite baggage.

A distasteful task, indeed, which is why he resents being called on it.

[Pat Speer]

PS:Ditto ditto assistant autopsy photographer Floyd Riebe. Much as Custer, Riebe made many statements suggesting the autopsy photos were fake--in Groden's book, he even pointed at the location of the wound in the "McClelland" drawing. Once shown the original photos by the ARRB, however, he, too, deferred to their accuracy. Back of the head witness who defers to the accuracy of the autopsy photos.

Pat, I really say the following more in sorrow than in anger: I don't think you realize just what an unreasonable and unfair campaign you are on here. But I think that most people can see, with the above example, why you have no problem with what RIchter did. Yet most WC critics, and those who care about proper witness procedure, do have a problem with it.

You say Riebe made "some noise" about a hole in the back of the head prior to his ARRB testimony. This is a mischaracterization on your part. In two prior instances he clearly said that there was a hole in the posterior skull. (Horne, IARRB, p. 228) Yet, when Gunn showed him the Vitalis hair care version of the rear skull he now reversed himself and said that was what he recalled. Gunn was quite clearly confused by this retraction. Since, usually, memories do not improve over time: They actually deteriorate. So Jeremy, like a good lawyer would, said the following:

JG: Mr. Riebe, previously you described a wound in the occipital region of the head whereas in these photographs it appears that there is no wound there. What would be your explanation for that?

Riebe's answer is priceless:

FR: I just didn't remember it properly.

Now, to any interested party, this answer would be quite disturbing. And it was to Jeremy. Because Riebe had also recalled an occipital defect to Jeremy earlier on. So later on he asked him about it again: " Previously in the deposition you described what I understand to be a large wound in the occipital portion of the brain. Yet when we were looking at the photographs you didn't notice that. Could you explain just once more again what your best understanding is for the ....discrepancy."

FR: Well, it was just chaos in that room that night, and I just misjudged where the wounds were. (ibid, p. 230)

Now, what was disturbing to Jeremy, I think is disturbing to most of us: A witness has now done a reversal of key testimony. And he has no credible answer as to why. Again, as a good lawyer would, Jeremy went on to probe possible reasons, like did anyone talk to you prior to the deposition about this?

What is striking about your new position Pat is this: You have an apparent alacrity in just accepting this reversal, and your mischaracterizing of what he said before. In other words, you are so eager to embrace his new and improved story that it does not bother you in the least that it contradicts what he said prior to 1997. In fact, it seems you want to just shove all that under the rug and proclaim: "See, he says the pictures are accurate today. So the hole did not exist."

This is not what most of us would think or say.

Like Jeremy, we would ask: Why did he change his story? Did someone get to him?

Yet, for some reason, you do not. This is troubling.

First of all, there is nothing "new" about my position. I started researching the case with intensity in 2003. For the first year and a half, I believed there'd been a hole on the back of the head and that the autopsy photos were fake. The more I studied the case, and the more I realized so few of the "back of the head" witnesses were willing to say the autopsy photos were fake, the more I had my doubts, however. This led me to study the case full-time in the Spring and Summer of 2004 from the perspective of the autopsy evidence being legit. This led me to conclude the autopsy evidence, at face value, suggests a conspiracy. This led to an appearance at the 2004 Lancer conference. I returned the next year with a beefier presentation, and have been one of the more vocal opponents of the "autopsy evidence is fake" theory ever since.

You are correct, however, in that I never got around to picking apart the supposed back of the head witnesses until a few years ago. I went through the "Groden witnesses" one by one, and showed how very few of them said the wound was where all too many CTs, apparently including yourself, claim they said it was. It's INCREDIBLY clear to anyone not kneeling at the "shot from the front" altar that the "back of the head" wound described by most of the supposed "back of the head" witnesses was at the TOP of the back of the head, inches above the wound depicted in the McClelland drawing. While this is indeed further back on the skull than the wound shown in the autopsy photos, I think it logical that, should one have to choose between wound locations inches away from where the "back of the head" witnesses, taken as a whole, said it was, one should choose the location where the Dealey Plaza witnesses said it was, and the location depicted in the autopsy photos and Zapruder film show it to have been.

Let me break it down.

