Z-Film Authenticity III
Ben Holmes
idea to critique it here:
************************************************************
Mantik's Misuse of Witnesses Who Said That the Limousine Stopped
On page 274 of the book Assassination Science Dr. David Mantik uses a list of
witnesses to advance the notion that the limousine had stopped on Elm Street and
because we can not see that happen in the Zapruder film that therefore the
Zapruder film must have been edited. There are several problems with that
argument. First, the point at which the limousine stopped may have been before
or after Zapruder had filmed the limousine.
************************************************************
It's silly to think that it could have been *after* Zapruder stopped filming the
limousine - that argument isn't worth the words to debate. But the argument
that the limo may have stopped *before* Zapruder started filming is worth
debunking...
Charles Brehm: "...almost came to a halt AFTER THE FIRST SHOT..."
Erle Brown: "...WHEN THE SHOTS WERE FIRED it [the car] stopped."
James Chaney: "AFTER THE FIRST SHOT RANG OUT, the car stopped completely"
J.W. Foster: "IMMEDIATELY AFTER [JFK] WAS STRUCK... the car... pulled to the
curb."
Robert MacNeill: "The President's driver slammed on the brakes - AFTER THE THIRD
SHOT"
Bill Newman: "I believe Kennedy's car came to a full stop AFTER THE FINAL SHOT"
There's more, but that should be enough to make Tony's argument complete
nonsense. *ALL* the eyewitnesses that commented on the timing of the
slowdown/stop put it immediately *after* a shot or two. Does Tony argue that
the first shot was before Zapruder captures the limo in his film???
********************************************************
Zapruder only started picking up the limousine at Z-133, so if the limousine had
stopped prior to Z-133, his film would not have shown it.
*******************************************************
In other words, Tony has to argue that the first shot was *BEFORE* Z-133.
How silly!!
*************************************************************
From Z-1 to Z-132 Zapruder had only filmed the lead cycles, mistakenly thinking
that the motorcade was about to round the corner from Houston onto Elm Street.
When he realized his mistake, he stopped filming at Z-132 and began filming
again when he actually saw the Presidential limousine coming down Elm Street
which started the continuous sequence at Z-133.
*************************************************************
And yet, eyewitnesses to the early Z-Film describe the limo turn on to Elm.
Another eyewitness descrepancy with the current Z-Film;
Dan Rather: Well let me tell you then, give you a word picture of the motion
picture that we have just seen. The President's automobile which was proceeded
by only one other car containing Secret Service Agents ... the President's open
black Lincoln automobile ... made a turn, a left turn off of Houston Street in
Dallas onto Elm Street, this was right on the fringe area of the downtown area.
This left turn was made right below the window from which the shot was fired ...
as the car made the turn completed the turn went below the window from which
this shot was fired ... went on past the building keep in mind the window was on
the sixth floor ...
In another broadcast: Dan Rather: "The films show President Kennedy's open,
black limousine, making a left turn, off Houston Street on to Elm Street on the
fringe of downtown Dallas, a left turn made just below the window in which the
assassin was waiting."
I'll leave it to lurkers to spot the "errors" in this description.
It might be worth pointing out that Dan Rather does *NOT* state that the limo
slowed or stopped... he several times made that point.
Dan Rather: The car never stopped, it never paused.
**************************************************************
If Zapruder had filmed continuously from the time he saw the lead cycles, he
feared that he would run out of film before he could have filmed the limousine
going down Elm Street. There is no indication that there was an edit between
Z-132 and Z-133 and every indication that there was not an edit at that time.
***************************************************************
Tony doesn't admit any evidence of editing in this film anyway...
***************************************************************
Other films and photos taken from other angles do not show the limousine
stopping before Z-133. Could the limousine have stopped after Zapruder stopped
filming? Yes, but such a stop would not advance Mantik's argument. If the
limousine had stopped inside the triple underpass, it could not have been seen
from Zapruder's viewpoint. Thus there would have been nothing on his film to
edit out. Films and photos taken from other angles show that the limousine did
not stop in the underpass.
****************************************************************
A silly point, that doesn't really deserve any response.
****************************************************************
Another problem with Mantik's approach is that eyewitness testimony is
unreliable.
****************************************************************
This, of course, is a basic LNT'er argument, one that has been disproven in the
studies on eyewitness testimony.
As Elizabeth Loftus, in Eyewitness Testimony, showed that when subjects
considered what they were observing to be significant, they were 98% accurate
and 98% complete with respect to their observations.
Common sense also negates such a silly argument. A necessary one, of course,
since if you believe what the eyewitnesses said they saw and heard, you'd be
forced to admit a conspiracy that day.
The idea that eyewitness testimony is unreliable - but we just happen to have a
few dozen eyewitnesses saying basically the same thing... well, I'm glad that
*I'm* not on that side of the argument...
*******************************************************
One can simply not point out a statement by a witness and accept that as
absolute proof of a fact. It needs to be corroborated,
**********************************************************
And many of the eyewitness accounts indeed corroborated each other.
*********************************************************
especially with physical evidence such as photographic evidence.
*********************************************************
Which, as Tony well knows, is not accepted above eyewitness testimony in a court
of law *UNLESS* it has been corrorobated by eyewitnesses.
Anyone who's ever watched a Hollywood movie knows how easily photographs and
videos can reflect imagination, rather than reality.
***********************************************************
And some authors, in their haste to prove a pre-conceived conclusion,
***********************************************************
It might be worth the time to examine Tony's "pre-conceived conclusions" about
this book. I'll detail his own words down below...
*************************************************************
misuse the eyewitness testimony they select, or select only the eyewitness
testimony which supports their conclusion. For example, Mantik quotes both
motorcycle officers Baker and Chaney as stating that the limousine stopped. But
Baker was only stating what Chaney had told him, as Sylvia Meagher points out in
her book Accessories After the Fact on page 4, which is quoted here:
4 ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT
Lane's allegation about Chaney is corroborated in the testimony of another
motorcycle officer, M. L. Baker. Baker testified on March 24, 1964 that his
fellow officer, James Chaney, had told him:
He was on the right rear of the car or to the side, and then at the time
the chief of police, he didn't know anything about this, and he moved up
and told him, and then that was during the time that the Secret Service men
were trying to get in the car, and at the time, after the shooting, from
the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to
the left and stopped. . . . Mr. Truly was standing out there, he said it
stopped. Several officers said it stopped completely. (3H 266)
**********************************************
Yep... no doubt a poor use of testimony... Unfortunately for Tony, a single
solitary 'hearsay' corroboration won't rebut the tremendous numbers of
eyewitnesses that reported a slowdown/stop of the limo.
************************************************
There is nothing wrong with the use of such hearsay to corroborate Chaney's
statement, but it is a misuse of research method to cite both as separate
witnesses to the same fact.
************************************************
Yep... one of the few statements that Tony has made that I agree with
whole-heartedly. Accurate citation is all that's needed to prove conspiracy.
****************************************************
One could easily puff up the number of witnesses by adding in everyone who had
heard the original witnesses state something. But why would Mantik need to use
Baker's hearsay when he quotes Chaney's statement and even cites it as Warren
Commission (WC) testimony? Because Chaney NEVER testified before the Warren
Commission.
**************************************************
Something, I might point out, that LNT'ers run away from when I ask them to
defend this.
The *CLOSEST* non-limo eyewitness, never testifies... how can this be defended?
Not even Tony will dare to defend this.
******************************************************
The reference to the WC hearings at (3H221) is totally fictitious. When you look
at page 275, you can see that (3H221) is Truly's WC testimony, which does not
even mention Chaney. It appears that the attribution of (3H221) to Chaney was a
simple tabulation error.
******************************************************
Actually, a poor use of citation, no doubt, but it *does* illustrate what Chaney
went on to say: "Now I have heard several of them say that Mr. Truly was
standing out there, he said it stopped. Seveal officers said it stopped
completely"
The citation does indeed refer to Mr. Truly's observation that the limo stopped.
So although it's certainly unclear here, and a poor use of citation without
Chaney's *full* comments; anyone who was *truly* trying to find the truth would
figure out what went on here.
********************************************************
Either Mantik or his source probably just wrote down the wrong citation on
separate lists and did not carefully compare and fact check them. If the error
was Mantik's then we should expect a quick and simple correction. If Mantik had
merely copied someone else's error, this points up one major problem in this
area of research. Too many researchers make the mistake of taking for granted
the "facts" presented by a fellow researcher who happens to belong to the same
clique, without bothering to double-check the facts for themselves.
