David Josephs Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Jim... you are a real piece of work aren't you? I took for granted you were not as big a #$%^ as what I've been reading all these years.... thanks for setting the record straight... Looking at this post in response to my stating that the only things amiss with Z are MISSING, BLOCKED or ODD THINGS... and then you get on a soapbox, admonish me for what I do or do not know... and seemingly smirk as you do it... and post items that are MISSING FROM THE FILM - "were twice as fast as humanly possible" - missing the entire turn "had been painted in" - blocking something else "that the back-and-to-the-left motion did not take place at the time" - I have Greg's write up...it says "up, then fall to the left" either case it's MISSING "he himself had been shot is also missing from the film" - missing "the absence of debris blowing out to the left/rear and missing from the trunk " - missing "blood spray dissipates far too rapidly " - missing (those that were there did say something about a red halo, yet some of it is missing from the film) "where he remains standing on the back step as the limo approaches the Triple Underpass. SO THAT DID NOT HAPPEN" - missing from the film Show me a quote from anyone saying - "no, that did NOT happen that way" And being pissed at you has nothing to do with my knowledge Jim, but your condescending attitude and the fact your posts continue to prove you'd rather argue or preach than have a discussion.... If a blue elephant walked across Elm in one of these films we could have people state that was not the case.... what in the film do we see that DID NOT HAPPEN in any way, shape or form? Chaney not moving up as corroborated by testimony IS MISSING from the film... and when shown the film he says he MUST have stopped... he was mistaken... like Hill and the auto shells, Weitzman/Boone/Craig/Fritz about the Mauser, etc.... Truly saying the limo almost hit the curb and stopped on the left to to Elm, is MISSING from Towner and Z.... So please... can you name anything in the extant film that doesn't belong cause it is showing something that did NOT happen? DJ 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://assassination...ella/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". I am sorry that you felt insulted, David, but I assumed you knew a great deal more about these films than you do. You have now confirmed many of the points I have raised about your position. 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, You are committing a logical blunder. There are plenty of things that are shown in the film that did not happen as they are shown in the film. So your assumption that you could use the extant film to dismiss other versions that are inconsistent with the extant film is wrong. Suppose, for example, that another film turned up that showed NO back-and-to-the-left motion of the body. Since that IS in the extant film, if you assume there are only omissions--which means that EVERYTHING SHOWN IN THE EXTANT FILM IS ACCURATE, EVEN THOUGH OTHER THINGS HAPPENED THAT ARE NOT SHOWN--then you would be obligated to reject it BECAUSE IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE EXTANT FILM. That was your argument, but you are wrong. You are getting pissed for no good reason, because there are plenty of events in the extant film that did not happen as well as many excluded from it that did. Let's try another approach and see where we agree and disagree about what actually happened. Here are a dozen events that did or did not occur. My responses to all of them would be "Yes", and I can explain how we know that those "Yes" answers are correct (as I have done in relation to most of them in this last post). The truth of any of them, I might observe, implies that the film is faked (and I used the word because it fits). So kindly tell me which of these points are ones on which we agree and which are ones on which you disagree--and tell us why--to provide a basis for discussion: (1) Greer's head turns are impossibly fast: Y/N (2) The "blob" was painted in: Y/N (3) The blood spray was painted in: Y/N (4) There was no back-and-to-the-left: Y/N (5) JFK instead slumped forward: Y/N (6) Debris blew out to the left/rear: Y/N (7) Debris was strewn across the trunk: Y/N (8) Clint actually pushed Jackie down: Y/N (9) Clint lay across their bodies: Y/N (10) Clint gave a "thumbs down": Y/N (11) Chaney motored forward: Y/N (12) There was a limo stop: Y/N Jim... you are a real piece of work aren't you? I took for granted you were not as big a #$%^ as what I've been reading all these years.... thanks for setting the record straight... Looking at this post in response to my stating that the only things amiss with Z are MISSING, BLOCKED or ODD THINGS... and then you get on a soapbox, admonish me for what I do or do not know... and seemingly smirk as you do it... and post items that are MISSING FROM THE FILM - "were twice as fast as humanly possible" - missing the entire turn "had been painted in" - blocking something else "that the back-and-to-the-left motion did not take place at the time" - I have Greg's write up...it says "up, then fall to the left" either case it's MISSING "he himself had been shot is also missing from the film" - missing "the absence of debris blowing out to the left/rear and missing from the trunk " - missing "blood spray dissipates far too rapidly " - missing (those that were there did say something about a red halo, yet some of it is missing from the film) "where he remains standing on the back step as the limo approaches the Triple Underpass. SO THAT DID NOT HAPPEN" - missing from the film Show me a quote from anyone saying - "no, that did NOT happen that way" And being pissed at you has nothing to do with my knowledge Jim, but your condescending attitude and the fact your posts continue to prove you'd rather argue or preach than have a discussion.... If a blue elephant walked across Elm in one of these films we could have people state that was not the case.... what in the film do we see that DID NOT HAPPEN in any way, shape or form? Chaney not moving up as corroborated by testimony IS MISSING from the film... and when shown the film he says he MUST have stopped... he was mistaken... like Hill and the auto shells, Weitzman/Boone/Craig/Fritz about the Mauser, etc.... Truly saying the limo almost hit the curb and stopped on the left to to Elm, is MISSING from Towner and Z.... So please... can