New Proof of JFK Film Fakery: "Conclusive Evidence", Experts Claim

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Others here follow the Unger/Lamson/Mack practice of only citing evidence favorable to their position,

where this case is a text-book illustration. Go back to post #166 and read the highly-selective use that

Unger makes of A PART OF A SENTENCE, where it should be obvious he is trading on an equivocation:

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 anything 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]

If you simply exchange "man was" for "men were"--where it becomes obvious that he is referring to Clint

Hill--there is nothing to his argument at all! He is pretending that one (ambiguous) phrase out of a dozen

reports from (under these circumstances) impeccable sources should outweigh the rest, where what these

government officials are telling us COMPLETELY DESTROYS the government's own account--they simply

didn't realize it at the time! They not only prove Altgens7 is a fake but that the Zapruder film was altered!

A decent, truth-seeking member of this forum would be embarrassed and ashamed. Instead, Unger and

Lamson--now aided and abetted by GARY MACK--persevere in their attempts to deceive forum members.

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 Presidential 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 Hospital, 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 President] 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 Dallas]

Chaney says, "I WENT AHEAD OF THE PRESIDENT'S CAR TO INFORM CHIEF CURRY THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD BEEN HIT". According to you, this actually happened AFTER THE PRESIDENT'S CAR HAD PASSED THE LEAD CAR. How much more deceptive can you get, Robin Under. Really!

Bobby Hargis (motorcycle policeman on the left rear fender of the Presidential limousine), November 23, 1963: “The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward, and announced to the Chief that the President had been shot.” [Daily News report]

Hargis reports (about Chaney), "HE IMMEDIATELY WENT FORWARD AND ANNOUNCED TO THE CHIEF THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD BEEN SHOT". But, according to you, HE CAN'T HAVE RIDDEN FORWARD, BECAUSE THE LIMO WAS ALREADY PAST THE CHIEF'S CAR. Give us a break, Robin.

Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service agent, in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine), November 28, 1963: “I noted that the President’s car had axcelerated [sic] its speed and was closing fast the gap between us. A motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer replied in the affirmative, and Chief Curry immediately broadcast to surround the building. By that time we had gotten just about under the underpass when the President’s car pulled up alongside, and at that time Chief Curry’s car had started to pick up speed, and someone yelled to get to the nearest hospital, and Chief Curry broadcast for the hospital to be ready.” [statement: 21H548]

Forrest Sorrels, "A MOTORCYCLE PULLED UP ALONG SIDE OF THE CAR . . . BY THAT TIME WE HAD GOTTEN JUST ABOUT UNDER THE UNDERPASS WHEN THE PRESIDENT'S CAR PULLED UP ALONGSIDE. . . " How many more gross distortions are you going to attempt here, Robin?

Winston Lawson (Secret Service agent, in the lead car ahead of the Presidential 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]

Winston Lawson, "A MOTORCYCLE ESCORT OFFICER PULLED ALONGSIDE OUR LEAD CAR . . ." So when is this supposed to have happened?

James Chaney (motorcycle policeman, on the right rear fender of the Presidential 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 anything 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]

Marrion Baker, ". . . AND HE [CHANEY] MOVED UP AND TOLD HIM [THE CHIEF], AND THEN THAT WAS DURING THE TIME THAT THE SECRET SERVICE [iNSTEAD OF "MEN WERE" INSERT "MAN WAS"] TRYING TO GET IN THE CAR", WHICH IS THE TRIVIAL ARGUMENT YOU'VE POSED.

Bobby Hargis (motorcycle policeman on the left rear fender of the Presidential 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 some one 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 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 ....” [Warren Commission testimony: 6H294]

Bobby Hargis, "CHANEY PUT HIS MOTOR IN FIRST GEAR AND ACCELERATED UP TO THE FRONT TO TELL THEM TO GET OUT OF THE WAY, THAT HE [THE PRESIDENT] WAS COMING THROUGH, AND THAT WAS WHEN THE PRESIDENTIAL LIMOUSINE SHOT OFF . . .". Yet to hear you tell it, this only happened AFTER THE PRESIDENTIAL LIMOUSINE HAD ALREADY PASSED THE LEAD CAR. How dumb are we supposed to be, Robin?