A wound at the top of the head is supported by the Dealey Plaza witnesses, some Parkland witnesses, the autopsy photos, X-Rays, and Zapruder film.

A wound further back on the top of the head is supported by most of the Parkland witnesses, many of whom later acknowledged they could be mistaken.

A wound low on the back of the head is supported by a few Parkland witnesses, who, by and large, made no statements regarding the wound location until many years after the shooting, after having seen the so-called "McClelland drawing" showing the wound to be...low on the back of the head.

So how is it remotely LOGICAL for many if not most CTs to assume the wound was where so few claim it was...low on the back of the head?

Well some, like Lifton and Fetzer, have explained this for me. They hold that it's perfectly logical to believe the wound was low on the back of the head, even though this is not supported by the bulk of the witnesses and photographic evidence, because SOME of the doctors at Parkland thought they'd seen cerebellum, and cerebellum could only be seen if the wound was low on the back of the head.

So, we have in effect, a divide.

We have, on the one hand, the statements of a few key doctors claiming they saw cerebellum. No less an expert than Dr. Robert Livingston, moreover, has noted how easy it is to confuse macerated cerebrum for cerebellum. While Dr. Livingston thought the Parkland doctors would not make such a mistake, they would be better judges of this than he, would they not? Most of them have withdrawn their claims, saying they must have seen cerebrum.

On the other hand, we have the autopsy photos, X-Rays, Zapruder film, and the vast bulk of the witnesses describing a wound that was not low on the back of the head,.

Which side are you on?

As far as Riebe, there is a huge difference between shooting the breeze with a researcher and looking at the official photos and calling them fakes under oath. Apparently, he realized he may have been mistaken, and wasn't willing to be the one participant in the autopsy to call the photos fakes under oath. I can't say I blame him.

That is why they take testimony and put people under oath, by the way. To make them put their money where their mouth is.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

I returned the next year with a beefier presentation, and have been one of the more vocal opponents of the "autopsy evidence is fake" theory ever since.

But when it comes to defending the authenticity of the Fox 5 "back of the head" photo you offer nothing, Pat.

Nothing.

The 15 people who described the low back wound got it wrong?

Improperly prepared autopsy material trumps properly prepared autopsy material?

JFK's clothing moved in a manner contrary to Newton's First Law of Motion, and contrary to the Law of Gravity?

You need to go back to the drawing board, Pat.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

Like Jeremy, we would ask: Why did he change his story? Did someone get to him?

Yet, for some reason, you do not. This is troubling.

Jim, the sad fact is that Pat Speer has gone "all in" on the authenticity of the autopsy photos. It is the basis of all his pet theories regarding JFK's wounds. To acknowledge the obvious -- that the autopsy photos were poorly produced without regard to proper autopsy protocol and have no chain of possession -- would require him to re-write enormous sections of patspeer.com.

And in order to reconcile the only extant physical evidence of JFK's back wound -- the holes in the clothing -- Pat MUST carry Lamsonite baggage.

A distasteful task, indeed, which is why he resents being called on it.

This is nonsense, Cliff. I have never hid from the fact my studies are based on the presumption the autopsy evidence is legit. While most everyone like you was playing games and pretending they could ignore whatever they didn't like, simply because the chain of evidence for the autopsy materials had holes, I spent a couple of years trying to figure out what the evidence actually showed once one stepped back from the spin of the government's "experts," on the one hand, and those trying to sell a shot from the front, on the other. And I came to realize the evidence suggested there'd been more than one shooter firing from behind. That's not my pet theory. That's what the evidence shows. Included in this evidence is that the back wound is too low to suggest there'd been a shot fired from the sixth floor that exited the throat and hit Connally in his armpit. So my "pet theory" confirms yours. Congrats.

[Pat Speer]

I returned the next year with a beefier presentation, and have been one of the more vocal opponents of the "autopsy evidence is fake" theory ever since.

But when it comes to defending the authenticity of the Fox 5 "back of the head" photo you offer nothing, Pat.

Nothing.

The 15 people who described the low back wound got it wrong?

Improperly prepared autopsy material trumps properly prepared autopsy material?

JFK's clothing moved in a manner contrary to Newton's First Law of Motion, and contrary to the Law of Gravity?