**********************************************************
This brings to mind the infamous double burn parties by Dr. Humes, which, of
course, Tony has *NEVER* cited for or corrected.
**************************************************************
They don't want to risk angering fellow clique members by questioning their
work. This is how simple errors are perpetuated into "facts." Another common
misuse of eyewitness testimony is to misquote or quote out of context what the
witness actually said, in order to create a false impression. Mantik, as well as
others, has done this with the testimony of Patrolman Brown. He only quotes the
portion of WC testimony where Brown said, "when the shots were fired, it
stopped." (6H233) Mantik should have included the next few sentences where Brown
backed off that absolute statement and could only state for sure that the
limousine slowed down:
Brown: Actually, the first I noticed the car was when it stopped. . . . After
it made the turn and when the shots were fired, it stopped.
Ball: Did it come to a complete stop?
Brown: That, I couldn't swear to.
Ball: It appeared to be slowed down some?
Brown: Yes; slowed down. (6H 233)
So, in his zeal to puff up the list of witnesses, Mantik has included people who
did not actually state that they had seen the limousine stop.
********************************************************
Rather dishonestly, Tony doesn't admit that Mantik isn't arguing that the limo
*stopped*. He's arguing, and allow me to *QUOTE* his words: "All of these
comments are in obvious conflict with the film. No abrupt slowing of the
limousine in seen and it certainly does not stop."
Mantik quotes those who said it stopped, AS WELL AS those who said it only
slowed down.
Mantik is *NOT* arguing solely that the limo stopped. He's arguing that what
eyewitnesses report - a slowdown OR a stop, is not seen in the film.
And, he *makes* that point. Tony has only two defenses, both of which he's
used... that the Z-Film doesn't show the slowdown/stop because it occurred
before or after Zapruder filmed - (Demolished by the actual testimony)
or that eyewitnesses are "unreliable". Despite the fact that so many testified
or asserted virtually the same thing. Tony evidently believes that there was a
conspiracy of eyewitnesses, or a mass hallucination...
************************************************************
Yes, several people stated that they saw the limousine stop, but not as many as
Mantik has suggested.
***********************************************************
Several??? Tony himself puts the number as 14! That's just a tad more than
"several".
Again, a rather dishonest use of Mantik's actual words. He *NEVER* attempted
the argument based on a limo stop - but rather on what the eyewitnesses ACTUALLY
said, which was a slowdown OR a stop. Mantik is being accurate, Tony is
dishonestly slanting the argument.
**************************************************************
And we already know from other witness statements that some witnesses were
simply mistaken when they stated that they saw something, such as Jean Hill
seeing a dog in the back seat of the limousine.
**************************************************************
Factoids like this keep zooming around the LNT'er community, even when they've
been overturned:
----------------------------------------
1. The "white, fluffy dog."
Many in the critical community had also dismissed this part of Ms. Hill's
story, and so Wallace Milam startled quite a few people at the 1993 ASK
conference when he showed two video sequences taken at Love Field
documenting the presence of a "white, fluffy dog" in the Presidential
limousine!
The first sequence showed the President and his wife from the rear, shaking
hands with the crowd; a young girl reaches up and hands Jackie a white,
stuffed dog. The second sequence is taken from the driver's side of the
limousine as Jackie enters, gripping the stuffed dog along with the roses
in her hand; she sets both down on the seat between herself and her
husband, says something to him, and he looks down at the seat. Following
this, I searched through photos taken at Love Field, and found that the
stuffed dog also partly appears in a color photo taken by a UPI
photographer (which appears in cropped form on the cover of Mr. Posner's
book). I would say this is indicative that Ms. Hill was rather sharp-eyed
rather than undermining her other testimony. - Martin Shackelford
---------------------------------------
**********************************************************
Another problem in this research area is when an author misuses other
researchers' work. The way that Mantik characterizes Vince Palamara's article
from The Third Decade (page 51) leaves the impression that Palamara claimed (and
that Mantik concurs) there were at least 48 witnesses who said that the
limousine stopped on Elm Street. This is incorrect.
*********************************************************
Of *course* it's incorrect. It's a lie. Mantik, as I've already quoted, is
*NOT* arguing that the limo stopped. He's arguing, correctly, that many
eyewitnesses asserted that the limo SLOWED *OR* STOPPED.
I invite everyone to grab their copy of Assassination Science, and review pages
273-276.
Then, ponder Tony's own words: "I must admit that I did not want to buy Jim
Fetzer's book Assassination Science. My normal procedure when dealing with books
like this would be to borrow a copy from a local library and copy a few pages
which need criticism. But no local library would carry the book. As I pointed
out in messages on the Internet, I would have to reserve criticism until I had
read the book. I couldn't find the book in any local stores for several weeks.
Then one week I happened to find it and skimmed through it. After seeing several
obvious errors I decided to buy it only so that I could prove that I had
thoroughly read it before criticizing it."
Just like the Warren Commission, Tony already had his mind made up, and cannot
judge the arguments objectively. His only goal is to rip apart the book, and
must, as a result, employ dishonest arguments to do so.
***************************************************************
When you actually read Vince's article for yourself, you can see that Vince
clearly admits at the beginning of the article that he is lumping together ALL
witnesses, including some who said that the limo had come to a complete stop,
some who said that the limo had slowed down, and those who said that the limo
did not accelerate until after the head shot. Mantik did not dare to quote
Vince's article so that you could find this out for yourself. I will:
***************************************************************
Tony did not *dare* to quote Assassination Science accurately, so I encourage
everyone to review for themselves just what Mantik was saying.
******************************************************************
". . . the vast number of witnesses who testified that the Presidential
limousine, driven by veteran Secret Service driver William R. Greer,
slowed, stopped or, at the very least, failed to accelerate until only
after the fatal head shot had found its mark."
*******************************************************************
Mantik: "All of these comments are in obvious conflict with the film. No abrupt
slowing of the limousine in seen and it certainly does not stop."
Mantik: "Several arguments against a stopped (OR NOTICEABLY SLOWED) limousine
have been advanced."
Tony must resort to dishonesty in order to 'rebut' Mantik. Mantik *HIMSELF*
recognizes the difference in the testimony. Indeed, he even points out that the
*closest* eyewitnesses asserted that the limo had stopped, rather than slowed.
Why make such a point if he isn't aware of the difference in eyewitness
statements???
****************************************************************
So, out of 47 witnesses listed in Vince's article, how many actually stated that
the limousine made a complete stop?
**************************************************************
(Up to 59 eyewitnesses now... Google 'Palamara limo stop')
A statement that is the classic "strawman" argument. Mantik doesn't rely on
only "stop" eyewitnesses, THE LIMO IS NOT SEEN TO SLOW DOWN EITHER!!
And although Tony and other LNT'ers have argued that the Z-Film does indeed show
a "slowdown", it's only visible with close and detailed analysis. *NO-ONE* who
merely views the film will comment that the limo "slowed down". I DEFY Tony to
put this to a poll.
Take any 25 people who have no clue about the JFK case, and let them view the
film as many times as they want - then have them answer a series of questions,
one of which will be about the speed of the limo. Tony will *NEVER* dare do
this, for he knows just as anyone who's ever viewed the film that it does *NOT*
show a slowdown of the limo that is visible to the naked eye.
*****************************************************************
I went through his article and noted how many actually stated that the limousine
made a complete stop. I had to throw out a few witnesses because it was not
clear that they meant the limousine when they talked about the 'party' or the
'cavalcade' stopping. We know that some witnesses were referring only to the
rest of the motorcade, and the photographic evidence shows that several cars
further back in the motorcade did stop in the middle of Elm Street. Out of the
remaining 41 witnesses, only 14 actually stated that the limousine stopped. 19
of the 41 only stated that the limousine had slowed down, and 8 of the 41 only
stated that the limousine had waited until after the head shot to accelerate. I
have drawn up a chart (see below) which places the witnesses in the various
categories. The chart has no statistical significance, but it seems evident that
more witnesses only stated that the limousine slowed down than those who were
sure that it stopped. The Zapruder film itself, as well as other films,
corroborates that the limousine was going very slowly when it rounded the corner
onto Elm Street. And the Zapruder film itself, as shown by the Alvarez study,
corroborates that the limousine had suddenly slowed down at about Z-300 from
about 12 MPH to about 8 MPH.