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 probably 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 beside us and I asked if something happened back there and he said, ‘Yes,’ and I said, ‘Has somebody been shot?’ And he said,‘I think so.’ ” [Warren Commission testimony: 12H28]

Chief Curry, ". . . AND ABOUT THIS TIME A MOTORCYCLE OFFICER, I BELIEVE IT WAS OFFICER CHANEY, RODE UP BESIDE US AND I ASKED IF SOMETHING HAPPEND BACK THERE . . . '. God, I find it disgusting that I am having to spell out your grotesque deceit and deception, Robin Unger!

Winston Lawson (Secret Service agent, in the lead car ahead of the Presidential limousine), April 23, 1964: “... I recall noting a police officer pulled up in a motorcycle alongside of us, and mentioned that the President had been hit.” [Warren Commission testimony: 4

H353]

Winston Lawson, ". . . I recall noting a police officer pulled up in a motorcycle alongside of us . . .". And when is this supposed to have happened, Robin?

Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service agent, in the lead car in front of the Presidential 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 Commission testimony: 7H345]

Forrest Sorrells, "AND I SAID, 'LET' GET OUT OF HERE' AND LOOKED BACK, ALL THE WAY BACK, THEN, TO WHERE THE PRESIDENT'S CAR WAS . . . IN THE MEANWHILE, A MOTORCYCLE OFFICER HAD RUN UP ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE . . .". So just how dumb are we supposed to be?

What Happened on Elm Street? The Eyewitnesses Speak

ASSASSINATION RESEARCH / Vol. 5 No. 1 © Copyright 2007 John P. Costella

Edited March 3, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Actually, there is an alternative interpretation in which Marrion Baker is NOT talking about "man was" [Clint

Hill] but "men were", where Robin Unger has inadvertently drawn attention to the fact that we ALSO have

reports of Secret Service agents getting out of the car, which of meant that they HAD TO GET BACK IN

before they could take off to follow the limo to Parkland. I returned to "What happened on Elm Street?":

More than one Secret Service agent piled off the follow-up car.

Jack Franzen (on south side of Elm Street, near the Presidential limousine at the time of the shots), November 22, 1963: “He noticed the men, who were presumed to be Secret Service Agents, riding in the car directly behind the President’s car, unloading from the car, some with firearms in their hands ....” [FBI report: CE1428: 22H840]

Mary Woodward (on the north side of Elm Street, near the Presidential limousine at the time of the shooting), November 23, 1963: “The cars behind [the Presidential limousine] stopped and several men—Secret Service men, I suppose—got out and started rushing forward, obstructing our view of the President’s car.” [Dallas Morning News, November 23, 1963]

James Chaney (motorcycle policeman, on the right rear of the Presidential limousine), from the testimony of Marrion Baker (Dallas Police Officer, on Houston Street when the shots started), March 25, 1964: “... 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]

D. V. Harkness (motorcycle policeman, crossed from the corner of Houston and Main Streets towards Elm Street as the shooting began), April 9, 1964: “When I saw the first shot and the President’s car slow down toalmost a stop——” (Mr. Belin: “When you saw the first shot, what do you mean by that?”) Mr. Harkness: “When I heard the first shot and saw the President’s car almost come to a stop and some of the agents piling off the car, I went back to the intersection to get my motorcycle.” [Warren Commission testimony: 6H309]

Earle Cabell (four cars behind the Presidential limousine), July 13, 1964: “We could tell, of course, that there was confusion in the presidential car—activity. The Secret Service men ran to that car.” [Warren Commis- sion testimony: 7H479]

ASSASSINATION RESEARCH / Vol. 5 No. 1 © Copyright 2007 John P. Costella What Happened on Elm Street? 93-94 The Eyewitnesses Speak http://www.assassina...5n1costella.pdf

But of course this only makes matters worse for Unger, Lamson and Mack. Not only did the Lincoln

limousine come to a halt during the shooting, but the Secret Service Cadillac ALSO CAME TO A HALT--

AND SECRET SERVICE AGENTS DISEMBARKED AND THEN HAD TO SCRAMBLE TO GET BACK INTO

THE VEHICLE FOR IT TO TAKE OFF IN PURSUIT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL LIMOUSINE. So I want to thank

Robin Unger for drawing my attention to this fascinating additional proof of the Zapruder film's fabrication!

Edited March 3, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[Robin Unger]

Thanks Daniel.