You need to go back to the drawing board, Pat.

When people estimate they are usually off by a little. I see little conflict between what the back wound witnesses remembered and what is shown in the photos. When you get even one of these witnesses to say the back wound photos are fakes and that the back wound was actually well below where it's shown on the photos, you might have something. But until then... please quit trying to sidetrack this thread.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Chris,

I am not the only one who regards the evidence to be sufficient to implicate Hawkeye Works in Rochester, where I believe that I am in the company of David S. Lifton, Douglas Horne, and others who have studied this issue. And I am most certainly not alone in finding Rollie Zavada's involvement in this most peculiar situation at least curious and even suspicious. And where in the world do you think the name "William Smith" came from? Was it invented out of thin air? I am sorry, Chris, but I find your attempts to play junior philosopher with respect to the meaning of the word "knowledge" to be uninformed and inadequate. You are welcome to believe what you like, but, for my part, I can see no good reason to change any of my written or spoken thoughts about all this.

Jim

Dr. Fetzer:

Before I begin to address the rest of your latest post, I wish to state that at no time was I making - or attempting to make - ad hominem attacks on either Homer McMahon or Ben Hunter. My point was that, even by his own admission, Homer McMahon was not the most reliable witness, and Ben Hunter did not back him up with regard to either Bill Smith existance or Smith's story about Rochester. That said, if I have have inadvertantly and in any way offended either gentleman, I unreservedly apologise to them.

Now, let me turn to your comments about me. I was not trying to "set you up", and there is nothing "funny" about me, I assure you, so if you would care to withdraw both of those remarks, I would appreciate it. Perhaps you would also like to withdraw your ad hominem attack on Rollie Zavada at the same time? And why did David Lifton get dragged into this?

If you had read what I wrote, you would have seen that I DID offer an alternative hypothesis to the film being altered or created (or whatever word you want to use) at Hawkeye Works - a simple misunderstanding, a simple human error, on Homer McMahon's part.

You said in your reply that I was attempting to undermine you belief that "(5) the party who delivered the fake film said it had been developed in Rochester". You are correct - I dispute that statement, because there is no evidence to support it. There is nothing to support the "Secret Service agent Bill Smith" story.

My interest here is in trying to establish, to the extent possible, the exact whereabouts of the film in the days after the assassination. It matters not a bit to me if someone proves it was in Disneyland - as long as we can state that with certainty, and back it up with evidence, I'm happy. The whole point in this exchange with you was to determine whether or not you could support - with concrete evidence - your assertion in post #4 that "WE KNOW THE FILM IS A FAKE AND WHERE AND WHEN IT WAS DONE." If you could, I would have been delighted. However, your answers suggest to me that you cannot support it, and that the assertion is merely your opinion. You THINK you know, which is a different matter altogether, although I fully accept that you are entitled to your opinion. Indeed, your opinion is as valid as mine, and mine is as valid as yours - but that, I think, is where we disagree, and will continue to disagree.

Chris.

Edited January 17, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Martin is right, Pat, and of course their conclusions have been corroborated by David Mantik's studies of the autopsy X-rays. The greatest blunder you make, however, is that, if the blow-out were at the side of the head, which is the theme of your work, then it would not have had cerebral and cerebellar tissue extruding from it. I have asked you to explain that phenomenon-- how cerebellar and cerebral tissue could extrude from the wound as you portray it--and the answer is that you cannot.

Until you do, my interpretation is clearly superior to your own. The question that I pose again, as I have before, is how can you reconcile your side wound with the physicians' reports, which I am now posting again? If you would like, I will be glad to post a diagram of the contents of the cranium to locate the cerebellum for you and our readers, as I am now doing below. Physician after physicians observed cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue extruding from this wound as summarized here:

Now since you apparently DO NOT KNOW THE LOCATION OF THE CEREBELLUM IN RELATION TO THE CRANIUM, here is a nice diagram that shows their relative locations, which was first published in BEST EVIDENCE (1980), which I would have thought would have been enough time to have taken note, especially in relation to the multiple, consistent Parkland reports from these experienced physicians that CEREBELLAR AS WELL AS CEREBRAL TISSUE WAS EXTRUDING FROM THIS WOUND:

What continues to astonish me is that your theory of a side wound is not supported by the witness reports and is clearly contradicted by the Parkland physicians, by David Mantik's X-ray studies, and by frame 374, yet you persist in defense of a hopelessly untenable theory of the medical evidence, whose inadequacy in relation to the evidence OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN APPARENT TO ANYONE WHO HAD EVER READ THOMPSON AND DAVID LIFTON'S BOOKS.