you name anything in the extant film that doesn't belong cause it is showing something that did NOT happen? DJ 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://assassination...ella/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". I am sorry that you felt insulted, David, but I assumed you knew a great deal more about these films than you do. You have now confirmed many of the points I have raised about your position. Edited January 7, 2012 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Greg... Maybe yours is just a hypothetical statement? My distinction on the Zfilm... as opposed to what you saw, is simply that what we have access to today shows ALOT of what you described and is based in REALITY... the film was not shot on a soundstage, nor does it try to convince anyone that what they are seeing DIDN'T happen.... You can't tell from watching the film that during any 3 frame stretch the limo APPEARS to travel at twice the speed it should be due to the distances and survey info... that suggests something is missing.... and I DO believe that an original is out there with the MISSING STUFF back in... Let me ask you... seeing the Zfilm a zillion times as we all have, is there anything in there that did not happen? One of the only things I initially thought of is in the z450's where JFK is seen sitting up again... yet we have witness testimony to this.... so if you have anything to point to that is shown yet did not occur I'd appreciate it Mr. LIEBELER - Do you think that could have been possible when Mrs. Kennedy pulled him over, do you think he could have got hit in the neck after he had been hit in the head? Mr. HUDSON - Yes sir; I do Mr. LIEBELER - He was still sitting far enough up in the car he could have been hit? Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir. Cheers DJ ps... Can we all refrain from stating what someone else THINKS or KNOWS? If you want to know where I stand on an issue, just ask. As I said, the unaltered version will fill in the blanks MISSING from the film... hopefully as you've described them - yet Zappy will not all of a sudden be somewhere else, there will still be three men on the steps, moorman and jean will still be in their places.. etc.... Will it also show the first headshot 30 feet down the road? Altgens doesn't say the film is showing something that didn't happen... just what he says DID HAPPEN... I will easily stand corrected if he ever said what he saw on the zfilm did not occur that way.... or anyone else for that matter.... I jsut cannot recall anything said along those lines. thanks DJ Mr. LIEBELER - Now, the thing that is troubling me, though, Mr. Altgens, is that you say the car was 30 feet away at the time you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and that is the time at which the first shot was fired? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - And that it was 15 feet away at the time the third shot was fired. Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - But during that period of time the car moved much more than 15 feet down Elm Street going down toward the triple underpass? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - I don't know how many feet it moved, but it moved quite a ways from the time the first shot was fired until the time the third shot was fired. I'm having trouble on this Exhibit No. 203 understanding how you could have been within 30 feet of the President's car when you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and within 15 feet of the car when he was hit with the last shot in the head without having moved yourself. Now, you have previously indicated that you were right beside the President's car when he was hit in the head. Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I was about 15 feet from it. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 David, You are committing a logical blunder. There are plenty of things that are shown in the film that did not happen as they are shown in the film. So your assumption that you could use the extant film to dismiss other versions that are inconsistent with the extant film is wrong. Suppose, for example, that another film turned up that showed NO back-and-to-the-left motion of the body. Since that IS in the extant film, if you assume there are only omissions--which means that EVERYTHING SHOWN IN THE EXTANT FILM IS ACCURATE, EVEN THOUGH OTHER THINGS HAPPENED THAT ARE NOT SHOWN--then you would be obligated to reject it BECAUSE IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE EXTANT FILM. That was your argument, but you are wrong. I NEVER said what your conclusion above suggests.... my argument is that the extant film is BASED in the reality of the event... that it was filmed THAT DAY and that frames have been removed and altered to fit the needs, THAT WEEKEND at NPIC and Hawkeye... when frames are removed so the timing works yet only results in a faster head turn... YOU seem to be saying the head never turned... or that head turn was "faked" or added... I'll get into your list below in a minute.... You are getting pissed for no good reason, because there are plenty of events in the extant film that did not happen as well as many excluded from it that did. Let's try another approach and see where we agree and disagree about what actually happened. Here are a dozen events that did or did not occur. My responses to all of them would be "Yes", and I can explain how we know that those "Yes" answers are correct (as I have done in relation to most of them in this last post). The truth of any of them, I might observe, implies that the film is faked (and I used the word because it fits). So kindly tell me which of these points are ones on which we agree and which are ones on which you disagree--and tell us why--to provide a basis for discussion: You dont seem to be listening at all Jim.... of the events you list... who, after viewing the film says it did NOT happen that way? Each and every one is MISSING, BLOCKED or ODD... they DID Happen - or not Jim? (1) Greer's head turns are impossibly fast: Y/N Greer and Kellerman both testify to his head turn... too fast? MISSING (2) The "blob" was painted in: Y/N BLOCKED (3) The blood spray was painted in: Y/N SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT no blood SPRAYED FROM JKF'S HEAD? BLOCKED (4) There was no back-and-to-the-left: Y/N I disagree here Jim... back-left is a relative term... you saying he NEVER fell to his left and back toward