Correct, i m not a Fink

Quote:

Having received a thorough intellectual thrashing on this forum, it is not surprising that someone like

Robin Unger is going to attempt to recycle every argument in the thread! Don't be taken in. He has

gone down to one of the most stunning defeats in the history of The Education Forum--and desperately

needs to save face! No one who has followed the argument is going to be taken in, but that is not about

to inhibit him from trying. One of the most egregious is attempting to recycle the "but it had ALREADY

APPEARED and THERE WASN'T TIME TO FAKE IT". But the photo is OBVIOUSLY FAKE, given what

we know about Officer Chaney's having motored forward and what Clint Hill has told us. This is unreal!

LMAO

Thanks i needed a good laugh.

The problem with you Jim, is that you are so used to getting your own way, by bullying your way through the forums

you don't know how to react, when you come up against someone who won't back down.

You need to lift your game mate, you are not convincing ANYONE with your silly arguments, and pathetically poor resolution collages.

[Robin Unger]

quote:

Robin Unger is going to attempt to recycle every argument in the thread!

Are you serious, i'm not the one who recycled this Gem over and over again

Is Doorman wearing a red-and-white short-sleeved shirt? YES or NO

Is the shirt Doorman is wearing buttoned up to the top? YES or NO

[John Dolva]

"The problem with you Jim, is that you are so used to getting your own way, by bullying your way through the forums

you don't know how to react, when you come up against someone who won't back down."

is an interesting point.

edit edit add If one sees that Jim F. is not getting his way the 'bullying' must have some payoff or Jim F. doesn't want to get his own way. This somewhat pathological situation likely comes with ways to react which while generally outside the norm and therefore hard to understand is not really so. There is an internal logic at work that justifies the expression of this pathology.

Edited March 3, 2013 by John Dolva

[Michael Hogan]

“I’m a logician. No matter how wrong I am, I can always convince myself I am right.
”

-- Jarod Kintz

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

OK, Daniel Wayne Dunn. So where do you come to grips with the evidence

* that Clint Hill took a series of actions that are not seen in the Zapruder film

* that Altgens7 was faked to conceal pushing Jackie down and all the rest

* that Officer Chaney rode forward to inform Chief Curry JFK had been shot

* that this, too, like Clint Hill's sequence of actions, is not seen in Zapruder

* that Secret Service men got out of the car and scrambled to get back in

* that this, too, was removed from Zapruder when they edited the limo stop

* that the CIA fabricated substitute versions of newspapers to conceal it all

Where is your RESPONSE TO THE EVIDENCE? All we have here--from you

and Dolva and Hogan and (even) Unger--is one ad hominem after another.

Don't any of you possess even a modicum of intellectual integrity? Don't

any of you care about logic, evidence, and the truth about the death of JFK?

Yet you FAULT ME for being intolerant of irresponsible posts on this forum?

You are consistently relying upon the LESS RELIABLE EVIDENCE and discounting the MORE RELIABLE. That is the sign of someone who is either an amateur at research or deliberately misleading the audience. Your performance here leaves no doubt which is which when it comes to RobIn Unger. And the same is the case for Craig Lamson. Time after time, you and he deliberately assert claims that are false and that you know to be false, yet you assert them anyway in a deliberate attempt to deceive the more gullible members of this forum. YOU HAVE BOTH BLOWN YOUR COVER. Neither of you has any credibility.

======

The blatant fallacies you are committing here have left me no choice in declaring that you are deliberately misleading the members of this forum

======

But I have done a better job of exposing you. Ralph is a good man who has a short fuse.....

Emphasis added.

Where's Don Jeffries when we need him most? Where now the kindly hand of the censor to quell the rising tide of calling-people-liars-and-agents-of-wickedness? What's next -- will old ladies have "Nie!" said at them???

And while Ralph Cinque, for all I know, may well be a good man with a short fuse (and don't forget, a doctor!), it's also quite clear that he was and probably still is a manic fellow in need of a sedative of any kind that can be found.

Also, I don't believe Robin Unger is a fink.

Edited March 3, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[Michael Hogan]

All we have here--from you

and Dolva and Hogan and (even) Unger--is one ad hominem after another.

Don't any of you possess even a modicum of intellectual integrity? Don't

any of you care about logic, evidence, and the truth about the death of JFK?

Yet you FAULT ME for being intolerant of irresponsible posts on this forum?

Jim Fetzer is in no position to lecture others about logic, evidence and truth.

This was my one and only brief post on this long thread:

“I’m a logician. No matter how wrong I am, I can always convince myself I am right.
”

-- Jarod Kintz

Jim Fetzer is in no position to lecture anyone about ad hominems or intellectual integrity.

