Sunday, September 15, 2013

JFK: Cartha DeLoach FBI Memorandum and Altgens6

By Larry Rivera (with Jim Fetzer)

Carta "Deke" DeLoach"The DeLoach memorandum provides 'smoking gun' proof that both the FBI and the AP were actively involved in altering the Altgens6 photograph. So much for the denials by pseudo-skeptics, who oppose the truth and continue to insist that Oswald fired the shots from the 6th floor, when the photo shows he was in the doorway at the time."--Jim Fetzer

Deep within the bowels of FBI 62-109060 JFK HQ File, Section 4, at the very end (page 187 of the 189 page pdf file available at The Mary Farrell Archive, we encounter an FBI memorandum from FBI Deputy Director Cartha D. DeLoach to John Mohr dated 25 November 1963 (with copies sent to Mr. Al Belmont, Mr. Al Rosen, Mr. Evans, Mr. Conrad, M.A. Jones and a Mr. Morrell). Don't let the poor quality of the image (published below) fool you -- and the location of this important document should not surprise you either.

The information that it contains is explosive and resolves many questions concerning the famous but also controversial Altgens6 photograph, which appears to have been subjected to multiple forms of alteration.  Although the existence of these alterations establishes that there has to have been enough time available to make them, some skeptics -- including, but not limited to, those who tend to defend the "official account" of the assassination of JFK -- nevertheless claim that there was too little time for those alterations to have been made.
The identity of the man in the doorway -- which many have insisted was Billy Lovelady, a co-worker, and not the alleged assassin,  Lee Oswald -- has been disputed from the earliest research on the death of JFK, especially by Harold Weisberg, Whitewash II (1966; which was reprinted in 2007 with an introduction by Professor David Wrone), who had already identified the most important moves that were being made to create the false impression that it had been Billy rather than Lee (on pages 250-251). 
Billy was the right choice, under the circumstances, because he had also been there in the doorway, standing to the left of Doorman (to his right as we view the photograph), wearing a red-and-white, short-sleeved shirt and holding his hand up to protect his eyes from the sun in order to better view Jack and Jackie. So he was transformed into Doorman, his face was blacked out and Buell Wesley Frazier was substituted to stand in for him so Lee Oswald, the designated "patsy", could be on the 6th floor shooting at JFK. 
Those who defend the indefensible insist that there was not enough time for the photo to have been altered. The DeLoach memorandum provides "smoking gun" proof that both the FBI and the AP were actively involved in altering the Altgens6 photograph. So much for the denials by pseudo-skeptics, who oppose the truth and continue to insist that Oswald fired the shots from the 6th floor, when the photo shows he was in the doorway at the time. Recent research by Ralph Cinque, Richard Hooke, Larry Rivera and others is not really a new discovery so much as a reaffirmation that Weisberg had it right!
Thanks to the FBI's rigorous attention to detail and protocol, we can now piece this together and explain how and when it was done. We have tracked the first appearance of the Altgens6 on television, where it was shown by Walter Cronkite, and one of the first -- if not the first -- print to appear in a newspaper, The Oakland Tribune, which narrow the tim frame for its alteration. The upshot is we now have additional proof that the FBI and the AP were  complicit in framing the patsy and were accessories after the fact in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the 35th president of the United States.  First the photo, then some background.  

The Saturday Evening Post's Altgens6

Here is the Altgens6 as published by The Saturday Evening Post 14 December 1963. Everything marked in red is suspected of alteration, mostly blobs covering faces except for the entrance and the windshield which were given special attention. The broom closet in the Dal-Tex Building at the top -- about 1/3 of the way from the right-hand side -- is framed by the fire escape. (This is a Larry Rivera scan from original issue.)

The area of greatest interest is the doorway above the limousine, where a figure is extending himself to see what is taking place. Most research and discussion of this area has been based upon a scan made by the well-know student of the assassination, Robert Groden, who appears to have had a role in convincing Oliver Stone in the preparation of his film "JFK", that this figure was Billy Lovelady and not Lee Oswald.

As we are about to discover, the FBI and the AP were concerned that the public might be able to discern that the man in the doorway was Lee Oswald, the alleged assassin. Two Vice Presidents for ABC News debated over whether to run the photograph or not, in the knowledge that it could create "a sensation". They decided not to run it. They weren't experts on the assassination, but that was their take, which Harold Weisberg, Whitewash II (1966), included on page 153:

I have found it incredibly embarrassing, therefore, that so many who present themselves as "JFK experts" want to deny, not only that Doorman is not Oswald, but that the photo has not been fixed.  Consider the Obfuscated Face of the man to his right/front (viewing the photo), his missing left shoulder, that Black Tie Man is in front of him and behind him, and the face of the man standing beside him has been turned into a black hole.  

Proof that it was Oswald, after all

 One proof that guarantees that a photo or a film has been altered or faked is for it to include physically impossible events. That a face has been obfuscated is already enough to impugn the photos authenticity, but when you have a figure who is missing a shoulder and another who is both in front of and behind him simultaneously, there is no room for doubt.  The photo was altered--and the reasons are rather obvious:


Lee, for example, told Will Fritz, the homicide detective who interrogated him, that he had been "out with Bill Shelley" in front.  And the man in the doorway certainly resembles him in height, weight, build and clothing, even apart from the facial resemblance.  Lee was about 5'10" and weighed between 130-135 lbs. and was wearing a shirt that was spayed open and hung loosely on his body. They look a great deal alike.