Jackie? (5) JFK instead slumped forward: Y/N All about POV here Jim... and which frames... he went left, he went back and he went forwarfd after falling over... he alos was pushed back up and hit again... this is in the film (6) Debris blew out to the left/rear: Y/N MISSING & BLOCKED... you saying that never happened? (7) Debris was strewn across the trunk: Y/N MISSING BLOCKED (8) Clint actually pushed Jackie down: Y/N Interpretation of statements... this is uncorroborated, single person testimony... (9) Clint lay across their bodies: Y/N See #8 (10) Clint gave a "thumbs down": Y/N MISSING (11) Chaney motored forward: Y/N MISSING (12) There was a limo stop: Y/N MISSING So I will ask yet again Jim... post a statement about the Zfilm from ANYONE saying "NO, that did NOT happen" - I am excluding "like that" from the statement cause we KNOW frames/events are missing... Please just answer the question Jim... you have all the evidence at your fingertips, YOU are a world renowned expert on Zfilm problems surely you have a list of witness statements that support your conclusion that the Zfilm is FAKED and things occur on the film that did not happen... thanks 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) Well, I had revised my concluding sentences from "I am sorry that you felt insulted, David, but I assumed you knew a great deal more about these films than you do. You have now confirmed many of the points I have raised about your position" to read instead "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." Maybe I am wrong. I now believe that my earlier assessment may have been more appropriate. Your unwillingness to simply answer "Y/N" to this dozen questions about what happened suggests to me that you are not familiar with the existing discussions of these questions. How many of these books and articles have you read at least with regard to their discussions of the Zapruder and other films, some of which have appears other place as well? If you won't answer those, how about these? (1) BLOODY TREASON (1997): Y/N (2) ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998): Y/N (3) MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000): Y/N (4) THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003): Y/N (5) INSIDE THE ARRB (2009): Y/N (6) "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery": Y/N http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jim_fetz_080205_new_proof_of_jfk_fil.htm (7) "Mary in the Street - Revisited": Y/N http://www.jfkresearch.com/Moorman/ (8) "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid": Y/N http://www.opednews.com/articles/Zapruder-JFK-Film-Impeache-by-Jim-Fetzer-090324-48.html (9) "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication": Y/N http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/994 (10) "The JFK 'Head Shot' Paradox": Y/N http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/fetzer1.1.1.html (11) "Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?": Y/N http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/01/whos-telling-truth-clint-hill-or.html (12) “Did Zapruder film ‘the Zapruder film’?”: Y/N http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/03/did-zapruder-film-zapruder-film.html Plus John Costella has a nice tutorial into to Z-film fakery: "THE JFK ASSASSINATION FILM HOAX: AN INTRODUCTION": Y/N http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/ David, You are committing a logical blunder. There are plenty of things that are shown in the film that did not happen as they are shown in the film. So your assumption that you could use the extant film to dismiss other versions that are inconsistent with the extant film is wrong. Suppose, for example, that another film turned up that showed NO back-and-to-the-left motion of the body. Since that IS in the extant film, if you assume there are only omissions--which means that EVERYTHING SHOWN IN THE EXTANT FILM IS ACCURATE, EVEN THOUGH OTHER THINGS HAPPENED THAT ARE NOT SHOWN--then you would be obligated to reject it BECAUSE IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE EXTANT FILM. That was your argument, but you are wrong. I NEVER said what your conclusion above suggests.... my argument is that the extant film is BASED in the reality of the event... that it was filmed THAT DAY and that frames have been removed and altered to fit the needs, THAT WEEKEND at NPIC and Hawkeye... when frames are removed so the timing works yet only results in a faster head turn... YOU seem to be saying the head never turned... or that head turn was "faked" or added... I'll get into your list below in a minute.... You are getting pissed for no good reason, because there are plenty of events in the extant film that did not happen as well as many excluded from it that did. Let's try another approach and see where we agree and disagree about what actually happened. Here are a dozen events that did or did not occur. My responses to all of them would be "Yes", and I can explain how we know that those "Yes" answers are correct (as I have done in relation to most of them in this last post). The truth of any of them, I might observe, implies that the film is faked (and I used the word because it fits). So kindly tell me which of these points are ones on which we agree and which are ones on which you disagree--and tell us why--to provide a basis for discussion: You dont seem to be listening at all Jim.... of the events you list... who, after viewing the film says it did NOT happen that way? Each and every one is MISSING, BLOCKED or ODD... they DID Happen - or not Jim? (1) Greer's head turns are impossibly fast: Y/N Greer and Kellerman both testify to his head turn... too fast? MISSING (2) The "blob" was painted in: Y/N BLOCKED (3) The blood spray was painted in: Y/N SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT no blood SPRAYED FROM JKF'S HEAD? BLOCKED (4) There was no back-and-to-the-left: Y/N I disagree here Jim... back-left is a relative term... you saying he NEVER fell to his left and back toward Jackie? (5) JFK instead slumped forward: Y/N All about POV here Jim... and which frames... he went left, he went back and he went forwarfd after falling over... he alos was pushed back up and hit again... this is in the film (6) Debris blew out to the left/rear: Y/N MISSING & BLOCKED... you saying that never happened? (7) Debris was strewn across the trunk: Y/N MISSING BLOCKED (8) Clint actually pushed Jackie down: Y/N Interpretation of