[Len Colby]

Question for those debating Fetzer on this and the other threads. Do you think there is any chance that going over these points over and over again will lead him, fence sitters or you to alter your positions?

Edited March 3, 2013 by Len Colby

[Lindsay Anderson]

First post from a new member that has been reading the forum for 4 years now. Please read my Bio.

This is not the first response I have written on the subject of this particular thread, but it takes a few days for the membership process to complete. This thread and the shirt discussion move so fast that I need to review or add to my drafts, rather than simply cut and paste here. Due to copy posting, the threads themselves tend to circle back to the same statements that prompted me to write those drafts, so I may still get to them another time.

But I would like to kick off with something which might calm the thread down and get us back to debating in a constructive manor – I am going to do that by being critical of posts by two key players in this thread, both of whom I think have interesting arguments. I am hoping, foolishly I know, to come out of this unscathed due to being a new poster without allegiances and having an open mind on most aspects of the case.

I start perhaps inevitably with a response to James Fetzer –

“No, these are fascinating and important reports because they PROVE THE ZAPRUDER FILM IS A FAKE. When you have GOVERNMENT AGENTS GIVING TESTIMONY THAT BLOWS THE GOVERNMENT'S OWN ACCOUNT OUT OF THE WATER, IT'S TIME TO TAKE NOTICE

These are called "admissions contrary to interest". You are being all the more devious here by suggesting that you are on the up-and-up, when my point has been THAT YOU HAVE BEEN SYSTEMATICALLY DECEIVING THE FORUM ABOUT WHAT THEIR REPORTS ASSERT.

I do admire how cleverly you are trying to extricate yourself from the proof of your own deception, but it's way too late for that, Robin. You have completely discredited yourself. Anyone can see it. All they have to do is reread the last few posts in our exchange. It is BLATANT.

Compare your post #166 with my posts #175 and #177. I am sorry, Robin, but they can stick a fork in you: YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY.”

I think James, you over use the words and phrases like Proof, I have proved beyond doubt, Any one can see, its blatant” etc. This would be a bit like the boy crying wolf, were it not that you do this not only to promote your own research but also in response to others by way of ridicule or putdown. Essentially saying “you would have to be an blind / an idiot to disagree with what I have already proved, I have already disproved your argument, you or anyone who supports your view must be an idiot, or deliberately trying to disinform”.

The above may be a small distortion of what you have actually said, but I do believe it to be accurate as to how you come across. You mentioned above that you teach your students to avoid ‘Special Pleading’ (something that is perhaps inevitable in a forum environment and advice you do not always head yourself). You also mention “admissions contrary to interest” and I am sure there must / should be a similarly inoffensive and unloaded technical term to describe your style of argument (and No, I am not inviting further putdowns or input from anyone but yourself as to what that term may be). My view is that whatever it’s called, it should be avoided. It is self-defeating in that it harms not only your credibility but your argument as well and contributes to a climate where that style of argument becomes acceptable or the norm for others.

Also, that kind or argument is perhaps the easiest to counter.

I am perhaps the newest forum member (note my deliberate use of the word perhaps again) as can be seen though my naiveté in making this post. I have no allegiances, or years invested in research and discoveries that I hold dear and feel a need to defend. So I think I make a good candidate to qualify as “anyone” and yes I have read the last few posts in the exchange. I cannot see that Robin has completely discredited himself, or has been involved in deception of any kind. Therefore you have not proved this to be the case to “anyone”. You may have ‘proved’ it to yourself or even to “someone”, especially someone who may have already taken a side, but I even doubt that. Does this ‘prove’ or otherwise that your wider argument and research is wrong? Again for me it doesn't but I am sure that this, and similar exchanges can only have a negative effect.

So that said, let’s get back to the evidence and this comment from Robin.

Jim seems to put a lot of faith in the testimony of the Dallas DPD and the Secret Service.

I too thought this, but also that it seemed odd. The post I originally drafted was about Altgens6 and the shirt(s) and James' posts regarding the testimony of Hill being key to proving alteration, aside from evidence that may be inherent in the photo itself such as the infront / behind man (which I am puzzled by but think can be explained).

Jim you stated then,

The limo stop—during which JFK was hit twice in the head, once from behind and once from in front—was such an obvious indication of Secret Service complicity that it had to be taken out, which is undoubtedly the principal reason for fixing the film.

