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

[Don Jeffries]

Lee,

I only mentioned your post because it was suggested by Daniel that I am some kind of super censor, but am inconsistent because I refuse to edit Jim Fetzer, whom many consider the most offensive poster here. The other times I mentioned it was in the same vein- I certainly wasn't bragging about it. It's not an accomplishment.

For the record, I don't have an "obvious affection" for Jim Fetzer. I still agree with his perspective on most aspects of this case, but am just as turned off as most of you are by the way he expresses himself. I've said this many times, including earlier in this thread, when I bolded the offensive parts of his post, and rewrote it in a less offensive style.

Jim Fetzer, along with several other posters, was only recently taken off moderation. The moderators here do respond to rule violations, but if we reacted to every single thing that someone considers an infringement, a good number of the most prolific posters here would be on moderation. We prefer to allow free debate with minimal interference. Sometimes, a particular post stands out, and we act. And then we are invariably charged with bias, hypocracy, etc., because we didn't react to another post.

You are a good researcher, and you've shared some important information on this forum. But you personalize things and anger too easily. You have more in common with Jim Fetzer than you realize.

[Greg Parker]

Sometimes, a particular post stands out, and we act. And then we are invariably charged with bias, hypocracy, etc., because we didn't react to another post.

So, Don... you get accused of hypocrisy when you act in the manner that defines the very word? I'm shocked and perturbed.

Reminds me of the time I had the word "ass" "free speeched" from my post while all around me were posters spinning lies, lies and more hypocrisy, while others came in to defend those liars from my oh so offensive posts demonstrating said lies.

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

And what puts you in the position, Michael, to lecture someone else about truth?

MH: I don't believe that Armstrong

ever used that quote and would have to be shown where he did in order to be convinced otherwise.

--------

MH:. Anyone familiar with Armstrong's work would recognize that he would never claim that

Marina Oswald said those exact words.

---------

Doug Weldon: In fairness, Armstrong did use this quote, p.946. Marina apparently made this quote to Nerin Gunn, the author of "Red Roses From Texas." She did this four months after Oswald's autopsy and has never explained her statement.

---------

MH: I was always willing to be convinced.

Doug Weldon convinced me. You didn't.

I didn't accuse you of making anything up. Let me note that you were the one that coined the word vendetta in our discussion,

claiming that I had one against you. Before this thread, when's the last time I've commented on anything you've posted?

Still waiting on that apology.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Greg Parker

[Don Jeffries]

Lee, you react as you usually do- angrily and emotionally. You describe your post in innocuous terms, when you know very well it's the vulgar way you expressed yourself that caused it to be edited. You also infer that I have some kind of personal agenda, and have mentioned your post five times for some sinister purpose. I'm not out to get you, Lee, and I wasn't out to get Greg Parker, either.

I have no special affinity for David Lifton, so not sure why you're insinuating I do. I disagree with him about a number of things, and have done so publicly on this forum. However, I think he deserves to be treated with respect, just as you and Jim Fetzer and every other member here, including Greg Parker, do. If Greg Parker left the forum because of me, then he's certainly a less combative fellow than his posts would suggest. I disagreed with him on something, so this becomes "putting words in his mouth?"

Whether your realize it or not, you have a problem here that many do, including Jim Fetzer and Greg Parker. You can't stand someone to disagree with you. You like to argue, rather than debate. You resort to posting in an uncivil manner, and you resent being called on it. Again, you're hardly alone in this, or even the worst offender. I'm tired of pointing out the obvious to anyone else here. Most of you know what is out of bounds, and yet you don't appear to care.

I don't enjoy lecturing others, and regret that this has sort of become my role here. Most people in the research community insist on feuding with each other, and personally attacking each other, when they should be coalescing behind the central theme that the official story is wrong, and there was a conspiracy. Instead, pride and ego seem more important than trying to get the most important event of the twentieth century chronicled correctly in the history books.

[Greg Parker]

Whether your realize it or not, you have a problem here that many do, including Jim Fetzer and Greg Parker. You can't stand someone to disagree with you.

Thank you for giving an example of why I left - another lie.

Here is me apologising to Mike Hogan on the assumption that I might be wrong - based on his repeated assertions that Armstrong would not have used the quote I was attributing to him. This was me attempting to smooth the waters between me and Mike by being deferential. It got me nowhere.