*******************************************************
Note here that Tony must reference a *STUDY* of the film - he can't merely point
to the film and say: "There it is, the slowdown that the eyewitnesses reported".
********************************************************
Mantik's obvious errors are another reason why a book like Assassination Science
suffers from the lack of proofreading and fact checking (just like Posner's Case
Closed). The innocent reader would not have the means to spot such obvious
errors and thus would be impressed by the false conclusions based on faulty
data.
********************************************************
A statement that applies far more to Tony's "critique" than it does to Mantik's
statements. As I think I've shown. I invite comment...
**********************************************************
41 witnesses | limo stopped (14) | limo slowed down (19) |limo waited (8)
______________________________________________________________________________
After the |Chaney, Mrs. Cabell, |Brown, Harkness,Moorman, |
first shot |Woodward, Truly |Hawkins,Brehm, Yarborough|
(13) | (4) |Jean Hill, Ready, Similas|
| | (9) |
_____________________________________________________________________________
At the time of|Hargis, Foster, Smith|Campbell, Holmes, Clark, |Kinney, Hill,
the head shot |Broeder, Mrs. Willis |Clay, Powers |Bennett, Nellie,
(18) | (5) | (5) |Altgens, Chism,
| | |O'Donnell,
| | |Connally (8)
______________________________________________________________________________
At underpass | Betzner, Newman (2) | |
______________________________________________________________________________
Unspecified | Martin, Burney, Orr |Jackson, Johns, Lawson, |
(8) | (3) |Holland, Simmon (5) |
______________________________________________________________________________
*********************************************************
I had planned on an article detailing how the eyewitnesses reported something no
longer seen in the Z-Film as evidence of Z-Film alteration. It seems that I can
make the same point by a critique of the LNT'ers argument *against* this stance.
It's clear that *many* eyewitnesses reported either a slowdown or a stop, and
it's *also* clear that the Z-Film shows no such thing. Another example that in
this rather unique case, you must pay closer attention to the eyewitnesses than
to the "physical" evidence.
While not conclusive *by itself*, when added to all the other evidence of Z-Film
alteration, it is persuasive.
Bud
<snicker> Then according to the eyewitnesses you produced, the limo
came to a complete stop after each shot.
Anthony Marsh
> Tony has posted the following on his website... I thought it would be a good
> idea to critique it here:
>
> ************************************************************
> Mantik's Misuse of Witnesses Who Said That the Limousine Stopped
>
> On page 274 of the book Assassination Science Dr. David Mantik uses a list of
> witnesses to advance the notion that the limousine had stopped on Elm Street and
> because we can not see that happen in the Zapruder film that therefore the
> Zapruder film must have been edited. There are several problems with that
> argument. First, the point at which the limousine stopped may have been before
> or after Zapruder had filmed the limousine.
> ************************************************************
>
> It's silly to think that it could have been *after* Zapruder stopped filming the
> limousine - that argument isn't worth the words to debate. But the argument
> that the limo may have stopped *before* Zapruder started filming is worth
> debunking...
No it isn't, because several eyewitnesses said that the limousine did
actually stop after the Zapruder film when the limo had just gone
through the triple underpass.
>
> Charles Brehm: "...almost came to a halt AFTER THE FIRST SHOT..."
> Erle Brown: "...WHEN THE SHOTS WERE FIRED it [the car] stopped."
> James Chaney: "AFTER THE FIRST SHOT RANG OUT, the car stopped completely"
> J.W. Foster: "IMMEDIATELY AFTER [JFK] WAS STRUCK... the car... pulled to the
> curb."
> Robert MacNeill: "The President's driver slammed on the brakes - AFTER THE THIRD
> SHOT"
> Bill Newman: "I believe Kennedy's car came to a full stop AFTER THE FINAL SHOT"
>
That's why my article says the eyewitnesses said that limousine stopped
while it was on Elm Street.
> There's more, but that should be enough to make Tony's argument complete
> nonsense. *ALL* the eyewitnesses that commented on the timing of the
No, I am well aware of what the eyewitnesses said, which is the point of
my article. What they said is wrong.
> slowdown/stop put it immediately *after* a shot or two. Does Tony argue that
> the first shot was before Zapruder captures the limo in his film???
>
No, not all the eyewitnesses said that the limousine stopped immediately
after a shot or two.
>
> ********************************************************
> Zapruder only started picking up the limousine at Z-133, so if the limousine had
> stopped prior to Z-133, his film would not have shown it.
> *******************************************************
>
> In other words, Tony has to argue that the first shot was *BEFORE* Z-133.
>
Not my argument. Others might make such an argument.
So what? He is only describing what he saw on the Zapruder film. The
Zapruder film does not show the limousine stopping.
>
> **************************************************************
> If Zapruder had filmed continuously from the time he saw the lead cycles, he
> feared that he would run out of film before he could have filmed the limousine
> going down Elm Street. There is no indication that there was an edit between
> Z-132 and Z-133 and every indication that there was not an edit at that time.
> ***************************************************************
>
> Tony doesn't admit any evidence of editing in this film anyway...
>
I address that issue in my other articles. There was no editing of the
original Zapruder film.
> ***************************************************************
> Other films and photos taken from other angles do not show the limousine
> stopping before Z-133. Could the limousine have stopped after Zapruder stopped
> filming? Yes, but such a stop would not advance Mantik's argument. If the
> limousine had stopped inside the triple underpass, it could not have been seen
> from Zapruder's viewpoint. Thus there would have been nothing on his film to
> edit out. Films and photos taken from other angles show that the limousine did
> not stop in the underpass.
> ****************************************************************
>
> A silly point, that doesn't really deserve any response.
>
It goes to the issue of eyewitness claims.
>
> ****************************************************************
> Another problem with Mantik's approach is that eyewitness testimony is
> unreliable.
> ****************************************************************
>
> This, of course, is a basic LNT'er argument, one that has been disproven in the
> studies on eyewitness testimony.
>
No, it is a caveat often issued, especially by the ARRB.
> As Elizabeth Loftus, in Eyewitness Testimony, showed that when subjects
> considered what they were observing to be significant, they were 98% accurate
> and 98% complete with respect to their observations.
>
> Common sense also negates such a silly argument. A necessary one, of course,
> since if you believe what the eyewitnesses said they saw and heard, you'd be
> forced to admit a conspiracy that day.
>
More garbage. I have been arguing conspiracy for longer than you have
been aware of the case.
> The idea that eyewitness testimony is unreliable - but we just happen to have a
> few dozen eyewitnesses saying basically the same thing... well, I'm glad that
> *I'm* not on that side of the argument...
Not a few dozen witnesses saying the same thing, which is what I point
out in my article.
>
> *******************************************************
> One can simply not point out a statement by a witness and accept that as
> absolute proof of a fact. It needs to be corroborated,
> **********************************************************
>
> And many of the eyewitness accounts indeed corroborated each other.
>
Not about the limousine stopping on Elm Street.
>
> *********************************************************
> especially with physical evidence such as photographic evidence.
> *********************************************************
>
>
> Which, as Tony well knows, is not accepted above eyewitness testimony in a court
> of law *UNLESS* it has been corrorobated by eyewitnesses.
>
Wrong.
> Anyone who's ever watched a Hollywood movie knows how easily photographs and
> videos can reflect imagination, rather than reality.
>
>
What are you mumbling about? We are not discussing Hollywood movies. We
are talking about amateur home movies shot that day in Dallas and
professional photographers on the scene.
My point remains that hearsay is not an independent corroboration.
There was a slowdown, not a stop. Alvarez documented the slowdown.
>
> ************************************************
> There is nothing wrong with the use of such hearsay to corroborate Chaney's
> statement, but it is a misuse of research method to cite both as separate
> witnesses to the same fact.
> ************************************************
>
>
> Yep... one of the few statements that Tony has made that I agree with
> whole-heartedly. Accurate citation is all that's needed to prove conspiracy.
>
>
>
> ****************************************************
> One could easily puff up the number of witnesses by adding in everyone who had
> heard the original witnesses state something. But why would Mantik need to use
> Baker's hearsay when he quotes Chaney's statement and even cites it as Warren
> Commission (WC) testimony? Because Chaney NEVER testified before the Warren
> Commission.
> **************************************************
>
>
> Something, I might point out, that LNT'ers run away from when I ask them to
> defend this.
>
> The *CLOSEST* non-limo eyewitness, never testifies... how can this be defended?
>
> Not even Tony will dare to defend this.