Why, if you believe this (secret service complicity) do you seem to hold verbal testimony from those agents as being believable, not only that but just as believable as that of the DPD?

I am not trying to shoot down your argument – I just found your post, with the multiple DPD / Secret Service statements one after another, very interesting.

This has taken a lot longer to write than I had imagined and it’s already a bit of a long post. I also now think that part 2 may be better done as a new post. My next observations will be to Robin Unger via a new post. I hope to be as constructively critical as I have tried to be here (though I do fear perhaps not having quite as much material to work with). It may also shorten things somewhat to say this. Although I have addressed James here, some of the behaviour I have highlighted is evidenced across the forum. This is something we can all learn from, either to moderate our own behaviour or prevent ourselves from going down that road.

Edited March 3, 2013 by Lindsay Anderson

[Lindsay Anderson]

Coincidence - I'm named after my father James Lindsay, and my grandfather.

The spelling, with SAY for a male, is a Scottish thing - I have some Scottish ancestry.

No connection to that Lindsay Anderson (as far as I know)

Edited March 3, 2013 by Lindsay Anderson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Lindsay,

Thanks for a very nice post, which is actually far more thoughtful and appropriate than most that have appeared on this thread. The notion of "admissions contrary to interest" is a legal concept whereby certain admissions that might otherwise be excluded are acceptable when they undermine or contradict assertions that might be supposed to be in the party's own best interests. In this case, even though most of us would be disinclined to accept the uncorroborated testimony of government officials (whom we tend to assume are going to testify in a manner consistent with the government's own position), the testimony by Chief of Police Jesse Curry, SS Agents Winston Lawson and Forrest Sorrels, Motorcycle Escort Officers James Chaney and "Bobby" Hargis, and Motorcycle Officer Marrion Baker--which confirm that Officer Chaney rode forward to notify Chief Curry that JFK had been shot--contradict the "official account" of the events that transpired in Dealey Plaza and therefore should be believed.

When government officials are managing testimony--as in the case of the conduct of the Warren Commission's investigation--we expect that they are going to do their best to induce Malcolm Perry, M.D., to testify that the wound to the throat was one of exit rather than entry (even though we now know that it actually was a wound of entry) or that Billy Lovelady had not known the FBI wanted him to wear the same shirt he was wearing when JFK was taken out (even though he went to the FBI and told them the red-and-white vertically striped, short-sleeved shirt he was wearing and they photographed it and reported he had stated it was the shirt he had been wearing), because their original testimony contradicted crucial elements of the "official account". In the present instances, while Robin Unger may be on firm ground in not taking for granted what government officials say about JFK, this case is an exception, because what they are telling us contradicts the official account, including the Zapruder film.

I know a great deal re proofs, having spent 35 years offering college courses in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning. In this instance, we have a simple argument of the form known as Modus Tollens: if p, then q; but not-q; therefore, not-p. Or, in application to the case at hand, if the Zapruder film is in fact authentic, then Officer Chaney did not motor forward (because the film does not show it); but Officer Chaney did motor forward (as we have learned from Chief Curry, Winston Lawson, Forrest Sorrells, Bobby Hargis and Marrion Baker). Therefore, the Zapruder film is not authentic. In relation to the thread about the man in the Doorway, I have explained that it is a simple Argument by Elimination: either p or q or r; but not-q and not-r; therefore, p; Doorman is either Oswald or Lovelady or Checkered Shirt Man; but he is not Lovelady or Checkered Shirt Man; therefore, Doorman is Oswald.

To elaborate on the last example, we have ample photographic evidence to establish the these premises and, on that basis, the conclusions that justify the argument by elimination that I have sketched above:

1) Doorman's was wearing a long sleeved shirt with distinctive features.

Oswald was wearing a long sleeved shirt with similar distinctive features.

Probably, Oswald was the man in the doorway.

(2) Doorman was not wearing a short-sleeved shirt.

Lovelady was wearing a short-sleeved shirt.

Therefore, Lovelady was not Doorman.

(3) Doorman had a shirt that was splayed open.

Checkered Shirt Man's was not splayed open.

Therefore, Checkered Shirt Man is not Doorman.

(4) Doorman was Oswald or Lovelady or Checkered Shirt Man.

But Doorman was not Lovelady or Checkered Shirt Man.

Therefore, Doorman was Oswald.