Have you never read them? Why should the theory of a man who's position is not even consistent with the gross anatomy of human brain be taken seriously? I have explained this point several times now, where I am increasingly drawn to the conclusion that, because you have been committed for so many years and have immortalized it on your web site, that you will not abandon it, no matter what the evidence against it! Which confirms your adherence to the method of tenacity.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Pat Speer
stupidly pushed edit instead of reply

[Cliff Varnell]

When people estimate they are usually off by a little.

2+ inches is more than "a little." The base of the neck and T3 are quite dissimilar.

And I notice you MUST pretend that the clothing holes don't exist.

I see little conflict between what the back wound witnesses remembered and what is shown in the photos.

How convenient to your pet theories. How is it that the witness testimony and the properly prepared documents (Burkley's death certificate, the autopsy face sheet diagram, the FBI report on the autopsy) all match the holes in the clothes?

When you get even one of these witnesses to say the back wound photos are fakes and that the back wound was actually well below where it's shown on the photos, you might have something.

15 people described the wound as significantly below the base of the neck. Bowron and Riebe both said the back wound was lower than what was seen in the BOH autopsy photo.

When are you going to produce any proof that it was actually JFK in that photo, Pat?

Why don't you name the person or persons who developed the autopsy photos?

You can't on either score.

But until then... please quit trying to sidetrack this thread.

What do the head wounds have to do with Chaney in the Zap?

Earlier you claimed this thread was about faked photo evidence. Well, I'm discussing faked photo evidence, thank you.

When Pat Speer sidetracks a thread into areas of his pet theories -- that's okay.

When someone calls Pat Speer on nonsense for which he cannot muster an argument -- that's thread hijacking!

Nice double standard, Pat.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Jim, the sad fact is that Pat Speer has gone "all in" on the authenticity of the autopsy photos. It is the basis of all his pet theories regarding JFK's wounds. To acknowledge the obvious -- that the autopsy photos were poorly produced without regard to proper autopsy protocol and have no chain of possession -- would require him to re-write enormous sections of patspeer.com.

And in order to reconcile the only extant physical evidence of JFK's back wound -- the holes in the clothing -- Pat MUST carry Lamsonite baggage.

A distasteful task, indeed, which is why he resents being called on it.

This is nonsense, Cliff. I have never hid from the fact my studies are based on the presumption the autopsy evidence is legit.

I haven't accused you of hiding anything. I'm pointing out the illogic of claiming that improperly prepared medical evidence trumps properly prepared medical evidence.

The medical documents which were properly prepared -- Burkley's death certificate (marked "verified"), the part of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil (marked "verified), the FBI report on the autopsy, the contemporaneous notes of the Parkland doctors in regards to the throat wound, and the neck x-ray -- trump the autopsy evidence which was NOT properly prepared.

There goes the final autopsy report and the autopsy photos, into the dust-bin of history

Since there is an indication in the FBI report that pre-autopsy surgery was performed to the head, we can discount the head x-rays as well.

While most everyone like you was playing games and pretending they could ignore whatever they didn't like, simply because the chain of evidence for the autopsy materials had holes, I spent a couple of years trying to figure out what the evidence actually showed once one stepped back from the spin of the government's "experts," on the one hand, and those trying to sell a shot from the front, on the other.

I'm not impressed. I studied the case for 6 years before I wrote about it, '91-'97. You should have done more due diligence before making an "expert" out of yourself.

And I came to realize the evidence suggested there'd been more than one shooter firing from behind. That's not my pet theory. That's what the evidence shows.

I agree.

Included in this evidence is that the back wound is too low to suggest there'd been a shot fired from the sixth floor that exited the throat and hit Connally in his armpit. So my "pet theory" confirms yours. Congrats.

The SBT is but one issue involved in this. An equally important issue is the throat wound, and the significance of the neck x-ray, which cannot be properly understood unless one grasps the fact that the damage in that x-ray had nothing to do with the back wound.