>
>
No one is defending it. Why do you create artificial and meaningless
controversies?
> ******************************************************
> The reference to the WC hearings at (3H221) is totally fictitious. When you look
> at page 275, you can see that (3H221) is Truly's WC testimony, which does not
> even mention Chaney. It appears that the attribution of (3H221) to Chaney was a
> simple tabulation error.
> ******************************************************
>
>
> Actually, a poor use of citation, no doubt, but it *does* illustrate what Chaney
> went on to say: "Now I have heard several of them say that Mr. Truly was
> standing out there, he said it stopped. Seveal officers said it stopped
> completely"
>
> The citation does indeed refer to Mr. Truly's observation that the limo stopped.
> So although it's certainly unclear here, and a poor use of citation without
> Chaney's *full* comments; anyone who was *truly* trying to find the truth would
> figure out what went on here.
>
>
But it is supposed to be Chaney's statement, not Truly's.
> ********************************************************
> Either Mantik or his source probably just wrote down the wrong citation on
> separate lists and did not carefully compare and fact check them. If the error
> was Mantik's then we should expect a quick and simple correction. If Mantik had
> merely copied someone else's error, this points up one major problem in this
> area of research. Too many researchers make the mistake of taking for granted
> the "facts" presented by a fellow researcher who happens to belong to the same
> clique, without bothering to double-check the facts for themselves.
> **********************************************************
>
>
> This brings to mind the infamous double burn parties by Dr. Humes, which, of
> course, Tony has *NEVER* cited for or corrected.
>
>
This brings to mind Fetzer's inability to admit a simple error and
threaten to sue me for pointing out an error in his caption.
>
> **************************************************************
> They don't want to risk angering fellow clique members by questioning their
> work. This is how simple errors are perpetuated into "facts." Another common
> misuse of eyewitness testimony is to misquote or quote out of context what the
> witness actually said, in order to create a false impression. Mantik, as well as
> others, has done this with the testimony of Patrolman Brown. He only quotes the
> portion of WC testimony where Brown said, "when the shots were fired, it
> stopped." (6H233) Mantik should have included the next few sentences where Brown
> backed off that absolute statement and could only state for sure that the
> limousine slowed down:
> Brown: Actually, the first I noticed the car was when it stopped. . . . After
> it made the turn and when the shots were fired, it stopped.
> Ball: Did it come to a complete stop?
> Brown: That, I couldn't swear to.
> Ball: It appeared to be slowed down some?
> Brown: Yes; slowed down. (6H 233)
> So, in his zeal to puff up the list of witnesses, Mantik has included people who
> did not actually state that they had seen the limousine stop.
> ********************************************************
>
>
> Rather dishonestly, Tony doesn't admit that Mantik isn't arguing that the limo
> *stopped*. He's arguing, and allow me to *QUOTE* his words: "All of these
> comments are in obvious conflict with the film. No abrupt slowing of the
> limousine in seen and it certainly does not stop."
>
The problem is in the dishonest way that he characterized and quoted
eyewitness statements.
> Mantik quotes those who said it stopped, AS WELL AS those who said it only
> slowed down.
>
> Mantik is *NOT* arguing solely that the limo stopped. He's arguing that what
> eyewitnesses report - a slowdown OR a stop, is not seen in the film.
>
And that is where he is wrong. Alvarez proves that the Zapruder film
shows that the limousine slowed down.
> And, he *makes* that point. Tony has only two defenses, both of which he's
> used... that the Z-Film doesn't show the slowdown/stop because it occurred
> before or after Zapruder filmed - (Demolished by the actual testimony)
>
More lies. That is never what I said.
> or that eyewitnesses are "unreliable". Despite the fact that so many testified
> or asserted virtually the same thing. Tony evidently believes that there was a
> conspiracy of eyewitnesses, or a mass hallucination...
>
It doesn't matter how many people you can produce (dishonestly) to make
a certain claim, that alone does not it a fact. You can have 1,000
eyewitnesses who said that they saw a UFO. That along does not prove
that there was a UFO.
>
> ************************************************************
> Yes, several people stated that they saw the limousine stop, but not as many as
> Mantik has suggested.
> ***********************************************************
>
>
> Several??? Tony himself puts the number as 14! That's just a tad more than
> "several".
>
What are you babbling about? "Several" includes 14.
> Again, a rather dishonest use of Mantik's actual words. He *NEVER* attempted
> the argument based on a limo stop - but rather on what the eyewitnesses ACTUALLY
> said, which was a slowdown OR a stop. Mantik is being accurate, Tony is
> dishonestly slanting the argument.
>
I am pointing out where Mantik misuses eyewitness testimony.
>
> **************************************************************
> And we already know from other witness statements that some witnesses were
> simply mistaken when they stated that they saw something, such as Jean Hill
> seeing a dog in the back seat of the limousine.
> **************************************************************
>
>
> Factoids like this keep zooming around the LNT'er community, even when they've
> been overturned:
> ----------------------------------------
> 1. The "white, fluffy dog."
> Many in the critical community had also dismissed this part of Ms. Hill's
> story, and so Wallace Milam startled quite a few people at the 1993 ASK
> conference when he showed two video sequences taken at Love Field
> documenting the presence of a "white, fluffy dog" in the Presidential
> limousine!
So what? There was not really a real dog in the rear seat when the limo
went through Dealey Plaza.
> The first sequence showed the President and his wife from the rear, shaking
> hands with the crowd; a young girl reaches up and hands Jackie a white,
> stuffed dog. The second sequence is taken from the driver's side of the
> limousine as Jackie enters, gripping the stuffed dog along with the roses
> in her hand; she sets both down on the seat between herself and her
> husband, says something to him, and he looks down at the seat. Following
> this, I searched through photos taken at Love Field, and found that the
> stuffed dog also partly appears in a color photo taken by a UPI
> photographer (which appears in cropped form on the cover of Mr. Posner's
> book). I would say this is indicative that Ms. Hill was rather sharp-eyed
> rather than undermining her other testimony. - Martin Shackelford
> ---------------------------------------
>
You're only about 10 years behind in the discussion of Lamp Chop.
The other object besides the roses on her seat was a bunch of
chrysanthemums as noted by the FBI search team, which Pamela points out
were a type called asters.
47 listed at the time. Vince can add more daily if he wants.
> A statement that is the classic "strawman" argument. Mantik doesn't rely on
> only "stop" eyewitnesses, THE LIMO IS NOT SEEN TO SLOW DOWN EITHER!!
>
The limo IS seen to slow down in the Zapruder film.
> And although Tony and other LNT'ers have argued that the Z-Film does indeed show
> a "slowdown", it's only visible with close and detailed analysis. *NO-ONE* who
> merely views the film will comment that the limo "slowed down". I DEFY Tony to
> put this to a poll.
>
So, what's wrong with close and detailed analysis?
The study proves the fact.
Huh?
> It's clear that *many* eyewitnesses reported either a slowdown or a stop, and
> it's *also* clear that the Z-Film shows no such thing. Another example that in
> this rather unique case, you must pay closer attention to the eyewitnesses than
> to the "physical" evidence.
>
Again, you are making the same mistake as Mantik and Palamara, lumping
together the slowdown and stop.
> While not conclusive *by itself*, when added to all the other evidence of Z-Film
> alteration, it is persuasive.
>
Junk.
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/
Ben Holmes
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Tony has posted the following on his website... I thought it would be a good
>> idea to critique it here:
>>
>> ************************************************************
>> Mantik's Misuse of Witnesses Who Said That the Limousine Stopped
>>
>> On page 274 of the book Assassination Science Dr. David Mantik uses a list of
>>witnesses to advance the notion that the limousine had stopped on Elm Street and
>> because we can not see that happen in the Zapruder film that therefore the
>> Zapruder film must have been edited. There are several problems with that
>>argument. First, the point at which the limousine stopped may have been before
>> or after Zapruder had filmed the limousine.
>> ************************************************************
>>
>>It's silly to think that it could have been *after* Zapruder stopped filming the
>> limousine - that argument isn't worth the words to debate. But the argument
>> that the limo may have stopped *before* Zapruder started filming is worth
>> debunking...
>
>No it isn't, because several eyewitnesses said that the limousine did
>actually stop after the Zapruder film when the limo had just gone
>through the triple underpass.
Nonsense. And, as usual, you're unable to cite for your silly assertions.
>> Charles Brehm: "...almost came to a halt AFTER THE FIRST SHOT..."