I am afraid my impatience sometimes gets the better of me when I have gone to the extent that I have here to lay out the proof that the Zapruder film is not authentic, not only based upon the fact that Officer Chaney motored forward but also that Clint Hill performed many other actions at that time and that, as it turns out, Secret Service agents actually dismounted from their vehicle and had to scramble to get back in when the presidential limo accelerated from its stop (for which we have around 60 witnesses) and headed off toward Parkland Hospital (passing the lead car with Chief Curry and the others in the process). What I find most infuriating is that there are so many who are unresponsive to reason and rationality by attempting to defeat arguments like these when they are based upon our best evidence of what happened rather than upon photographs and film that have to have been altered, including the Altgens7 but also the Zapruder film and the Altgens6, which I discuss in detail in the thread on Doorman.

We know that it is easy to fake photos and films. The backyard photographs are an example. Eyewitness testimony is therefore far more basic and important. Indeed, in courts of law, eyewitness testimony has primacy, where, before photographs or films can be admitted into evidence, their authenticity has to be authenticated by the persons who took those photographs or films on the theory that they are graphic portrayals of oral testimony or special forms of memory or recollection. There is a nice discussion of this key point in MCCORMICK ON EVIDENCE, 3rd edition (1984), Section 214. Those who are attempting to defend the authenticity of photos and films typically reverse their evidential priority as though the photos and films can serve as the basis for discrediting the eyewitnesses, whose testimony is the more probative. What the eyewitnesses have said is therefore an appropriate foundation for impeaching the Altgens7 and the Zapruder film.

Here are a couple of definitions, but you can find others on the internet:

A voluntary Acknowledgment made by a party to a lawsuit or in a criminal prosecution that certain facts that are inconsistent with the party's claims in the controversy are true.

In a lawsuit over whether a defendant negligently drove a car into the plaintiff pedestrian, the defendant's apology to the plaintiff and payment of the plaintiff's medical bills are admissions that may be introduced as evidence against the defendant.

An admission may be express, such as a written or verbal statement by a person concerning the truth, or it may be implied by a person's conduct. If someone fails to deny certain assertions which, if false, would be denied by any reasonable person, such failure indicates that the person has accepted the truth of the allegations.

An admission is not the same as a confession. A confession is an acknowledgment of guilt in a criminal case. Admissions usually apply to civil matters; in criminal cases they apply only to matters of fact that do not involve criminal intent.

Admissions are used primarily as a method of discovery, as a Pleading device, and as evidence in a trial.

Alternative definition:

Declarations against interest are an exception to the rule on hearsay in which a person's statement may be used, where generally the content of the statement is so prejudicial to the person making it that she would not have made the statement unless she believed the statement was true. The Federal Rules of evidence limit the bases of prejudices to the declarant to tort and criminal liability. Some states, such as California, extend the prejudice to "hatred, ridicule, or social disgrace in the community."

A declaration against interest differs from a party admission because here the declarant does not have to be a party to the case, but must have a basis for knowing that the statement is true. Furthermore, evidence of the statement will only be admissible if the declarant is unavailable to testify.

For example, California's Evidence Code Section 1230 defines "Declarations against interest" as

"Evidence of a statement by a declarant having sufficient knowledge of the subject is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness and the statement, when made, was so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far subjected him to the risk of civil or criminal liability, or so far tended to render invalid a claim by him against another, or created such a risk of making him an object of hatred, ridicule, or social disgrace in the community, that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the statement unless he believed it to be true."

Edited March 4, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[Lindsay Anderson]

Thanks James,

The definitions you provided are helpful as are the examples relating to proof - the formulas themselves are pretty hard to follow. I also know there are differing standards of evidence, such as 'beyond reasonable doubt' and I'm interested to know your opinion of how such standards should be applied to assassination research.

I pretty much understood and expected the answer "admissions contrary to interest" as you explained it elsewhere in the thread. I was hoping for a little bit more though, as I have some real doubts regarding the extent of cover-up and I am not yet convinced of Secret Service complicity. One of my original drafts was about this and the other re the shirts, which I will post on that thread.

I drafted this in response to your post on the thread, Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film but much of your argument has been repeated here.

Posted 23 February 2013 - 10:12 PM

Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film

Re Clint Hill

'Lest there be any doubt on this crucial point, in Clint Hill’s written statement dated 30 November 1963, which was published as Commission Exhibit CE 1024, he wrote: “As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President’s head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lying on the seat” [18H742]. And in his testimony to the commission on 9 March 1964, “The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the middle of the car. His brain was exposed.” [2H141]. Since he has told us he made these observations before the limousine had reached the pilot car drive by Chief Curry (shown above), this photo has to have been faked. Clint could not have made these observations from the rear foothold as it represents.