The back wound was at T3. That's an historical fact I can defend all day. You cannot defend a wound at the upper margin of T1. It never happened.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Chris Scally]

And where in the world do you think the name "William Smith" came from? Was it invented out of thin air? I am sorry, Chris, but I find your attempts to play junior philosopher with respect to the meaning of the word "knowledge" to be uninformed and inadequate.

Dr. Fetzer:

Your failure to answer ANY of the points I raised speaks volumes...

As for the comments above, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, or its relevence to anything... A name "invented out of thin air"? "junior philosopher"? "the meaning of the word 'knowledge'"?

Enough said, methinks!

[Cliff Varnell]

Those who advocate for improperly prepared autopsy material obscure the cardinal facts of the case, to wit:

1) JFK was shot in the back at T3, the round did not exit and was not recovered during the autopsy.

2) JFK was shot in the throat from the front, the round did not exit and was not recovered during the autopsy.

Those who disagree with this assessment are properly described as "Lamsonites" - advocates of a high back wound, which requires adherence to Craig Lamson's incredibly lame "photo analysis" in order to reconcile the back wound with the holes in the clothes.

The only two explanations for these cardinal facts are:

1) The rounds dissolved in the body, as suspected by the autopsists the night of the autopsy.

2) The rounds were removed prior to the autopsy.

That's it. You're either a "blood soluble flechettist," a "Liftonite," or a "Lamsonite."

If this hurts anyone's feelings...oh well...

[Craig Lamson]

which requires adherence to Craig Lamson's incredibly lame "photo analysis" in order to reconcile the back wound with the holes in the clothes.

If it is so lame you can easily refute the shadow evidence I have presented here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18646

That will require you to produce a arrangement of fabric that can obscure the shadow from JFK's neck that MUST fall over his jacket collar at the rear center of his neck. You arrangement MUST be viable considering the STRICT confines of sun and shadow in relation to JFK's body in Betzner.

To date you have offered us the LAME analysis. You claim suggests a jacket collar in FULL SHADOW that must be seen in FULL SUN. Your work is at direct odds with of the demands of the lighting seen in Betzner.

Your claims are beyond childish. Your understanding of how the SUN works is non existent.

You are TOAST.

EPIC FAIL

[Josiah Thompson]

Real simple. Note the hidden ambiguity in your citing the quote from Lawson:

Winston Lawson (Secret Service agent, in the lead car ahead of the Presidential limousine), December 1, 1963: i]“A motorcycle escort officer pulled alongside our Lead Car and said the President had been shot. Chief Curry gave a signal over his radio for police to converge on the area of the incident.”[statement: CE772: 17H632] (emphasis added)

Of course the lead car was ahead of the limousine at the time of the shooting. However, as the photo record shows, the limousine caught up with the limousine underneath the Triple Underpass and passed the lead car. From that moment on, the lead car is no longer in front of the limousine. It is at this point, as Chief Curry explained, Chaney caught up with the lead car on the on-ramp to the Stemmons Freeway. Hence, Lawson's statement is perfectly consistent with the photo evidence and other witness reports. It does not show the necessity of any faking up of the Zapruder film since it is completely consistent with it. Any honest person would not try to use it for that purpose.

Likewise, the reports of Parkland and Bethesda witnesses. What they saw does not prove what was visible in Dealey Plaza. An additional bullet to the head plus the movement of the body in the limousine and out of the limousine could have changed what was visible of the head wound. Since the Zapruder film and and Moorman photo show no damage to the back of Kennedy's head in the interval just after Z 313, since no Dealey Plaza witness reported seeing any damage to the back of Kennedy's head at this time, it is probably true that no damage to the back of Kennedy's head was visible at this time. Hence, there would be nothing in frame 317 to fix. Your way of dealing with this very simple argument is to say that the Moorman photo has been altered to conceal a wound at the back of Kennedy's head. This is just silly.

JT

Since Tink seems to have problems with reading comprehension, I have bolded

the more important observations about Chaney's motoring forward. This takes

his BELIEVE ME INSTEAD OF YOUR LYING EYES to an entirely new level.