>> Erle Brown: "...WHEN THE SHOTS WERE FIRED it [the car] stopped."
>> James Chaney: "AFTER THE FIRST SHOT RANG OUT, the car stopped completely"
>> J.W. Foster: "IMMEDIATELY AFTER [JFK] WAS STRUCK... the car... pulled to the
>> curb."
>>Robert MacNeill: "The President's driver slammed on the brakes - AFTER THE THIRD
>> SHOT"
>>Bill Newman: "I believe Kennedy's car came to a full stop AFTER THE FINAL SHOT"
>>
>
>That's why my article says the eyewitnesses said that limousine stopped
>while it was on Elm Street.
You attempted to argue that the limo could have stopped *before* Zapruder was
filming.
Yet you can't cite *ANY* eyewitness that would place it before Z133.
Disingenious, aren't you?
>> There's more, but that should be enough to make Tony's argument complete
>> nonsense. *ALL* the eyewitnesses that commented on the timing of the
>
>No, I am well aware of what the eyewitnesses said, which is the point of
>my article. What they said is wrong.
I repeat, *ALL* of the eyewitnesses that commented on the timing of the
slowdown/stop put it immediately *after* a shot or two.
Nor, despite Tony's denial above, can he *CITE* a single contrary example.
>> slowdown/stop put it immediately *after* a shot or two. Does Tony
>> argue that the first shot was before Zapruder captures the limo in
>> his film???
>>
>
>No, not all the eyewitnesses said that the limousine stopped immediately
>after a shot or two.
*ALL* of the eyewitnesses that commented on the timing of the slowdown/stop put
it immediately *after* a shot or two.
Nor are you capable of citing *ANY* eyewitness that supports your silly
assertion that the limo slowed or stopped prior to Z133, or after Zapruder
stopped filming.
Why can't you cite for your assertions, Tony?
>> ********************************************************
>> Zapruder only started picking up the limousine at Z-133, so if the
>> limousine had stopped prior to Z-133, his film would not have shown it.
>> *******************************************************
>>
>> In other words, Tony has to argue that the first shot was *BEFORE* Z-133.
>>
>
>Not my argument. Others might make such an argument.
Yes, Tony, it *was* your argument. And you can't cite a *single* eyewitness
that can support it... who specified the slowdown or stop in relation to a
location.
He's an eyewitness to an event no longer seen on the Z-film, just as others are.
If you didn't understand that point, I can't help you.
>> **************************************************************
>> If Zapruder had filmed continuously from the time he saw the lead cycles, he
>>feared that he would run out of film before he could have filmed the limousine
>> going down Elm Street. There is no indication that there was an edit between
>> Z-132 and Z-133 and every indication that there was not an edit at that time.
>> ***************************************************************
>>
>> Tony doesn't admit any evidence of editing in this film anyway...
>>
>
>I address that issue in my other articles. There was no editing of the
>original Zapruder film.
I'm rebutting *THIS* article. Deal with it.
>> ***************************************************************
>> Other films and photos taken from other angles do not show the limousine
>>stopping before Z-133. Could the limousine have stopped after Zapruder stopped
>> filming? Yes, but such a stop would not advance Mantik's argument. If the
>>limousine had stopped inside the triple underpass, it could not have been seen
>> from Zapruder's viewpoint. Thus there would have been nothing on his film to
>>edit out. Films and photos taken from other angles show that the limousine did
>> not stop in the underpass.
>> ****************************************************************
>>
>> A silly point, that doesn't really deserve any response.
>>
>
>It goes to the issue of eyewitness claims.
There's not *ONE SINGLE EYEWITNESS* that states that the limo stopped underneath
the underpass or beyond.
Of course, knowing Tony, I'll have to make this explicit that I'm speaking of
Dealey Plaza, and not Parkland hospital... :)
>> ****************************************************************
>> Another problem with Mantik's approach is that eyewitness testimony is
>> unreliable.
>> ****************************************************************
>>
>>This, of course, is a basic LNT'er argument, one that has been disproven in the
>> studies on eyewitness testimony.
>>
>
>No, it is a caveat often issued, especially by the ARRB.
It *IS* a basic LNT'er argument, and *HAS* been disproven in studies on
eyewitness testimony.
It's not exactly a secret that eyewitness testimony is *common* in the legal
system.
>> As Elizabeth Loftus, in Eyewitness Testimony, showed that when subjects
>> considered what they were observing to be significant, they were 98% accurate
>> and 98% complete with respect to their observations.
>>
>> Common sense also negates such a silly argument. A necessary one, of
>> course, since if you believe what the eyewitnesses said they saw and
>> heard, you'd be forced to admit a conspiracy that day.
>>
>
>More garbage.
"Garbage" to state that if you believe the eyewitnesses, you must believe in a
conspiracy? Hardly.
>I have been arguing conspiracy for longer than you have
>been aware of the case.
It doesn't matter how many times I tell Tony that he's mistaken on this point...
he still asserts it.
>> The idea that eyewitness testimony is unreliable - but we just happen
>> to have a few dozen eyewitnesses saying basically the same thing... well,
>> I'm glad that *I'm* not on that side of the argument...
>
>Not a few dozen witnesses saying the same thing, which is what I point
>out in my article.
It's absolutely true that you cannot name a few dozen eyewitnesses that make
the *same identical statement*... unfortunately, this is the bar for the
"eyewitnesses are unreliable" enthusiasts.
>> *******************************************************
>> One can simply not point out a statement by a witness and accept that as
>> absolute proof of a fact. It needs to be corroborated,
>> **********************************************************
>>
>> And many of the eyewitness accounts indeed corroborated each other.
>>
>
>Not about the limousine stopping on Elm Street.
Anyone can review the statements here: http://www.jfk-info.com/palam1.htm
As they don't "corroborate" each other - how did they all come up with the same
concept, Tony?
They aren't saying that the limo is red... or that a hot air balloon was flying
over Dealey Plaza... they are *ALL* saying that the limo either slowed or came
to a stop.
You'll have to explain how those statements don't corroborate each other, and
how they came up with this idea, if it's not shown in the current Z-Film.
>> *********************************************************
>> especially with physical evidence such as photographic evidence.
>> *********************************************************
>>
>>
>> Which, as Tony well knows, is not accepted above eyewitness testimony
>> in a court of law *UNLESS* it has been corrorobated by eyewitnesses.
>>
>
>Wrong.
I've already cited on this issue. Feel free, Tony, to cite at any time.
-------------------------------------------------------------
As I've previously commented: The law will not even accept photos unless they
are vouched for by eyewitnesses. For example, see "McCormick on Evidence,
(1984), section 214, where it states,
"The principle upon which photographs are most commonly admitted into
evidence is the same as that underlying the admission of illustrative
drawings, maps and diagrams. Under this theory, a photograph is
viewed merely as a graphic portrayal of oral testimony, and becomes
admissible only when a witness has testified that it is a correct and
accurate representation of the relevant facts personally observed by
the witness."
----------------------------------------------------------------
It's unfortunate that Tony is incapable of making a coherent argument on this
point.
>> Anyone who's ever watched a Hollywood movie knows how easily photographs and
>> videos can reflect imagination, rather than reality.
>
>What are you mumbling about? We are not discussing Hollywood movies. We
>are talking about amateur home movies shot that day in Dallas and
>professional photographers on the scene.
This isn't difficult to understand Tony... photographs and videos were
*altered*. In some photos/videos it's easy to see the alterations, others are
virtually impossible to detect.
You must ignore even the possibility...
I agree... as I stated above.
>There was a slowdown, not a stop. Alvarez documented the slowdown.
There is no noticeable slowdown in the current Z-film. You *continue* to point
to a "study" that eyewitnesses didn't require on 11/22/63. All *they* had was
their eyes.
>> ************************************************
>> There is nothing wrong with the use of such hearsay to corroborate Chaney's
>> statement, but it is a misuse of research method to cite both as separate
>> witnesses to the same fact.
>> ************************************************
>>
>>
>> Yep... one of the few statements that Tony has made that I agree with
>> whole-heartedly. Accurate citation is all that's needed to prove
>> conspiracy.
>>
>>
>>
>> ****************************************************
>>One could easily puff up the number of witnesses by adding in everyone who had
>>heard the original witnesses state something. But why would Mantik need to use
>> Baker's hearsay when he quotes Chaney's statement and even cites it as Warren
>> Commission (WC) testimony? Because Chaney NEVER testified before the Warren
>> Commission.