------------------------------------

Greg, can you tell me where Armstrong used that quote?

If he didn't, I apologise. I was relying on this:

The Final Word

I leave you with these mysterious words from the widow, Marina.

"I had two husbands: Lee, the father of my children, an affectionate and kind man; and Harvey Oswald, the assassin of President Kennedy."

Sources: Armstrong, John, Harvey and Lee; Marrs, Jim, Crossfire; Douglass, James, JFK and the Unspeakable; www.history-matters.com

As it turned out, Armstrong did use the quote. It is Mike who has been unable to bring himself to apologise for being wrong. But would you ever accuse him of what you have accused me of? It's pretty unlikely isn't it, sport.

Hell, I've even apologised to McAdams in the past when he has shown me to be wrong.

And Lee, I am certain, has apologised at appropriate times here.

There is a big difference between someone saying you are wrong and actually proving it. I have no problem with the latter. You simply pick your marks and cast your aspersions without regard to any facts.

Again - it is why I left and why I won't stay. I hate hypocrites, stirrers and and liars.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Distractions like this arise surprisingly often when important points, like the priority of eyewitness testimony over photos and films, are at issue, as in this case. Lee Farley claims that someone else is writing my posts! How absurd is that? I have written every post I have ever put up on the forum, as anyone ought to know. I am puzzled by the concern for posts I have made here. I thought my responses to Lindsay were as straightforward and objective as they could possibly be. If there is something about my style that even Don finds objectionable, that bothers me. I no doubt come across as "professorial", but then, I am a (now retired) professor. And Lee Farley hasn't a clue when it comes to serious research, where he takes bits and pieces out of context to create a new slam against me. The latest concerns photos of Lovelady: his left arm is too short, the sleeve has been altered and the whole arm appears to be a fake:

Lee Farley seems to me to be a good example of someone who is not very good at research but thinks he is. Consider this case. The left arm (on the right as we view the photo) is OBVIOUSLY too short to be real. The sleeve has been altered, which is even more conspicuous in the left-hand (colored) image than in the right. Just look toward the bottom of the sleeve, a few squares up: it is out of alignment--and the same is true in the right-hand image, where the whole arm appears to be fake. Notice where it connects with the shoulder! It is very clear that the hand on the left arm is like that of a mannequin, where Billy was unavailable to make the "correction" so they just faked it. When someone like Farley blows a fuse, which happens rather often, it appears to be because he doesn't understand the evidence or the argument and, in frustration, vents his wrath on me. But it is actually a reflection of the fact that, with regard to JFK, he's a mediocrity.

Lee, you react as you usually do- angrily and emotionally. You describe your post in innocuous terms, when you know very well it's the vulgar way you expressed yourself that caused it to be edited. You also infer that I have some kind of personal agenda, and have mentioned your post five times for some sinister purpose. I'm not out to get you, Lee, and I wasn't out to get Greg Parker, either.

I have no special affinity for David Lifton, so not sure why you're insinuating I do. I disagree with him about a number of things, and have done so publicly on this forum. However, I think he deserves to be treated with respect, just as you and Jim Fetzer and every other member here, including Greg Parker, do. If Greg Parker left the forum because of me, then he's certainly a less combative fellow than his posts would suggest. I disagreed with him on something, so this becomes "putting words in his mouth?"

Whether your realize it or not, you have a problem here that many do, including Jim Fetzer and Greg Parker. You can't stand someone to disagree with you. You like to argue, rather than debate. You resort to posting in an uncivil manner, and you resent being called on it. Again, you're hardly alone in this, or even the worst offender. I'm tired of pointing out the obvious to anyone else here. Most of you know what is out of bounds, and yet you don't appear to care.

I don't enjoy lecturing others, and regret that this has sort of become my role here. Most people in the research community insist on feuding with each other, and personally attacking each other, when they should be coalescing behind the central theme that the official story is wrong, and there was a conspiracy. Instead, pride and ego seem more important than trying to get the most important event of the twentieth century chronicled correctly in the history books.

You want me to "debate" mannequin arms, and twelve Billy Lovelady's? You want me to "debate" mobile CIA photographic processing vans being dotted around Dealey Plaza? You want me to "debate" a chiropractor who doesn't know the difference between someone sitting down and someone standing up? You want me to "debate" all of the "proofs" that these clowns have identified in a photograph consisting of 22 pixels? You want me to "debate" someone who thinks every picture and film has been faked?