As I lay over the top of the back seat

The description by Clint is not entirely different to what I see in the Zapruder film and the photos I am familiar with - the timing (was this before or after the underpass) may of course be crucial. Given the circumstances, I would suggest Clint's recollections of what he saw are likely to be closer to what actually happened than his perception of when he saw what he saw. From my own limited personal experience of traumatic events (no-where near the scale of November 63), perception of time will distort (such as things seeming to go into slow motion). What we feel, see (or think we see) and the actions we take remain comparatively very clear.

Clint could not have made these observations from the rear foothold as it represents. Surely this is conjecture? Lets suppose for the purposes of this challenge that Clint's perception of when things happened was actually pretty good, I'm not so sure that Clint could not have seen the president's wounds from the foothold / trunk. Weren't there witnesses further away that also observed the injuries, before the underpass?

I still suspect timing to be the issue, that he saw wounds from the foothold and immediately concluded they were fatal, and confirmed this after the underpass. Yes, this is conjecture but surely as equally valid as your observation.

I have not reached a conclusion as to the extent of alteration, deliberate or otherwise, to the Zapruder film, but based on your explanation so far, I don't agree that Clint's testimony can be included with evidence to prove or disprove it. So far I believe Clint's testimony to be valid because it closely resembles the Zapruder film, (which is the exact opposite of why you say it should be relied on) but if I am right it means that the Zapruder film has not been altered quite to the extent you believe it has.

Re the Limo Stop

The limo stop—during which JFK was hit twice in the head, once from behind and once from in front—was such an obvious indication of Secret Service complicity that it had to be taken out, which is undoubtedly the principal reason for fixing the film.

I am interested in the limo stop. But, Limo stop = Secret Service complicity = Principal reason for fixing the film. Is that really what you are saying?

The link to the YouTube video posted [of Blaine and Hill at a recent book signing] was a great link, though I don't think it supports your case exclusively.

It provides very useful insight into the state of the secret service in November 63. If the limo stop did occur (and I am interested in the 60? witnesses, but also how many other witnesses did not observe this) is it not as likely to be an obvious indication of Secret Service error, whether due to lack of training, fatigue or just not being up to the task. Yes I am being polite here as I'm not sure I could have done any better on the day, though I am sure that today's secret service would.

I believe there are theories as to the reasons for cover-up, including the prevention of WW3, that do not require complicity in the assassination to support them.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, it's late and I will expand upon this. But we have more than 15 indications of Secret Service complicity in setting him up for the hit: two agents were left behind at Love Field; the vehicles were in the wrong order; the flat-bed truck that should have carried the photographers and camera-men ahead of the presidential limo was cancelled; the 112th Military Intelligence Unit was ordered to stand down; the man-hole covers were not welded shut; the open windows were not covered; the crowd was allowed to spill into the street; the motorcycle escort was cut down to four and instructed not to ride forward of the rear wheels; the motorcade route was changed four days before the event; there was 110* turn from Houston onto Elm; the driver pulled the limo to the left and to a halt after bullets began to be fired; an agent took a bucket and sponge and began washing the brains and blood from the limo while it was at Parkland; the body was forcibly removed from the hospital, even though Dallas County had jurisdiction; the X-rays and photographs were collected by Roy Kellerman and, when they next surface, they had been altered. I think it would be a really good idea for you to watch "What happened to JFK--and why it matters today" (22 November 2011,

University of Wisconsin-Madison), where I present the evidence that substantiates all of this and a great deal more. I would be glad to continue our conversation, but this might be the best way to proceed. Then I can add more. Thanks.

Edited March 4, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[Don Jeffries]

Daniel,

I don't normally censor anyone's posts, but that particular one from Lee Farley was way over the line. Jim Fetzer, meanwhile, never really deviates from his usual blustery putdowns.

Jim,

You seem to appreciate it when you are advised about just how bad you sound when you throw in all the unnecessary stuff in your posts. I even went to the trouble of editing and re-posting one of yours, which you acknowledged, to try and show you how much different (and effective) your arguments would be if you simply toned it down. Judging by all your posts that came afterwards, you aren't taking this advice. You see the almost universal reaction to them.

I hope you'll consider Lindsay Anderson's sincere and valuable input as well.