>> **************************************************
>>
>>
>> Something, I might point out, that LNT'ers run away from when I ask them to
>> defend this.
>>
>>The *CLOSEST* non-limo eyewitness, never testifies... how can this be defended?
>>
>> Not even Tony will dare to defend this.
>>
>>
>
>No one is defending it. Why do you create artificial and meaningless
>controversies?
Merely pointing out a fact, Tony. Do you object to facts?
>> ******************************************************
>>The reference to the WC hearings at (3H221) is totally fictitious. When you look
>> at page 275, you can see that (3H221) is Truly's WC testimony, which does not
>>even mention Chaney. It appears that the attribution of (3H221) to Chaney was a
>> simple tabulation error.
>> ******************************************************
>>
>>
>>Actually, a poor use of citation, no doubt, but it *does* illustrate what Chaney
>> went on to say: "Now I have heard several of them say that Mr. Truly was
>> standing out there, he said it stopped. Seveal officers said it stopped
>> completely"
>>
>>The citation does indeed refer to Mr. Truly's observation that the limo stopped.
>> So although it's certainly unclear here, and a poor use of citation without
>>Chaney's *full* comments; anyone who was *truly* trying to find the truth would
>> figure out what went on here.
>>
>>
>
>But it is supposed to be Chaney's statement, not Truly's.
Reread what I stated, Tony. Then make an intelligent response.
>> ********************************************************
>> Either Mantik or his source probably just wrote down the wrong citation on
>>separate lists and did not carefully compare and fact check them. If the error
>>was Mantik's then we should expect a quick and simple correction. If Mantik had
>> merely copied someone else's error, this points up one major problem in this
>> area of research. Too many researchers make the mistake of taking for granted
>>the "facts" presented by a fellow researcher who happens to belong to the same
>> clique, without bothering to double-check the facts for themselves.
>> **********************************************************
>>
>>
>> This brings to mind the infamous double burn parties by Dr. Humes, which, of
>> course, Tony has *NEVER* cited for or corrected.
>
>This brings to mind Fetzer's inability to admit a simple error and
>threaten to sue me for pointing out an error in his caption.
Where's your cite, Tony? Bringing up anecdotal hearsay is meaningless...
Dishonest, weren't you? Why did you lie about what Mantik was arguing?
>> Mantik quotes those who said it stopped, AS WELL AS those who said it only
>> slowed down.
>>
>> Mantik is *NOT* arguing solely that the limo stopped. He's arguing that
>> what eyewitnesses report - a slowdown OR a stop, is not seen in the film.
>
>And that is where he is wrong. Alvarez proves that the Zapruder film
>shows that the limousine slowed down.
The eyewitnesses on 11/22/63 didn't need any study. They *saw it* with their
own eyes. Why can't we see it today?
>> And, he *makes* that point. Tony has only two defenses, both of which he's
>> used... that the Z-Film doesn't show the slowdown/stop because it occurred
>> before or after Zapruder filmed - (Demolished by the actual testimony)
>>
>
>More lies. That is never what I said.
I quoted your *exact* words from your website. Nothing snipped. All I added
was commentary. Feel free to actually *QUOTE* your words that are contrary to
what I just characterized them as.
>> or that eyewitnesses are "unreliable". Despite the fact that so many
>> testified or asserted virtually the same thing. Tony evidently believes
>> that there was a conspiracy of eyewitnesses, or a mass hallucination...
>>
>
>It doesn't matter how many people you can produce (dishonestly) to make
>a certain claim, that alone does not it a fact. You can have 1,000
>eyewitnesses who said that they saw a UFO. That along does not prove
>that there was a UFO.
Of course it does. Until that unidentified flying object is *identified*, it
remains unidentified.
Now, can you actually address the point I made? Why did so many people assert
the same thing? Why did so many people imagine that the limo slowed down
dramatically or even stopped?
>> ************************************************************
>> Yes, several people stated that they saw the limousine stop, but not as
>> many as Mantik has suggested.
>> ***********************************************************
>>
>>
>> Several??? Tony himself puts the number as 14! That's just a tad more than
>> "several".
>>
>
>What are you babbling about? "Several" includes 14.
LOL!!! Your illiteracy strikes again.
>> Again, a rather dishonest use of Mantik's actual words. He *NEVER*
>> attempted the argument based on a limo stop - but rather on what the
>> eyewitnesses ACTUALLY said, which was a slowdown OR a stop. Mantik is
>> being accurate, Tony is dishonestly slanting the argument.
>>
>
>I am pointing out where Mantik misuses eyewitness testimony.
You've managed a miss-cite. You *haven't* shown where Mantik was misusing
eyewitness testimony.
Indeed, I've shown where *YOU* were forced to dishonestly mischaracterize
Mantik's arguments.
>> **************************************************************
>> And we already know from other witness statements that some witnesses were
>> simply mistaken when they stated that they saw something, such as Jean Hill
>> seeing a dog in the back seat of the limousine.
>> **************************************************************
>>
>>
>>Factoids like this keep zooming around the LNT'er community, even when they've
>> been overturned:
>> ----------------------------------------
>> 1. The "white, fluffy dog."
>> Many in the critical community had also dismissed this part of Ms. Hill's
>> story, and so Wallace Milam startled quite a few people at the 1993 ASK
>> conference when he showed two video sequences taken at Love Field
>> documenting the presence of a "white, fluffy dog" in the Presidential
>> limousine!
>
>So what? There was not really a real dog in the rear seat when the limo
>went through Dealey Plaza.
So I can presume that you won't use this factoid again?
Sadly, no. You've been informed on more than one occasion about the
admissibility of photographs, and what is required... yet still maintain the
superiority of photography over eyewitness testimony...
>> The first sequence showed the President and his wife from the rear, shaking
>> hands with the crowd; a young girl reaches up and hands Jackie a white,
>> stuffed dog. The second sequence is taken from the driver's side of the
>> limousine as Jackie enters, gripping the stuffed dog along with the roses
>> in her hand; she sets both down on the seat between herself and her
>> husband, says something to him, and he looks down at the seat. Following
>> this, I searched through photos taken at Love Field, and found that the
>> stuffed dog also partly appears in a color photo taken by a UPI
>> photographer (which appears in cropped form on the cover of Mr. Posner's
>> book). I would say this is indicative that Ms. Hill was rather sharp-eyed
>> rather than undermining her other testimony. - Martin Shackelford
>> ---------------------------------------
>>
>
>You're only about 10 years behind in the discussion of Lamp Chop.
>The other object besides the roses on her seat was a bunch of
>chrysanthemums as noted by the FBI search team, which Pamela points out
>were a type called asters.
I'm familiar with that one as well. You, judging by your comment, clearly
weren't.
Presumably, Tony had nothing to say to my charge that he was rather dishonest in
his assertion that Mantik claims that there are 48 eyewitnesses who stated that
the limo stopped on Elm.
This goes to the heart of Tony's arguments... yet he can't defend himself from
the charge that he simply lied.
Or that he was biased from the beginning.
Again, dead silence on a rebuttal of one of Tony's major points.
>> ****************************************************************
>> So, out of 47 witnesses listed in Vince's article, how many actually
>> stated that the limousine made a complete stop?
>> **************************************************************
>>
>>
>> (Up to 59 eyewitnesses now... Google 'Palamara limo stop')
>>
>
>47 listed at the time. Vince can add more daily if he wants.
No, Tony... it was *48*... it seems cruel to correct you, and I didn't bother
the first time around... but if you're going to insist on numbers, at least get
them right.
One wonders if you'll ever *correct* this webpage, stripping out your dishonest
statements...
Hmmm... there wouldn't be any point to your article if you stripped out the
dishonest characterizations...
>> A statement that is the classic "strawman" argument. Mantik doesn't rely on
>> only "stop" eyewitnesses, THE LIMO IS NOT SEEN TO SLOW DOWN EITHER!!
>>
>
>The limo IS seen to slow down in the Zapruder film.
No, it is not. Nor, Tony, will you ever show any such slowdown. You've
referred several times to Alvarez's study when referencing this "slowdown", so
you know as well as anyone who's seen the film that it's not visually
noticeable.
So why lie about it?
>> And although Tony and other LNT'ers have argued that the Z-Film does
>> indeed show a "slowdown", it's only visible with close and detailed
>> analysis. *NO-ONE* who merely views the film will comment that the
>> limo "slowed down". I DEFY Tony to put this to a poll.