For God's sake. Are you for real?

As for the other garbage you've written. Thank you for proving my point. I did not describe my post in innocuous terms. What I did was this; I pointed out the core of the three main points I made. I said I wrote them inelegantly (you use the word "vulgar") and that you saw fit to censor them. Job done is what I said. Meaning I had no problem, UNTIL you repeatedly referred to the censorship on two different threads,

You are a stirrer of the highest order...

Edited March 4, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[Thomas Graves]

Lee, you react as you usually do- angrily and emotionally. You describe your post in innocuous terms, when you know very well it's the vulgar way you expressed yourself that caused it to be edited. You also infer that I have some kind of personal agenda, and have mentioned your post five times for some sinister purpose. I'm not out to get you, Lee, and I wasn't out to get Greg Parker, either.

I have no special affinity for David Lifton, so not sure why you're insinuating I do. I disagree with him about a number of things, and have done so publicly on this forum. However, I think he deserves to be treated with respect, just as you and Jim Fetzer and every other member here, including Greg Parker, do. If Greg Parker left the forum because of me, then he's certainly a less combative fellow than his posts would suggest. I disagreed with him on something, so this becomes "putting words in his mouth?"

Whether your realize it or not, you have a problem here that many do, including Jim Fetzer and Greg Parker. You can't stand someone to disagree with you. You like to argue, rather than debate. You resort to posting in an uncivil manner, and you resent being called on it. Again, you're hardly alone in this, or even the worst offender. I'm tired of pointing out the obvious to anyone else here. Most of you know what is out of bounds, and yet you don't appear to care.

I don't enjoy lecturing others, and regret that this has sort of become my role here. Most people in the research community insist on feuding with each other, and personally attacking each other, when they should be coalescing behind the central theme that the official story is wrong, and there was a conspiracy. Instead, pride and ego seem more important than trying to get the most important event of the twentieth century chronicled correctly in the history books.

Don,

I think you're trying to do a good job and I commend you for that.

However, I gotta ask:

Do you think Dr. Fetzer's calling me a "shill" is an example of his being respectful? How about his calling Robin Unger, in so many words, a xxxx? Or suggesting that those of us who have the gall to verbalize our disagreements with him are somehow trying to further the conspiracy? (Etc, etc.)

I personally find it impossible to debate such a, IMHO, temperamental, defensive, and arrogant person.

Thank you,

--Tommy

Edited March 4, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Thomas Graves is another example of a mediocrity who has repeatedly attempted to undermine and belittle serious research on JFK. The photographs of Billy again provide an acid test. Compare the images I have already posted above. Look at the left arms on each. One is short, the other is long. Yet Thomas Graves and others will never admit that they have faked photos of Lovelady, not matter how strong the evidence. And I am at a loss as to what word best describes those who are willing to make blatantly false claims in the face of overwhelming evidence. "Shill" has seemed to fit:

shill [shil] Show IPA Slang.

noun

1.

a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.

2.

a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.

verb (used without object)

3.

to work as a shill: He shills for a large casino.

verb (used with object)

4.

to advertise or promote (a product) as or in the manner of a huckster; hustle: He was hired to shill a new TV show.

Lee, you react as you usually do- angrily and emotionally. You describe your post in innocuous terms, when you know very well it's the vulgar way you expressed yourself that caused it to be edited. You also infer that I have some kind of personal agenda, and have mentioned your post five times for some sinister purpose. I'm not out to get you, Lee, and I wasn't out to get Greg Parker, either.

I have no special affinity for David Lifton, so not sure why you're insinuating I do. I disagree with him about a number of things, and have done so publicly on this forum. However, I think he deserves to be treated with respect, just as you and Jim Fetzer and every other member here, including Greg Parker, do. If Greg Parker left the forum because of me, then he's certainly a less combative fellow than his posts would suggest. I disagreed with him on something, so this becomes "putting words in his mouth?"

Whether your realize it or not, you have a problem here that many do, including Jim Fetzer and Greg Parker. You can't stand someone to disagree with you. You like to argue, rather than debate. You resort to posting in an uncivil manner, and you resent being called on it. Again, you're hardly alone in this, or even the worst offender. I'm tired of pointing out the obvious to anyone else here. Most of you know what is out of bounds, and yet you don't appear to care.