See the source at http://assassinationresearch.com/v5n1/v5n1costella.pdf, pages 85-86.

Tink says this happened after the limo had already passed the TUP and that

we have simply not been thinking about the temporal relationship here. My

three favorites are Bobby Hargis, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Jesse Curry:

(1) Forrest Sorrels: "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,"

(2) Bobby Hargis: "I remembered seeing Officer Chaney. Chaney put his motor

in first gear and accelerated up to the front to tell them to get everything

out of the way, that he [the President] was coming through, and that is when

the Presidential limousine shot off ….”

(3) Chief Jesse Curry: "at that time I looked in my rear view mirror and I

saw some commotion in the President’s caravan and realized that proba-

bly something was wrong, and it seemed to be speeding up, and about

this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney rode up be-

side us and I asked if something happened back there"

MOTORCYCLE POLICE OFFICER CHANEY RODE UP TO THE LEAD CAR

AND SPOKE TO POLICE CHIEF JESSE CURRY

James Chaney (motorcycle policeman, on the right rear fender of the Presi-

dential limousine), November 22, 1963: “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’re 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 Hos-

pital, and he had Parkland standing by. I went on up ahead of the—[lead

car]—to notify the officer that was leading the escort that he [the Presi-

dent] had been hit and we’re going to have to move out.” [interview with

Bill Lord of ABC News for WFAA-TV, as quoted in Trask, That Day in Dal-

las]

Bobby Hargis (motorcycle policeman on the left rear fender of the Presiden-

tial limousine), November 23, 1963: “The motorcycle officer on the right

side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward, and an-

nounced to the Chief that the President had been shot.” [Daily News re-

port]

Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service agent, in the lead car in front of the Presi-

dential 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 any-

body 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]

Winston Lawson (Secret Service agent, in the lead car ahead of the Presi-

dential limousine), December 1, 1963: “A motorcycle escort officer pulled

alongside our Lead Car and said the President had been shot. Chief

Curry gave a signal over his radio for police to converge on the area of the

incident.” [statement: CE772: 17H632]

James Chaney (motorcycle policeman, on the right rear fender of the Presi-

dential limousine), from the testimony of Marrion Baker (Dallas Police

Officer, on Houston Street when the shots started), March 25, 1964: “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 to the car or to

the side, and then at that time the chief of police, he didn’t know any-

thing about this [the shooting], and he [Chaney] moved up and told him

[the chief], and then that was during the time that the Secret Service

men were trying to get in the car ….” [Warren Commission testimony:

3H266]

Bobby Hargis (motorcycle policeman on the left rear fender of the Presiden-

tial limousine), April 8, 1964: “… when President Kennedy straightened

back up in the car the bullet hit him in the head, the one that killed him

and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood

and brain, and kind of a bloody water. It wasn’t really blood. And at that

time the Presidential car slowed down. I heard someone say, ‘Get going,’

or ‘get going,’——” (Mr. Stern: “Someone inside——”) Mr. Hargis: “I don’t

know whether it was the Secret Service car, and I remembered seeing Of-

ficer Chaney. Chaney put his motor in first gear and accelerated up to

the front to tell them to get everything out of the way, that he [the Presi-

dent] was coming through, and that is when the Presidential limousine

shot off ….” [Warren Commission testimony: 6H294]

Chief Jesse Curry (in lead car, in front of the Presidential limousine),

April 15, 1964: “I heard a sharp report. We were near the railroad yards

at the time, and I didn’t know—I didn’t know exactly where this report

came from, whether it was above us or where, but this was followed by

two more reports, and at that time I looked in my rear view mirror and I

saw some commotion in the President’s caravan and realized that proba-

bly something was wrong, and it seemed to be speeding up, and about

this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney rode up be-

side 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.’ ” [Warren

Commission testimony: 12H28]

Winston Lawson (Secret Service agent, in the lead car ahead of the Presi-

dential limousine), April 23, 1964: “… I recall noting a police officer

pulled up in a motorcycle alongside of us, and mentioned that the Presi-

dent had been hit.” [Warren Commission testimony: 4H353]

Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service agent, in the lead car in front of the Presi-

dential limousine), May 7, 1964: “Within about 3 seconds, there were two

more similar reports. And I said, ‘Let’s get out of here’ and looked back,

all the way back, then, to where the President’s car was, and I saw some

confusion, movement there, and the car just seemed to lurch forward.