>>
>
>So, what's wrong with close and detailed analysis?
59 eyewitnesses did not engage in a close and detailed analysis before
determining that the limo slowed and/or stopped.
Are you willing to stop playing with that factoid now?
Proves *what* fact? Certainly not what the eyewitnesses noted. For it's quite
obvious to *ANY* casual viewer of the Z-Film that there is no slowdown and/or
stop visible. Yet at least 59 eyewitnesses so reported.
Oh, I thought I was specific enough. Any lurkers have problems understanding
what I just said?
>> It's clear that *many* eyewitnesses reported either a slowdown or a
>> stop, and it's *also* clear that the Z-Film shows no such thing. Another
>> example that in this rather unique case, you must pay closer attention to
>> the eyewitnesses than to the "physical" evidence.
>
>Again, you are making the same mistake as Mantik and Palamara, lumping
>together the slowdown and stop.
Of course I'm not. Literacy and honesty aren't things you care for... since I
CLEARLY stated that "*many* eyewitnesses reported either a slowdown or a
stop..."
And neither Mantik nor Palamara made the same mistake either - as I've shown
here. You simply *lie* about it. Both Palamara and Mantik *clearly* show an
awareness of the difference in statements.
Why bother, Tony? Lurkers aren't stupid...
>> While not conclusive *by itself*, when added to all the other evidence of
>> Z-Film alteration, it is persuasive.
>>
>
>Junk.
If this is the extent of the LNT'er argument against the 59 eyewitnesses to a
slowdown and/or stop of the limo... it's not very persuasive, is it?
Thankyou Tony, for showing that even the best arguments a LNT'er can make fail
to hit the mark.
Anthony Marsh
> In article <2NqdnVqZSMm...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
>
>>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>
>>>Tony has posted the following on his website... I thought it would be a good
>>>idea to critique it here:
>>>
>>>************************************************************
>>>Mantik's Misuse of Witnesses Who Said That the Limousine Stopped
>>>
>>>On page 274 of the book Assassination Science Dr. David Mantik uses a list of
>>>witnesses to advance the notion that the limousine had stopped on Elm Street and
>>>because we can not see that happen in the Zapruder film that therefore the
>>>Zapruder film must have been edited. There are several problems with that
>>>argument. First, the point at which the limousine stopped may have been before
>>>or after Zapruder had filmed the limousine.
>>>************************************************************
>>>
>>>It's silly to think that it could have been *after* Zapruder stopped filming the
>>>limousine - that argument isn't worth the words to debate. But the argument
>>>that the limo may have stopped *before* Zapruder started filming is worth
>>>debunking...
>>
>>No it isn't, because several eyewitnesses said that the limousine did
>>actually stop after the Zapruder film when the limo had just gone
>>through the triple underpass.
>
>
>
>
> Nonsense. And, as usual, you're unable to cite for your silly assertions.
>
I listed some in my article.
Also see Ed Hoffman's story.
>
>
>
>
>>>Charles Brehm: "...almost came to a halt AFTER THE FIRST SHOT..."
>>>Erle Brown: "...WHEN THE SHOTS WERE FIRED it [the car] stopped."
>>>James Chaney: "AFTER THE FIRST SHOT RANG OUT, the car stopped completely"
>>>J.W. Foster: "IMMEDIATELY AFTER [JFK] WAS STRUCK... the car... pulled to the
>>>curb."
>>>Robert MacNeill: "The President's driver slammed on the brakes - AFTER THE THIRD
>>>SHOT"
>>>Bill Newman: "I believe Kennedy's car came to a full stop AFTER THE FINAL SHOT"
>>>
>>
>>That's why my article says the eyewitnesses said that limousine stopped
>>while it was on Elm Street.
>
>
>
>
> You attempted to argue that the limo could have stopped *before* Zapruder was
> filming.
>
I did no such thing.
> Yet you can't cite *ANY* eyewitness that would place it before Z133.
>
There are no eyewitnesses who reported that it stopped specifically
before Z-133. Few of the witnesses knew anything so precise about the
specific Zapruder frames.
> Disingenious, aren't you?
>
>
Liar, aren't you?
>
>
>>>There's more, but that should be enough to make Tony's argument complete
>>>nonsense. *ALL* the eyewitnesses that commented on the timing of the
>>
>>No, I am well aware of what the eyewitnesses said, which is the point of
>>my article. What they said is wrong.
>
>
>
> I repeat, *ALL* of the eyewitnesses that commented on the timing of the
> slowdown/stop put it immediately *after* a shot or two.
>
I never said anything different.
> Nor, despite Tony's denial above, can he *CITE* a single contrary example.
>
>
>
As usual you lie and ask me to prove something that I never claimed.
>
>>>slowdown/stop put it immediately *after* a shot or two. Does Tony
>>>argue that the first shot was before Zapruder captures the limo in
>>>his film???
>>>
>>
>>No, not all the eyewitnesses said that the limousine stopped immediately
>>after a shot or two.
>
>
>
> *ALL* of the eyewitnesses that commented on the timing of the slowdown/stop put
> it immediately *after* a shot or two.
>
Didn't you just say that? Why not repeat a couple more times for effect?
> Nor are you capable of citing *ANY* eyewitness that supports your silly
> assertion that the limo slowed or stopped prior to Z133, or after Zapruder
> stopped filming.
>
I never asserted any such thing. You are simply lying.
>
> Why can't you cite for your assertions, Tony?
>
>
Why can't you ever tell the truth?
>
>>>********************************************************
>>>Zapruder only started picking up the limousine at Z-133, so if the
>>>limousine had stopped prior to Z-133, his film would not have shown it.
>>>*******************************************************
>>>
>>>In other words, Tony has to argue that the first shot was *BEFORE* Z-133.
>>>
>>
>>Not my argument. Others might make such an argument.
>
>
>
>
> Yes, Tony, it *was* your argument. And you can't cite a *single* eyewitness
> that can support it... who specified the slowdown or stop in relation to a
> location.
>
>
>
No, you are lying. I never asserted that any eyewitness said that the
limo slowed or stopped before Z-133.
And you believe anything that Dan Rather said? That puts you in the WC
defender camp.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>**************************************************************
>>>If Zapruder had filmed continuously from the time he saw the lead cycles, he
>>>feared that he would run out of film before he could have filmed the limousine
>>>going down Elm Street. There is no indication that there was an edit between
>>>Z-132 and Z-133 and every indication that there was not an edit at that time.
>>>***************************************************************
>>>
>>>Tony doesn't admit any evidence of editing in this film anyway...
>>>
>>
>>I address that issue in my other articles. There was no editing of the
>>original Zapruder film.
>
>
>
> I'm rebutting *THIS* article. Deal with it.
>
No, you are just lying as usual.
>
>
>>>***************************************************************
>>>Other films and photos taken from other angles do not show the limousine
>>>stopping before Z-133. Could the limousine have stopped after Zapruder stopped
>>>filming? Yes, but such a stop would not advance Mantik's argument. If the
>>>limousine had stopped inside the triple underpass, it could not have been seen
>>>from Zapruder's viewpoint. Thus there would have been nothing on his film to
>>>edit out. Films and photos taken from other angles show that the limousine did
>>>not stop in the underpass.
>>>****************************************************************
>>>
>>>A silly point, that doesn't really deserve any response.
>>>
>>
>>It goes to the issue of eyewitness claims.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There's not *ONE SINGLE EYEWITNESS* that states that the limo stopped underneath
> the underpass or beyond.
>
A few. Including Ed Hoffman.
Ben Holmes
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>
>> In article <2NqdnVqZSMm...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>>>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>
>>>>Tony has posted the following on his website... I thought it would be a good
>>>>idea to critique it here:
>>>>
>>>>************************************************************
>>>>Mantik's Misuse of Witnesses Who Said That the Limousine Stopped
>>>>
>>>>On page 274 of the book Assassination Science Dr. David Mantik uses a list of
>>>>witnesses to advance the notion that the limousine had stopped on Elm Street and
>>>>because we can not see that happen in the Zapruder film that therefore the
>>>>Zapruder film must have been edited. There are several problems with that
>>>>argument. First, the point at which the limousine stopped may have been before
>>>>or after Zapruder had filmed the limousine.
>>>>************************************************************
>>>>
>>>>It's silly to think that it could have been *after* Zapruder stopped filming the
>>>>limousine - that argument isn't worth the words to debate. But the argument
>>>>that the limo may have stopped *before* Zapruder started filming is worth
>>>>debunking...