I don't enjoy lecturing others, and regret that this has sort of become my role here. Most people in the research community insist on feuding with each other, and personally attacking each other, when they should be coalescing behind the central theme that the official story is wrong, and there was a conspiracy. Instead, pride and ego seem more important than trying to get the most important event of the twentieth century chronicled correctly in the history books.

Don,

I think you're trying to do a good job and I commend you for that.

However, I gotta ask:

Do you think Dr. Fetzer's calling me a "shill" is an example of his being respectful? How about his calling Robin Unger, in so many words, a xxxx? Or suggesting that those of us who have the gall to verbalize our disagreements with him are somehow trying to further the conspiracy? (Etc, etc.)

I personally find it impossible to debate such a, IMHO, temperamental, defensive, and arrogant person.

Thank you,

--Tommy

[Thomas Graves]

Lee, you react as you usually do- angrily and emotionally. You describe your post in innocuous terms, when you know very well it's the vulgar way you expressed yourself that caused it to be edited. You also infer that I have some kind of personal agenda, and have mentioned your post five times for some sinister purpose. I'm not out to get you, Lee, and I wasn't out to get Greg Parker, either.

I have no special affinity for David Lifton, so not sure why you're insinuating I do. I disagree with him about a number of things, and have done so publicly on this forum. However, I think he deserves to be treated with respect, just as you and Jim Fetzer and every other member here, including Greg Parker, do. If Greg Parker left the forum because of me, then he's certainly a less combative fellow than his posts would suggest. I disagreed with him on something, so this becomes "putting words in his mouth?"

Whether your realize it or not, you have a problem here that many do, including Jim Fetzer and Greg Parker. You can't stand someone to disagree with you. You like to argue, rather than debate. You resort to posting in an uncivil manner, and you resent being called on it. Again, you're hardly alone in this, or even the worst offender. I'm tired of pointing out the obvious to anyone else here. Most of you know what is out of bounds, and yet you don't appear to care.

I don't enjoy lecturing others, and regret that this has sort of become my role here. Most people in the research community insist on feuding with each other, and personally attacking each other, when they should be coalescing behind the central theme that the official story is wrong, and there was a conspiracy. Instead, pride and ego seem more important than trying to get the most important event of the twentieth century chronicled correctly in the history books.

Don,

I think you're trying to do a good job and I commend you for that.

However, I gotta ask:

Do you think Dr. Fetzer's calling me a "shill" is an example of his being respectful? How about his calling Robin Unger, in so many words, a xxxx? Or suggesting that those of us who have the gall to verbalize our disagreements with him are somehow trying to further the conspiracy? (Etc, etc.)

I personally find it impossible to debate such a, IMHO, temperamental, defensive, and arrogant person.

Thank you,

--Tommy

Tommy,

Don isn't doing his job. So I fail to see how the standard can be defined as "good".

Don is performing half a job. Now, I'll repeat myself so there's no confusion; I agree with him censoring my post. It deserved it within the confines of the rules. I mentioned nothing about the changes he made to it until he'd referred to it for the FIFTH time.

The problem is this; Fetzer's posts are littered with ad-hominems. Littered. If you disagree with this garbage that he has somehow convinced himself is "research" then your own research skills are mediocre. If you disagree you are an idiot. If you disagree you are a shill. If you disagree you are somehow morally corrupt. If you disagree you are mentally challenged.

His "expert" is a man who who could not work out that in the footage from City Hall Billy Lovelady was sat down. Cinque instead thought it was a Lovelady midget. Which must be Billy Lovelady number 4 of the more vertically challenged breed. They must have had a lorry load of Lovelady's of all different heights, weights and facial features all waiting for their cue to enter proceedings. These searchers of truth are slowly turning research of the assassination into a complete laughing stock.

The longer this goes on the more crazy and bizarre it all becomes.

But Don says we should just "ignore it."

As far as Fetzer's comments are concerned on this and another thread - he can shove them where the sun don't shine; if he can fit them up there alongside his head.

Mannequin's arm? My arse!

I agree with you, Lee, although I think that Don might be trying to do a good job.

Regardless, what bothered me the most was Dr. Fetzer's calling Robin Unger a xxxx. I reported it by pressing clicking on the special "report this post" button and writing him up. But, apparently, to no avail...