And, in the meantime, a motorcycle officer had run up on the right-hand

side and the chief yelled to him, ‘Anybody hurt?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ He said,

‘Lead us to the hospital.’ And the chief took his microphone and told

them to alert the hospital, and said, ‘Surround the building.’ He didn’t

say what building. He just said, ‘Surround the building.’ ” [Warren Com-

mission testimony: 7H345]

It's easy to "lose the thread" on this thread. I think it has exposed an interesting mistake in thinking. You might call it "blindness to when something happened."

One of the quotes given to show that the Zapruder film was altered because Officer Chaney immediately rode ahead of the limousine to rendezvous with the lead car, is this quote from Winston Lawson in the lead car: "A motorcycle escort officer pulled alongside our lead car and said the President had been shot. Chief Curry gave a signal over his radio for police to converge on the area of the incident." (CE 772; 17H632) Since both Officer Chaney and Chief Curry say that Chaney did rendezvous with the lead car, he probably did. The photos show the limousine passing the lead car as Chaney trails some hundreds of feet. So the photo evidence including the Zapruder film plus statements of Lawson, Chaney, and Curry all support the notion that Chaney met up with the lead car after the limousine took off. In short, what Lawson said really happened. It just didn't happen at the time some would have it happen. Remove the "blindness to when it happened" and things become clearer.

Likewise, with respect to the wound in the back of JFK's head. It doesn't show in the Zapruder fim or in the Moorman photo. No eyewitness from Dealey Plaza noted it. Yet it is clear that many witnesses from both Parkland and Bethesda saw it. Yet because it is seen later at Parkland and Bethesda does not mean it was visible in Dealey Plaza and should show up in the Dealey Plaza photo record. A lot happened after Z 313 including JFK getting hit a second time in the head and his body being extracted from the limousine. If one pays attention to the time difference there is no conflict.

JT

Excellent points, Jim. More interesting to me is the fact that the authors themselves appear to need to be reminded of the significance of what this means! That the photographic evidence is inconsistent with the voluminous eyewitness testimony is simply astounding. That the authors themselves have abandoned their earlier, very well thought out, positions--merely because the photographic evidence (as it now appears) does not support it--is disappointing. At the very least, one would hope that they would seek to find out why the discrepancy exists instead of simply dismissing it as though it was an expected outcome. It is anything, but, expected.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Chris,

The most important evidence about this is found in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) and INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. IV (2009). Why don't you tell me what is bothering you? Do you understand that there are five physical features that differentiate the original brought to the NPIC on Saturday, 24 November 1963, from the film brought to the NPIC on Sunday, 24 November 1963? Doug Horne has presented a rather thorough documentation of what took place there, where an 8mm split film was brought there on Saturday, where they had to go out and buy an 8mm projector; while a 16mm unsplit film was brought there on Sunday, which had those five different features?

Do you have any good reason to doubt that the 8mm film was developed in Dallas? or to question that the 16mm film was developed in Rochester? Do you doubt the existence of the secret CIA lab at Kodak Headquarters, which is in Rochester? Or that Rollie Zavada was an expert on celluloid and completely unqualified to make determinations of whether the film was "authentic" with regard to its content? and, so far as I can see, other than certifying that the replacement was taken on authentic Kodak film, I have yet to see where he made any significant contribution to the resolution of these problems. Nor have I seen anything significant from you yet, to be entirely candid.

Now David Lifton and Doug Horne are both better positioned to address your questions than am I. So why haven't you directed your questions to them? I could give you an intro to the nature of scientific knowledge--which is never certain and always uncertain, where new evidence or alternative hypotheses could led us to reject hypotheses previously accepted and accept hypotheses previously rejected--so if you have new information for us, PLEASE SHARE IT. Something about your approach has troubled me from the beginning. If you think there is a more defensible theory of where and whey the film was revised, then by all means, JUST TELL US WHAT YOU THINK.

And where in the world do you think the name "William Smith" came from? Was it invented out of thin air? I am sorry, Chris, but I find your attempts to play junior philosopher with respect to the meaning of the word "knowledge" to be uninformed and inadequate.