statements... this is uncorroborated, single person testimony... (9) Clint lay across their bodies: Y/N See #8 (10) Clint gave a "thumbs down": Y/N MISSING (11) Chaney motored forward: Y/N MISSING (12) There was a limo stop: Y/N MISSING So I will ask yet again Jim... post a statement about the Zfilm from ANYONE saying "NO, that did NOT happen" - I am excluding "like that" from the statement cause we KNOW frames/events are missing... Please just answer the question Jim... you have all the evidence at your fingertips, YOU are a world renowned expert on Zfilm problems surely you have a list of witness statements that support your conclusion that the Zfilm is FAKED and things occur on the film that did not happen... thanks 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) Don't you understand that the events you describe as MISSING have been replaced by events that did not happen WHICH ARE SHOWN? Surely at this point in our conversation you have to grasp that those EVENTS THAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED have been replaced by FALSE DEPICTIONS. Which ones are faked? THOSE EVENTS "DID NOT OCCUR" AS THEY ARE DEPICTED IN THE EXTANT FILM. I asked you whether these events ACTUALLY HAPPENED OR NOT. I know you have a mental block regarding the logic of the situation. So simply answer my questions, Y/N, so I have a better idea where things stand. OK? Thanks. David, You are committing a logical blunder. There are plenty of things that are shown in the film that did not happen as they are shown in the film. So your assumption that you could use the extant film to dismiss other versions that are inconsistent with the extant film is wrong. Suppose, for example, that another film turned up that showed NO back-and-to-the-left motion of the body. Since that IS in the extant film, if you assume there are only omissions--which means that EVERYTHING SHOWN IN THE EXTANT FILM IS ACCURATE, EVEN THOUGH OTHER THINGS HAPPENED THAT ARE NOT SHOWN--then you would be obligated to reject it BECAUSE IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE EXTANT FILM. That was your argument, but you are wrong. I NEVER said what your conclusion above suggests.... my argument is that the extant film is BASED in the reality of the event... that it was filmed THAT DAY and that frames have been removed and altered to fit the needs, THAT WEEKEND at NPIC and Hawkeye... when frames are removed so the timing works yet only results in a faster head turn... YOU seem to be saying the head never turned... or that head turn was "faked" or added... I'll get into your list below in a minute.... You are getting pissed for no good reason, because there are plenty of events in the extant film that did not happen as well as many excluded from it that did. Let's try another approach and see where we agree and disagree about what actually happened. Here are a dozen events that did or did not occur. My responses to all of them would be "Yes", and I can explain how we know that those "Yes" answers are correct (as I have done in relation to most of them in this last post). The truth of any of them, I might observe, implies that the film is faked (and I used the word because it fits). So kindly tell me which of these points are ones on which we agree and which are ones on which you disagree--and tell us why--to provide a basis for discussion: You dont seem to be listening at all Jim.... of the events you list... who, after viewing the film says it did NOT happen that way? Each and every one is MISSING, BLOCKED or ODD... they DID Happen - or not Jim? (1) Greer's head turns are impossibly fast: Y/N Greer and Kellerman both testify to his head turn... too fast? MISSING (2) The "blob" was painted in: Y/N BLOCKED (3) The blood spray was painted in: Y/N SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT no blood SPRAYED FROM JKF'S HEAD? BLOCKED (4) There was no back-and-to-the-left: Y/N I disagree here Jim... back-left is a relative term... you saying he NEVER fell to his left and back toward Jackie? (5) JFK instead slumped forward: Y/N All about POV here Jim... and which frames... he went left, he went back and he went forwarfd after falling over... he alos was pushed back up and hit again... this is in the film (6) Debris blew out to the left/rear: Y/N MISSING & BLOCKED... you saying that never happened? (7) Debris was strewn across the trunk: Y/N MISSING BLOCKED (8) Clint actually pushed Jackie down: Y/N Interpretation of statements... this is uncorroborated, single person testimony... (9) Clint lay across their bodies: Y/N See #8 (10) Clint gave a "thumbs down": Y/N MISSING (11) Chaney motored forward: Y/N MISSING (12) There was a limo stop: Y/N MISSING So I will ask yet again Jim... post a statement about the Zfilm from ANYONE saying "NO, that did NOT happen" - I am excluding "like that" from the statement cause we KNOW frames/events are missing... Please just answer the question Jim... you have all the evidence at your fingertips, YOU are a world renowned expert on Zfilm problems surely you have a list of witness statements that support your conclusion that the Zfilm is FAKED and things occur on the film that did not happen... thanks 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) JUST FOR THE RECORD, David appears to have overlooked the sentence I have highlighted here in bold. He seems to think that I haven't answered them. David,You are committing a logical blunder. There are plenty of things that are shown in the film that did not happen as they are shown in the film. So your assumption that you could use the extant film to dismiss other versions that are inconsistent with the extant film is wrong. Suppose, for example, that another film turned up that showed NO back-and-to-the-left motion of the body. Since that IS in the extant film, if you assume there are only omissions--which means that EVERYTHING SHOWN IN THE EXTANT FILM IS ACCURATE, EVEN THOUGH OTHER THINGS HAPPENED THAT ARE NOT SHOWN--then you would be obligated to reject it BECAUSE IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE EXTANT FILM. That was your argument, but you are wrong. You are getting pissed for no good reason, because there are plenty of events in the extant film that did not happen as well as many excluded from it that did. Let's try another approach and see where we agree and disagree about what actually happened. Here are a dozen events that did or did not occur. My responses to all of them would be "Yes", and I can