Sincerely,

--Tommy

[David Josephs]

Jim... Lammy doesn't even belong on the same planet in serious JFK discussion... much easier to simply ignore... talk about a shill.

And I think we've established a LONG time ago that we are fighting the same battle....

You ask , "so WHEN was this supposaed to have happened" (Chaney)

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 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?

All that matters here Jim is that it happened AFTER you say it did and was not part of the Zfilm fakery... simple.

That you seem above adminting a mistake in conclusion - the ability to lose a battle yet continue on winning the war - is disheartening. We have multiple sources that show it not possible to have happened in the SEQUENCE you attribute to it... but probably happened 15 seconds later... maybe even sooner than that. We both know in a state of emergency the brain slows time down by adding multi-layer memories....

Between the east of the overpass and the west, the limo catches the lead car... Chaney had yet to motor anywhere as we see in McIntyre.

If you feel that CAPITOLS and repeated posting of the same info (like leaning in and yelling at someone who doesn't speak english as if it helps) will make your point... I think you are achieving the opposite... you are alienating those who have fought beside you for many many years....

Zavada's own report clues us in on the fakery. The only section of the "original" that does not have the idenitfying ORIGINAL MARKINGS is the assassination sequence.

How much more plain can it be... and he was PROVING its originality. Let alone the amount of blank space as Horne has shown.

Let's try again Jim.... I KNOW the film in evidence is as unauthentic as the autopsy report. Rather than arguing the point... concede the stupidity of those like Lammy who spends most his day looking at himself and not giving a rat's A$$ about the case itself... AND MOVE ON.

Unless it really is your whole purpose to degrade the work and efforts of others by associating the crudest and most incorrect conclusions with the JFK Conspiracy.. making our jobs that much more difficult....

We have to DISPROVE your vociferous rantings while agreeing with your conclusions... feels like a rock and hard place.

Peace Jim...

DJ

David,

You are doing a great job of showing that Lamson is unreasonable, but

bear in mind that the shills will not even admit that Frame 374 proves by

itself that the film has been altered, when it makes it so very OBVIOUS:

q

Just a word of caution. Using Costellas candy pop version is not a good fundament for this enquiry.

Fair enough John... post a better source file if you have.

My point is that it is a "pop version" for the entire frame, not just JFK's head. Anything done to the entire frame should produce the same kinds of effects as we see over JFK's head.

I even posted Lammy's png-ginourmous version that shows quite plainly a SQUARE over JFK's head, not just some black on full contrast. Below.

Can you explain why the Square is so "square" in this one section of the frame and why he avoids posting any other section of that frame for comparison?

All I did was push the brightness and contrast... nothing else. Doesn't HIS black square give you any cause to be skeptical about that frame's original state?

If this effect occurs with every instance of that depth of color, SHOW IT... or am I being unfair in my request?

DJ

Edited March 4, 2013 by David Josephs

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Of course he is doing his job! And you are doing yours by insulting me at every turn,

which appears to be your area of specialization. Alleging that I am NOT WRITING MY

OWN POSTS, for example, which is completely absurd, is an ACCUSATION OF LYING.

You have shown no competence for analysis of any photograph under discussion here,

most certainly include the photos of Billy Lovelady, which have OBVIOUSLY been faked.

How much proof would it take to convince that these photos were altered? NO MATTER

HOW STRONG THE PROOF, shills like you and Thomas Graves are GOING TO DENY IT.

Three splices have been identified in the photo above. How many forms of fakery are present

in the ones below? Well, in the right-hand image, the shoulder has been tacked on; the sleeve

has been spliced at least twice (at least once in the left-hand image), and the arm itself appears

to be that of a mannequin. Billy must have been unavailable, so they had to fake it. UNREAL!

Lee, you react as you usually do- angrily and emotionally. You describe your post in innocuous terms, when you know very well it's the vulgar way you expressed yourself that caused it to be edited. You also infer that I have some kind of personal agenda, and have mentioned your post five times for some sinister purpose. I'm not out to get you, Lee, and I wasn't out to get Greg Parker, either.

I have no special affinity for David Lifton, so not sure why you're insinuating I do. I disagree with him about a number of things, and have done so publicly on this forum. However, I think he deserves to be treated with respect, just as you and Jim Fetzer and every other member here, including Greg Parker, do. If Greg Parker left the forum because of me, then he's certainly a less combative fellow than his posts would suggest. I disagreed with him on something, so this becomes "putting words in his mouth?"