>>>
>>>No it isn't, because several eyewitnesses said that the limousine did
>>>actually stop after the Zapruder film when the limo had just gone
>>>through the triple underpass.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Nonsense. And, as usual, you're unable to cite for your silly assertions.
>>
>
>I listed some in my article.
I quoted the *entire* article here. It isn't in there.
So why bother to lie about it, Tony?
>Also see Ed Hoffman's story.
You have problems understanding what a cite is?
And since neither Palamara nor Mantik so much as mentions Ed Hoffman among limo
stop eyewitnesses, it gives *NO* support for your argument.
Face it, Tony... you made an argument that isn't supported by *ANY* evidence.
Much like the way you tried to claim that Dr. Humes was busy burning papers on
two different days.
>>>>Charles Brehm: "...almost came to a halt AFTER THE FIRST SHOT..."
>>>>Erle Brown: "...WHEN THE SHOTS WERE FIRED it [the car] stopped."
>>>>James Chaney: "AFTER THE FIRST SHOT RANG OUT, the car stopped completely"
>>>>J.W. Foster: "IMMEDIATELY AFTER [JFK] WAS STRUCK... the car... pulled to the
>>>>curb."
>>>>Robert MacNeill: "The President's driver slammed on the brakes - AFTER THE THIRD
>>>>SHOT"
>>>>Bill Newman: "I believe Kennedy's car came to a full stop AFTER THE FINAL SHOT"
>>>>
>>>
>>>That's why my article says the eyewitnesses said that limousine stopped
>>>while it was on Elm Street.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You attempted to argue that the limo could have stopped *before* Zapruder
>> was filming.
>>
>
>I did no such thing.
Liar...
"First, the point at which the limousine stopped may have been before or after
Zapruder had filmed the limousine."
Why bother to lie, Tony? I'm just going to quote your own words...
>> Yet you can't cite *ANY* eyewitness that would place it before Z133.
>>
>
>There are no eyewitnesses who reported that it stopped specifically
>before Z-133.
BRAVO!!! An honest and correct statement! And in accordance with, I might note,
the evidence that I've already pointed out. Why couldn't you have stated this
in your webpage???
>Few of the witnesses knew anything so precise about the
>specific Zapruder frames.
None of them needed to be. They referenced the limo slowdown and/or stop in
terms that could be located in the film.
Are you *truly* this stupid???
>> Disingenious, aren't you?
>>
>>
>
>Liar, aren't you?
I've been *quoting* your words... you've been nailed lying several times
already. I'm sure it bothers you to have it pointed out.
>>>>There's more, but that should be enough to make Tony's argument complete
>>>>nonsense. *ALL* the eyewitnesses that commented on the timing of the
>>>
>>>No, I am well aware of what the eyewitnesses said, which is the point of
>>>my article. What they said is wrong.
>>
>> I repeat, *ALL* of the eyewitnesses that commented on the timing of the
>> slowdown/stop put it immediately *after* a shot or two.
>
>I never said anything different.
"First, the point at which the limousine stopped may have been before or after
Zapruder had filmed the limousine."
Unless you're now attempting to argue that there was a shot before Z133, you did
*indeed* "state otherwise."
Why bother to lie, Tony? You made an argument that is based on *no* evidence
whatsoever.
>> Nor, despite Tony's denial above, can he *CITE* a single contrary example.
>
>As usual you lie and ask me to prove something that I never claimed.
"First, the point at which the limousine stopped may have been before or after
Zapruder had filmed the limousine."
You made the statement, Tony. You *can't* cite any evidence whatsoever for it.
So why not just admit it?
>>>>slowdown/stop put it immediately *after* a shot or two. Does Tony
>>>>argue that the first shot was before Zapruder captures the limo in
>>>>his film???
>>>>
>>>
>>>No, not all the eyewitnesses said that the limousine stopped immediately
>>>after a shot or two.
>>
>>
>> *ALL* of the eyewitnesses that commented on the timing of the slowdown/stop
>> put it immediately *after* a shot or two.
>>
>
>Didn't you just say that?
Yep... you didn't seem to understand it the first time I said it... so I simply
requoted my own words.
Their accuracy hasn't changed...
>Why not repeat a couple more times for effect?
Of course... go ahead and deny it again... I'll be happy to repeat the obvious.
>> Nor are you capable of citing *ANY* eyewitness that supports your silly
>> assertion that the limo slowed or stopped prior to Z133, or after Zapruder
>> stopped filming.
>
>I never asserted any such thing. You are simply lying.
Of *course* you said *exactly* this.
"First, the point at which the limousine stopped may have been before or after
Zapruder had filmed the limousine."
He started filming the limo at Z133, right?
And "after Zapruder stopped filming" has the same meaning as "after Zapruder had
filmed the limousine"... right?
So where's the lie?
Ah!!! The "Nor are you capable of citing *ANY* eyewitness that supports" your
statements??? Well, that's quite obvious. You haven't.
So where's the lie?
You asserted it, now, can you cite *any* eyewitness that can be used to support
it?
>> Why can't you cite for your assertions, Tony?
>
>Why can't you ever tell the truth?
Because I'm quoting *your* exact words, and you don't have a tendency to tell
the truth.
>>>>********************************************************
>>>>Zapruder only started picking up the limousine at Z-133, so if the
>>>>limousine had stopped prior to Z-133, his film would not have shown it.
>>>>*******************************************************
>>>>
>>>>In other words, Tony has to argue that the first shot was *BEFORE* Z-133.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Not my argument. Others might make such an argument.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, Tony, it *was* your argument. And you can't cite a *single* eyewitness
>> that can support it... who specified the slowdown or stop in relation to a
>> location.
>>
>>
>
>No, you are lying.
Here it is again:
"First, the point at which the limousine stopped may have been before or after
Zapruder had filmed the limousine."
>I never asserted that any eyewitness said that the
>limo slowed or stopped before Z-133.
Yep... I *know* that. Nor can you make such an assertion. That's the problem
Tony. You *can't* cite any eyewitness that supports your argument.
Here's what *you* said:
"First, the point at which the limousine stopped may have been before or after
Zapruder had filmed the limousine."
I said that you made this argument, (indisputably, you did) and that YOU CANNOT
CITE A SINGLE EYEWITNESS IN SUPPORT OF IT.
And you can't.
Why lie about it? You just look silly...
How silly! What Dan Rather said is a very nice support for a conspiratorial
viewpoint of this case.
You really *should* pay attention to what he said.
>>>>**************************************************************
>>>>If Zapruder had filmed continuously from the time he saw the lead cycles, he
>>>>feared that he would run out of film before he could have filmed the limousine
>>>>going down Elm Street. There is no indication that there was an edit between
>>>>Z-132 and Z-133 and every indication that there was not an edit at that time.
>>>>***************************************************************
>>>>
>>>>Tony doesn't admit any evidence of editing in this film anyway...
>>>>
>>>
>>>I address that issue in my other articles. There was no editing of the
>>>original Zapruder film.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm rebutting *THIS* article. Deal with it.
>>
>
>No, you are just lying as usual.
Quoting your exact words... yes. It's unavoidable... for until you start
telling the truth, *anyone* who quotes you will be quoting lies.
But outside of that, no, I'm quite accurate. As shown by the fact that you
cannot quote a single "lie" on my part.
>>>>***************************************************************
>>>>Other films and photos taken from other angles do not show the limousine
>>>>stopping before Z-133. Could the limousine have stopped after Zapruder stopped
>>>>filming? Yes, but such a stop would not advance Mantik's argument. If the
>>>>limousine had stopped inside the triple underpass, it could not have been seen
>>>>from Zapruder's viewpoint. Thus there would have been nothing on his film to
>>>>edit out. Films and photos taken from other angles show that the limousine did
>>>>not stop in the underpass.
>>>>****************************************************************
>>>>
>>>>A silly point, that doesn't really deserve any response.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It goes to the issue of eyewitness claims.
>>
>>
>> There's not *ONE SINGLE EYEWITNESS* that states that the limo stopped
>> underneath the underpass or beyond.
>
>A few. Including Ed Hoffman.
CITE THEM, coward...
Although I find it interesting that you can't use Palamara or Mantik to make
your point.
DEAD SILENCE????
You'd better defend this, Tony. If you can't support this, then another factoid
bites the dust...
Dead silence...