Dr. Fetzer:

Your failure to answer ANY of the points I raised speaks volumes...

As for the comments above, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, or its relevence to anything... A name "invented out of thin air"? "junior philosopher"? "the meaning of the word 'knowledge'"?

Enough said, methinks!

Edited January 18, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Josiah Thompson]

Chris Scally knows more about the provenance of the Zapruder film (the original and the three first-day copies) than you ever will. He knows this because he took the time to do the reading, to make the follow-up phone calls and emails, that real research requires. His chronology of the history of the Zapruder film is showcased on the Lancer web site. I'm sure you remember Lancer... it's only one of the places that have deemed you persona non grata. You retire into your bubble and cite like a litany the names of "David Lifton, Douglas Horne and others." Yeah, they are the supporters of this little side comedy. I take it that you don't know that Chris Scally has tracked the arrival of the two Secret Service copies of the film from Dallas on sequential days where the first was examined by Hunter and McMahon and then, the next day, the second was examined by Brugioni. Ben Hunter actually worked on the film and recalled it "not of high resolution" and said he was pretty sure it had no intersprocket images. If Hunter is right, he worked on a copy sent from Dallas and "Bill Smith" is a figment of McMahon's fevered imagination.

But you don't deal with any of this. You just insult people as a matter of course, even when your interlocutor has been scrupulously polite to you. Your claim that Rollie Zavada somehow himself worked at Hawkeye on faking up the Zapruder film is just acute silliness with a nasty edge. But that's your style... when you have no facts just throw insults and wild charges around.

JT

Chris,

I am not the only one who regards the evidence to be sufficient to implicate Hawkeye Works in Rochester, where I believe that I am in the company of David S. Lifton, Douglas Horne, and others who have studied this issue. And I am most certainly not alone in finding Rollie Zavada's involvement in this most peculiar situation at least curious and even suspicious. And where in the world do you think the name "William Smith" came from? Was it invented out of thin air? I am sorry, Chris, but I find your attempts to play junior philosopher with respect to the meaning of the word "knowledge" to be uninformed and inadequate. You are welcome to believe what you like, but, for my part, I can see no good reason to change any of my written or spoken thoughts about all this.

Jim

Dr. Fetzer:

Before I begin to address the rest of your latest post, I wish to state that at no time was I making - or attempting to make - ad hominem attacks on either Homer McMahon or Ben Hunter. My point was that, even by his own admission, Homer McMahon was not the most reliable witness, and Ben Hunter did not back him up with regard to either Bill Smith existance or Smith's story about Rochester. That said, if I have have inadvertantly and in any way offended either gentleman, I unreservedly apologise to them.

Now, let me turn to your comments about me. I was not trying to "set you up", and there is nothing "funny" about me, I assure you, so if you would care to withdraw both of those remarks, I would appreciate it. Perhaps you would also like to withdraw your ad hominem attack on Rollie Zavada at the same time? And why did David Lifton get dragged into this?

If you had read what I wrote, you would have seen that I DID offer an alternative hypothesis to the film being altered or created (or whatever word you want to use) at Hawkeye Works - a simple misunderstanding, a simple human error, on Homer McMahon's part.

You said in your reply that I was attempting to undermine you belief that "(5) the party who delivered the fake film said it had been developed in Rochester". You are correct - I dispute that statement, because there is no evidence to support it. There is nothing to support the "Secret Service agent Bill Smith" story.

My interest here is in trying to establish, to the extent possible, the exact whereabouts of the film in the days after the assassination. It matters not a bit to me if someone proves it was in Disneyland - as long as we can state that with certainty, and back it up with evidence, I'm happy. The whole point in this exchange with you was to determine whether or not you could support - with concrete evidence - your assertion in post #4 that "WE KNOW THE FILM IS A FAKE AND WHERE AND WHEN IT WAS DONE." If you could, I would have been delighted. However, your answers suggest to me that you cannot support it, and that the assertion is merely your opinion. You THINK you know, which is a different matter altogether, although I fully accept that you are entitled to your opinion. Indeed, your opinion is as valid as mine, and mine is as valid as yours - but that, I think, is where we disagree, and will continue to disagree.

Chris.