explain how we know that those "Yes" answers are correct (as I have done in relation to most of them in this last post). The truth of any of them, I might observe, implies that the film is faked (and I used the word because it fits). So kindly tell me which of these points are ones on which we agree and which are ones on which you disagree--and tell us why--to provide a basis for discussion: (1) Greer's head turns are impossibly fast: Y/N (2) The "blob" was painted in: Y/N (3) The blood spray was painted in: Y/N (4) There was no back-and-to-the-left: Y/N (5) JFK instead slumped forward: Y/N (6) Debris blew out to the left/rear: Y/N (7) Debris was strewn across the trunk: Y/N (8) Clint actually pushed Jackie down: Y/N (9) Clint lay across their bodies: Y/N (10) Clint gave a "thumbs down": Y/N (11) Chaney motored forward: Y/N (12) There was a limo stop: Y/N 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) David, I don't want to interfer your discussion with Monk, but no one thinks the film was created on a sound stage! Where do you come up with this drivel? What we have now is a recreation of the original sequence as those events unfolded in Dealey Plaza by taking original footage and using the sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects to produce a fake film that conceals the true causes of the death of JFK. If you don't understand that, I have no idea why you are participating here, because that is what happened, which we have proven again and again. I am troubled by your remarks about Mary and Jean. Do you understand that Mary was using her Polaroid to take photos of the motorcade, handing them to Jean, who was coating them with a fixing solution? But they are portrayed in the film as frozen turkeys who barely move. Both Jean and Mary reported--during interviews and in books--that they stepped into the street to take her famous photograph. This issue has been discussed so extensively on this forum that I can't believe you could have missed it. See "Mary in the Street -- Revisited", for which I have provided links. You also seem to take for granted the authenticity of other photos and films related to the assassination. But Jack White has long since shown that many of them have also been altered. Bear in mind that no photographer or camera man "takes" a film that has been faked, where, as you seem to appreciate, the Zapruder was revised that weekend at a secret CIA lab at Kodak Headquarters in Rochester, NY, as the ARRB verified. See "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication". We have abundant witness testimony about what actually happened, including that of Toni Foster: So please explain to me what you think David Mantik, Jack White, John Costella, David Healy, and David Lifton believe happened to the film? Do you seriously think anyone in the world believes it was created on a sound stage? Do you understand the "ghost panels" and their importance for the recreation? And do you realize that they appear to have combined footage from a number of source films, including footage taken BEFORE THE LIMO HAD ARRIVED of spectators standing on the north side of Elm Street, who are virtually motionless, which was incorporated into the fake film? Greg... Maybe yours is just a hypothetical statement? My distinction on the Zfilm... as opposed to what you saw, is simply that what we have access to today shows ALOT of what you described and is based in REALITY... the film was not shot on a soundstage, nor does it try to convince anyone that what they are seeing DIDN'T happen.... You can't tell from watching the film that during any 3 frame stretch the limo APPEARS to travel at twice the speed it should be due to the distances and survey info... that suggests something is missing.... and I DO believe that an original is out there with the MISSING STUFF back in... Let me ask you... seeing the Zfilm a zillion times as we all have, is there anything in there that did not happen? One of the only things I initially thought of is in the z450's where JFK is seen sitting up again... yet we have witness testimony to this.... so if you have anything to point to that is shown yet did not occur I'd appreciate it Mr. LIEBELER - Do you think that could have been possible when Mrs. Kennedy pulled him over, do you think he could have got hit in the neck after he had been hit in the head? Mr. HUDSON - Yes sir; I do Mr. LIEBELER - He was still sitting far enough up in the car he could have been hit? Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir. Cheers DJ ps... Can we all refrain from stating what someone else THINKS or KNOWS? If you want to know where I stand on an issue, just ask. As I said, the unaltered version will fill in the blanks MISSING from the film... hopefully as you've described them - yet Zappy will not all of a sudden be somewhere else, there will still be three men on the steps, moorman and jean will still be in their places.. etc.... Will it also show the first headshot 30 feet down the road? Altgens doesn't say the film is showing something that didn't happen... just what he says DID HAPPEN... I will easily stand corrected if he ever said what he saw on the zfilm did not occur that way.... or anyone else for that matter.... I jsut cannot recall anything said along those lines. thanks DJ Mr. LIEBELER - Now, the thing that is troubling me, though, Mr. Altgens, is that you say the car was 30 feet away at the time you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and that is the time at which the first shot was fired? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - And that it was 15 feet away at the time the third shot was fired. Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - But during that period of time the car moved much more than 15 feet down Elm Street going down toward the triple underpass? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - I don't know how many feet it moved, but it moved quite a ways from the time the first shot was fired until the time the third shot was fired. I'm having trouble on this Exhibit No. 203 understanding how you could have been within 30 feet of the President's car when you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and within 15 feet of the car when he was hit with the last shot in the head without having moved yourself. Now, you have previously indicated that you were right beside the President's car when he was hit in the head. Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I was about 15 feet from it. 