Whether your realize it or not, you have a problem here that many do, including Jim Fetzer and Greg Parker. You can't stand someone to disagree with you. You like to argue, rather than debate. You resort to posting in an uncivil manner, and you resent being called on it. Again, you're hardly alone in this, or even the worst offender. I'm tired of pointing out the obvious to anyone else here. Most of you know what is out of bounds, and yet you don't appear to care.

I don't enjoy lecturing others, and regret that this has sort of become my role here. Most people in the research community insist on feuding with each other, and personally attacking each other, when they should be coalescing behind the central theme that the official story is wrong, and there was a conspiracy. Instead, pride and ego seem more important than trying to get the most important event of the twentieth century chronicled correctly in the history books.

Don,

I think you're trying to do a good job and I commend you for that.

However, I gotta ask:

Do you think Dr. Fetzer's calling me a "shill" is an example of his being respectful? How about his calling Robin Unger, in so many words, a xxxx? Or suggesting that those of us who have the gall to verbalize our disagreements with him are somehow trying to further the conspiracy? (Etc, etc.)

I personally find it impossible to debate such a, IMHO, temperamental, defensive, and arrogant person.

Thank you,

--Tommy

Tommy,

Don isn't doing his job. So I fail to see how the standard can be defined as "good".

Don is performing half a job. Now, I'll repeat myself so there's no confusion; I agree with him censoring my post. It deserved it within the confines of the rules. I mentioned nothing about the changes he made to it until he'd referred to it for the FIFTH time.

The problem is this; Fetzer's posts are littered with ad-hominems. Littered. If you disagree with this garbage that he has somehow convinced himself is "research" then your own research skills are mediocre. If you disagree you are an idiot. If you disagree you are a shill. If you disagree you are somehow morally corrupt. If you disagree you are mentally challenged.

His "expert" is a man who who could not work out that in the footage from City Hall Billy Lovelady was sat down. Cinque instead thought it was a Lovelady midget. Which must be Billy Lovelady number 4 of the more vertically challenged breed. They must have had a lorry load of Lovelady's of all different heights, weights and facial features all waiting for their cue to enter proceedings. These searchers of truth are slowly turning research of the assassination into a complete laughing stock.

The longer this goes on the more crazy and bizarre it all becomes.

But Don says we should just "ignore it."

As far as Fetzer's comments are concerned on this and another thread - he can shove them where the sun don't shine; if he can fit them up there alongside his head.

Mannequin's arm? My arse!

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

What in God's name gives you the impression that this happened AFTER I CLAIMED IT HAPPENED?

It took place during the limo stop. Reread the sentences I have highlighted in red. How could it have

occurred at any other time? That would have been impossible. The limo passed the lead care at the

Triple Underpass. It happened prior to that (obviously) and it turns out that Secret Service agents had to

scramble TO GET BACK INTO THE CADILLAC WHEN THE LIMO TOOK OFF (see post #191). Please

spell out your deviant reading, because I can make neither heads nor tails of your intended interpretation.

For example, how do you reconcile your interpretation with the words of Forrest Sorrels, which are clear:

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: 4H353]

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."

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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: 4H353]

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]

What Happened on Elm Street? The Eyewitnesses Speak

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

Jim... Lammy doesn't even belong on the same planet in serious JFK discussion... much easier to simply ignore... talk about a shill.

And I think we've established a LONG time ago that we are fighting the same battle....

You ask , "so WHEN was this supposaed to have happened" (Chaney)

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 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?

All that matters here Jim is that it happened AFTER you say it did and was not part of the Zfilm fakery... simple.

That you seem above adminting a mistake in conclusion - the ability to lose a battle yet continue on winning the war - is disheartening. We have multiple sources that show it not possible to have happened in the SEQUENCE you attribute to it... but probably happened 15 seconds later... maybe even sooner than that. We both know in a state of emergency the brain slows time down by adding multi-layer memories....

Between the east of the overpass and the west, the limo catches the lead car... Chaney had yet to motor anywhere as we see in McIntyre.

If you feel that CAPITOLS and repeated posting of the same info (like leaning in and yelling at someone who doesn't speak english as if it helps) will make your point... I think you are achieving the opposite... you are alienating those who have fought beside you for many many years....