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. Edited January 7, 2012 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Don't you understand that the events you describe as MISSING have been replaced by events that did not happen WHICH ARE SHOWN? Surely at this point in our conversation you have to grasp that those EVENTS THAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED have been replaced by FALSE DEPICTIONS. Which ones are faked? THOSE EVENTS "DID NOT OCCUR" AS THEY ARE DEPICTED IN THE EXTANT FILM. I asked you whether these events ACTUALLY HAPPENED OR NOT. I know you have a mental block regarding the logic of the situation. So simply answer my questions, Y/N, so I have a better idea where things stand. OK? Thanks Please post any single statement froma ny single witness who saw the film and said..."That did not happen" Nothing was REPLACED Jim... removing the limo stop is not replacing it with a moving limo... the limo WAS moving... he WAS shot in the head, Does someone say, "i did not see any damage to the right side of his head so what we see in Z is not what I saw" No, Hill says there was a hole in the back right of his head... THAT'S MISSING... and what does remain is BLOCKED... Z374 shows the real damage... JC does get pulled down by NC or was that added after? We are saying the same thing... I'm just not saying it the way you want to hear it... Cheers Jim... If you can't post the statments I ask for... then you can't prove to me that anything was added that didn't actuially happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) You are telling me that, UNLESS A WITNESS USES THE WORDS, "It didn't happen that way", then NO MATTER HOW MUCH THEIR REPORTS OF WHAT ACTUALLY DID HAPPEN CONTRADICTS WHAT IS SEEN IN THE FILM, IT DOESN'T COUNT? THAT is your position? I am incredulous. So they have to be shown the film and then asked, "Did it happen that way?", where even showing them the film thereby contaminates their testimony, as was done with Chaney? Do you have any comprehension of the nature of investigations and research? So when Toni Foster reports her personal experience, which contradicts the film, unless she is ALSO shown the film and says, "It didn't happen that way", you would discount it? Apparently, these matters are too subtle for the mind of David Josephs. I think someone needs to intervene, because, if that is your position, it is not merely ridiculous--it is completely absurd! Say "It ain't so". I am stunned. Don't you understand that the events you describe as MISSING have been replaced by events that did not happen WHICH ARE SHOWN? Surely at this point in our conversation you have to grasp that those EVENTS THAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED have been replaced by FALSE DEPICTIONS. Which ones are faked? THOSE EVENTS "DID NOT OCCUR" AS THEY ARE DEPICTED IN THE EXTANT FILM. I asked you whether these events ACTUALLY HAPPENED OR NOT. I know you have a mental block regarding the logic of the situation. So simply answer my questions, Y/N, so I have a better idea where things stand. OK? Thanks Please post any single statement froma ny single witness who saw the film and said..."That did not happen" Nothing was REPLACED Jim... removing the limo stop is not replacing it with a moving limo... the limo WAS moving... he WAS shot in the head, Does someone say, "i did not see any damage to the right side of his head so what we see in Z is not what I saw" No, Hill says there was a hole in the back right of his head... THAT'S MISSING... and what does remain is BLOCKED... Z374 shows the real damage... JC does get pulled down by NC or was that added after? We are saying the same thing... I'm just not saying it the way you want to hear it... Cheers Jim... If you can't post the statments I ask for... then you can't prove to me that anything was added that didn't actuially happen 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 Greg... Maybe yours is just a hypothetical statement? My distinction on the Zfilm... as opposed to what you saw, is simply that what we have access to today shows ALOT of what you described and is based in REALITY... the film was not shot on a soundstage, nor does it try to convince anyone that what they are seeing DIDN'T happen.... You can't tell from watching the film that during any 3 frame stretch the limo APPEARS to travel at twice the speed it should be due to the distances and survey info... that suggests something is missing.... and I DO believe that an original is out there with the MISSING STUFF back in... Let me ask you... seeing the Zfilm a zillion times as we all have, is there anything in there that did not happen? One of the only things I initially thought of is in the z450's where JFK is seen sitting up again... yet we have witness testimony to this.... so if you have anything to point to that is shown yet did not occur I'd appreciate it Mr. LIEBELER - Do you think that could have been possible when Mrs. Kennedy pulled him over, do you think he could have got hit in the neck after he had been hit in the head? Mr. HUDSON - Yes sir; I do Mr. LIEBELER - He was still sitting far enough up in the car he could have been hit? Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir. Cheers DJ ps... Can we all refrain from stating what someone else THINKS or KNOWS? If you want to know where I stand on an issue, just ask. As I said, the unaltered version will fill in the blanks MISSING from the film... hopefully as you've described them - yet Zappy will not all of a sudden be somewhere else, there will still be three men on the steps, moorman and jean will still be in their places.. etc.... Will it also show the first headshot 30 feet down the road? Altgens doesn't say the film is showing something that didn't happen... just what he says DID HAPPEN... I will easily stand corrected if he ever said what he saw on the zfilm did not occur that way.... or anyone else for that matter.... I jsut cannot recall anything said along those lines. thanks DJ Mr. LIEBELER - Now, the thing that is troubling me, though, Mr. Altgens, is that you say the car was 30 feet away at the time you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and that is the time at which the first shot was fired? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - And that it was 15 feet away at the time the third shot was fired. Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - But during that period of time the car moved much more than 15 feet down Elm Street going down toward the triple underpass? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - I don't know how many feet it moved, but it moved quite a ways from the time the first shot was fired until the time the third shot was fired. I'm having trouble on this Exhibit No. 203 understanding how you could have been within 30 feet of the President's car when you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and within 15 feet of the car when he was hit with the last shot in the head without having moved yourself. Now, you have previously indicated that you were right beside the President's car when he was hit in the head. Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I was about 15 feet from it. 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. 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. 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, You are putting it kindly. Apparently David Josephs is unaware that, as a requirement of judicial procedure, before a photograph or film can be introduced as evidence in a court of law, the person who took that photograph or filmed that film has to certify that it is a correct and accurate representation of what they personally took on the occasion that it represents. I made this point in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), on page 210, where I quoted McCormick on Evidence (3rd edition, 1984), Section 214, who explains that: The principle upon which photographs are most commonly admitted into evidence is the same as that underlying the admission of illustrative drawings, maps, and diagrams. Under this theory, a photograph is viewed merely as a graphic portrayal of oral testimony, and becomes admissible only when a witness has testified that it is a correct and accurate representation of the relevant facts personally observed by the witness. Josephs appears to be committing the blunder, which has been promoted by Josiah Thompson, that photos and films take precedence over witnesses, which is wrong. Even Abraham Zapruder, during the Garrison trial, express surprise at being shown the film that bears his name, probably because he knew it was the not the film he had taken but one that had been substantially revised. Which is why Zapruder did not film "the Zapruder film", because no one has filmed a fake film, for which this one is the premier illustration. And this is why we have to take into account the medical evidence, the ballistics, other photographs and films, but especially the witnesses who were actually there. As John and Jack and David (all three) have observed, if you listen to the witnesses, you can get a pretty good idea of what actually happened. Which of course is why I have recommended John's collation of the witnesses, "What Happened on Elm Street? The Eyewitnesses Speak", where Toni Foster's report offers an instructive--and very powerful--example: Jim Greg... Maybe yours is just a hypothetical statement? My distinction on the Zfilm... as opposed to what you saw, is simply that what we have access to today shows ALOT of what you described and is based in REALITY... the film was not shot on a soundstage, nor does it try to convince anyone that what they are seeing DIDN'T happen.... You can't tell from watching the film that during any 3 frame stretch the limo APPEARS to travel at twice the speed it should be due to the distances and survey info... that suggests something is missing.... and I DO believe that an original is out there with the MISSING STUFF back in... Let me ask you... seeing the Zfilm a zillion times as we all have, is there anything in there that did not happen? One of the only things I initially thought of is in the z450's where JFK is seen sitting up again... yet we have witness testimony to this.... so if you have anything to point to that is shown yet did not occur I'd appreciate it Mr. LIEBELER - Do you think that could have been possible when Mrs. Kennedy pulled him over, do you think he could have got hit in the neck after he had been hit in the head? Mr. HUDSON - Yes sir; I do Mr. LIEBELER - He was still sitting far enough up in the car he could have been hit? Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir. Cheers DJ ps... Can we all refrain from stating what someone else THINKS or KNOWS? If you want to know where I stand on an issue, just ask. As I said, the unaltered version will fill in the blanks MISSING from the film... hopefully as you've described them - yet Zappy will not all of a sudden be somewhere else, there will still be three men on the steps, moorman and jean will still be in their places.. etc.... Will it also show the first headshot 30 feet down the road? Altgens doesn't say the film is showing something that didn't happen... just what he says DID HAPPEN... I will easily stand corrected if he ever said what he saw on the zfilm did not occur that way.... or anyone else for that matter.... I jsut cannot recall anything said along those lines. thanks DJ Mr. LIEBELER - Now, the thing that is troubling me, though, Mr. Altgens, is that you say the car was 30 feet away at the time you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and that is the time at which the first shot was fired? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - And that it was 15 feet away at the time the third shot was fired. Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - But during that period of time the car moved much more than 15 feet down Elm Street going down toward the triple underpass? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - I don't know how many feet it moved, but it moved quite a ways from the time the first shot was fired until the time the third shot was fired. I'm having trouble on this Exhibit No. 203 understanding how you could have been within 30 feet of the President's car when you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and within 15 feet of the car when he was hit with the last shot in the head without having moved yourself. Now, you have previously indicated that you were right beside the President's car when he was hit in the head. Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I was about 15 feet from it. 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. 