Zavada's own report clues us in on the fakery. The only section of the "original" that does not have the idenitfying ORIGINAL MARKINGS is the assassination sequence.

How much more plain can it be... and he was PROVING its originality. Let alone the amount of blank space as Horne has shown.

Let's try again Jim.... I KNOW the film in evidence is as unauthentic as the autopsy report. Rather than arguing the point... concede the stupidity of those like Lammy who spends most his day looking at himself and not giving a rat's A$$ about the case itself... AND MOVE ON.

Unless it really is your whole purpose to degrade the work and efforts of others by associating the crudest and most incorrect conclusions with the JFK Conspiracy.. making our jobs that much more difficult....

We have to DISPROVE your vociferous rantings while agreeing with your conclusions... feels like a rock and hard place.

Peace Jim...

DJ

Edited March 4, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Lindsay,

I hope you are not discouraged by some of the frenzied attacks upon me. I have long since become used

to them. But your very thoughtful post is another matter entirely. I hope you have viewed my presentation,

"What happened to JFK--and why it matters today" (for further context) and will continue our conversation.

Jim

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 ase, 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

[David Josephs]

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 (the chief) 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]

Follow it thru for us then Jim... take us from this moment in time to the McIntyre photo. There are three lead cyclists... any one of them Chaney? Has he already passed them too?

Chaney motors ahead, tells the lead car and is then asked to lead them to Parkland. THEN what does he do?

Does he shoot ahead to lead as the Chief asks?

Does he just stop... then start again thereby creating his position in McIntyre?

Was he altered OUT of McIntyre? and all the other source films/photos?

Can YOU explain please how Chaney goes from being next to the lead car to being last in the procession in the McIntyre photo?

=================

Now, with regards to Doorman... I've already dissmissed your "probabilities" which is some of the best hocus-pocus you've offerred up.

I also showed you multiple areas that DONT match... which, as I explain 4000 times already - makes the probability ZERO that is was Oswald.

Not to mention if we trust Fritz' notes - which is what you used to conclude what you did - then he was also correct about the changing of his clothes... which renders you position moot.

I am done Jim. We will always appreciate your tireless work... your commitment to exposing....

yet you are starting to sound like the naked emperor... insisting on the acknowledgement of the beauty of your clothes...

while your a$$ remains hanging out for all to see.

Edited March 4, 2013 by David Josephs

[Don Jeffries]

Lee,

You are completely misinterpreting an earlier post of mine, in which I expressed disappointment that Jim Fetzer had now even alienated a normally laid back and even tempered poster like Robin Unger. In no way did I state that I was "disappointed" in Robin, or lay any blame on him at all.

I'm not going to be constantly defending my actions or non-actions as a moderator. As I've said before, the most troublesome posters here never believe they are violating the rules, yet they are the first ones to report other perceived violations, and demand others be taken to task. No moderation team can win in that kind of situation.

Face the facts- this subject attracts egotistical, combative personalities. They constantly clash with each other, and thus no coalition can ever be formed, to rally behind a unified platform.

[Lindsay Anderson]

James, thanks for the follow-up.

I'm not discouraged as I've been reading the forum for 4 years - Cool down, if its going to happen, will take some time.

I will post back here soon but I am working on a post to the shirts thread which will be completed shortly.

I am hoping for a response from you to the first paragraph of my last post though:

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 am not looking for an explanation as to what is meant by Standards of Evidence, but what standards you tend to work with when you refer to having proof or having proved something. I seem to remember a recent post where you refer to scientific / philosophic proof or similar - it was something like, I have made these statements in a forum x, they have been open to peer review, challenge for x years, they have not been successfully challenged or my reasoning otherwise disproved, therefore my theory stands. There is something to this effect on page one of this thread but I seem to remember you expanded on this elsewhere.

I am asking this as, when you say you have proved something, you may be claiming something very different to what others believe you are claiming, leading to immediate hostility. I believe' beyond reasonable doubt' is the standard required to secure a criminal conviction here in the UK, but to work to that standard on assassination research may be beyond even this forum! What can we hope to achieve here?

Secret Service Complicity -

I do have a question for you that I don't think I have seen on the forums but I will watch the video you linked to - it seems a very obvious challenge so it may be obvious to all but me and be explained there. Meanwhile, can I ask you and other CT members reading this if there is anything approaching consensus on the complicity or otherwise of the service - if so what books / research are considered authoritative on the matter?