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. Edited January 7, 2012 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 No Jim... anything close would suffice... Mr. ZAPRUDER - Leaning--leaning toward the side of Jacqueline. For a moment I thought it was, you know, like you say, "Oh, he got me," when you hear a shot--you've heard these expressions and then I saw---I don't believe the President is going to make jokes like this, but before I had a chance to organize my mind, I heard a second shot and then I saw his head opened up and the blood and everything came out and I started--I can hardly talk about it [ the witness crying]. Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes--after the shots--yes, some of them were motorcycle cops--I guess they left their motorcycles running and they were running right behind me, of course, in the line of the shooting. I guess they thought it came from right behind me. Mr. LIEBELER - Did you have any impression as to the direction from which these shots came? Mr. ZAPRUDER - No, I also thought it came from back of me. Of course, you can't tell when something is in line it could come from anywhere, but being I was here and he was hit on this line and he was hit right in the head--I saw it right around here, so it looked like it came from here and it could come from there. Mr. LIEBELER - All right, as you stood here on the abutment and looked down into Elm Street, you saw the President hit on the right side of the head and you thought perhaps the shots had come from behind you? Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, yes. All I would like is you or the Hollywood 7 to SHOW US... I posted an enhancement of the black square hovering over JFK.. I AGREE... I've had lengthy discussion over why we see no debris dripping off the vehicle at Parkland per Frazier's testimony... Mr. SPECTER - What was the condition with respect to cleanliness? Mr. FRAZIER - There were blood and particles of flesh scattered all over the hood, the windshield, in the front seat and all over the rear floor rugs, the jump seats, and over the rear seat, and down both sides of the side rails or tops of the doors of the car. Mr. SPECTER - Is that condition depicted by Commission Exhibits 352 and 353 to the extent that they show the interior of the automobile? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. and Martin AND Hargis testify to deris all over them and their motorcycles... do you have images of their helmuts covered in gore? The limo hood? Neither do I... So I will ask one last time and then drop it... name something, ANYTHING THAT WE SEE in the Zfilm, that is refuted or contradicted by a witness... DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) This is a joke, right? All four of the motorcycle escort officers--and dozens of other witnesses, perhaps as many as seventy (70)--testify to the limo stop. The limo stop is not shown in the extant film. Nor is Clint Hill's rushing forward, climbing on the back step, pushing Jackie down, laying across their bodies and giving a "thumbs down" to his colleagues. Nor is Office Chaney's motoring forward, for which we have evidence from Chief Curry, Winston Lawson, Forrest Sorrels, Bobby Hargis, and Chaney himself! I do not understand you. What is you commitment to the film that you should be dismissive of massive and compelling evidence, which I have described in this thread, published in three books, and supplemented by a dozen articles for which I have provided links? All of this was discussed during the Zapruder Film Symposium in Dallas (1996) and again during the Duluth Symposium (2003). I have given you links to all of it, where similar conclusions were drawn by Noel Twyman and confirmed by the work of the Assassination Records Review Board. There is no reasonable criterion for rational belief that this body of evidence fails to satisfy. I offered a nice summary of the evidential situation in post #71, part of which I shall repost. What is there here that you do not understand? 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 Jim... anything close would suffice... Mr. ZAPRUDER - Leaning--leaning toward the side of Jacqueline. For a moment I thought it was, you know, like you say, "Oh, he got me," when you hear a shot--you've heard these expressions and then I saw---I don't believe the President is going to make jokes like this, but before I had a chance to organize my mind, I heard a second shot and then I saw his head opened up and the blood and everything came out and I started--I can hardly talk about it [ the witness crying]. Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes--after the shots--yes, some of them were motorcycle cops--I guess they left their motorcycles running and they were running right behind me, of course, in the line of the shooting. I guess they thought it came from right behind me. Mr. LIEBELER - Did you have any impression as to the direction from which these shots came? Mr. ZAPRUDER - No, I also thought it came from back of me. Of course, you can't tell when something is in line it could come from anywhere, but being I was here and he was hit on this line and he was hit right in the head--I saw it right around here, so it looked like it came from here and it could come from there. Mr. LIEBELER - All right, as you stood here on the abutment and looked down into Elm Street, you saw the President hit on the right side of the head and you thought perhaps the shots had come from behind you? Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, yes. All I would like is you or the Hollywood 7 to SHOW US... I posted an enhancement of the black square hovering over JFK.. I AGREE... I've had lengthy discussion over why we see no debris dripping off the vehicle at Parkland per Frazier's testimony... Mr. SPECTER - What was the condition with respect to cleanliness? Mr. FRAZIER - There were blood and particles of flesh scattered all over the hood, the windshield, in the front seat and all over the rear floor rugs, the jump seats, and over the rear seat, and down both sides of the side rails or tops of the doors of the car. Mr. SPECTER - Is that condition depicted by Commission Exhibits 352 and 353 to the extent that they show the interior of the automobile? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. and Martin AND Hargis testify to deris all over them and their motorcycles... do you have images of their helmuts covered in gore? The limo hood? Neither do I... So I will ask one last time and then drop it... name something, ANYTHING THAT WE SEE in the Zfilm, that is refuted or contradicted by a witness... 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