Although the FBI maintained it had "conclusively identified" Doorman as Lovelady, Billy's subsequently conduct falsified that claim. He went to the FBI on 29 February 1964 and showed them the shirt he had been wearing, which was a red-and-white, vertically striped short-sleeved shirt. The FBI photographed him and reported back to J. Edgar. He would later confirm this was the shirt he had worn to Jones Harris.

The claim has been made that Billy was also photographed in the crowd following the assassination and that he was wearing a black-and-white checkered shirt.  This man looks nothing like Billy and is far too robust to be Doorman.  He is practically bursting out of his shirt, which is buttoned to the top, and must outweigh him by 30 lbs. While the faces are ambiguous, the clothing leaves no doubt. Not only did Doorman resemble Lee Oswald, but he cannot have been either Billy Lovelady or Checkered Shirt Man. Doorman was Lee Oswald.  

The Altgens6 makes its television debut

Only three candidates have ever been offered as the person we are calling "Doorman":  Lee Harvey Oswald, Billy Nolan Lovelady, and Checkered Shirt Man.  The figure strongly resembles Oswald, as even the ABC executives could see.  He is not wearing a short-sleeved shirt and can't be Billy, who later observed that he was 3" shorter and 15-20 lbs. heavier than Lee, and cit ertainly is not Checkered Shirt Man, who is also not wearing a comparable shirt ant must be 35 lbs. heavier than Doorman.  So what's left to argue about?
Officially, James "Ike" Altgens had been Associated Press news photo editor in Dallas for 26 years.  The AP owned all the Altgens' photos and it was up to the AP to disseminate them as appropriate.  While two are suspected of alteration or forgery -- the Altgens6 and the Altgens7 -- according to the "official chain of custody", the Altgens6 was "on the wire" at 1:03 PM and circled the globe within minutes. There was no time to alter it.  End of story.
Image 1 of 3

We know that at approximately 6:34 PM/ET, (3:34 PM/PT) on Friday, 22 November 1963, Walter Cronkite presented for the first time ever on television, an extremely cropped version of the Altgens6 to the American public.

The glossy nature of the photograph shown by Cronkite suggests it had probably been hand-delivered by CBS's neighbor, The Associated Press in New York.

It appears to be one of the "glossy prints" printed by the AP that evening mentioned in the DeLoach memorandum (below).

Third of three of limo
CRONKITE (narration): "You see the secret service men, riding in back of the car, looking over their shoulder to the right rear where the shot came from."

These are snapshots taken from CBS footage of their JFK Assassination coverage the night of November 22, 1963.

The second of these images shows the reflection from the glossy surface, which reinforces the inference that it came from the AP and is one of those mentioned in the DeLoach memorandum.

No major newspaper, however, published the Altgens6 that day on the first page of their special afternoon editions. The New York Times did not even include it in its historic coverage on 23 November 1963. 

But The Oakland Tribune appears to have published the Altgens6 on the 3rd page of it's EXTRA edition that day. Here is a portion of the newspaper, which shows the top of the Altgens6 at the bottom, where the more complete but still cropped image published there will be presented and discussed below:

We believe this is authentic, because Richard Hooke found it in the trunk of an elderly woman neighbor, who--like millions of other Americans--had kept the newspapers from those fateful days, especially those including photos related to the assassination.  Notice the obfuscated face, the missing left shoulder, the man who is both in front of and behind him at the same time, and the man beside him has had his face turned into a black hole.  So at least one Altgens6 seems to have been published the day of the assassination.

Alterations of the Altgens6 and fabricated newspapers

Roy Schaefer, now a member of the OIC, was working for the Dayton Daily News at the time and took the Altgens6 off the wire-photo-fax at 7:00 AM/ET on Saturday, 23 November 1963. Because of a background in photography, Shaffer noticed immediately that alteration using masking and opaquing techniques had been done to the image that was received over the wire, especially in the background area of the doorway.

From there on, Roy embarked on research and discovered hidden aspects of the Altgens6 as well as many changes that are also to be found in the extant version of the Zapruder film. (See his 1998 article on this.) And Ralph Cinque has discovered the existence of bogus newspapers in minor market areas, which show the Altgens6 on the same day of the assassination but which turn out to be fabrications of special editions.

Here are the real and fake editions of the Benton Harbor News-Palladium (where Benton Harbor is a small community in Michigan of then-about 10,000 population) published their own bona fide issues that Friday, which were replaced by fake issues to create the false impression of having included the Altgens6:

This was a major find of US intelligence agency duplicity.  Among the telling signs that one is real and the other fake is that local news items are interspersed in the original issue, while the fake has nothing but national news, highly improbably for a local newspaper, which did not publish TWO EXTRAS that day!   

The Rigby Timeline for the Altgens6

Paul Rigby, a most respected JFK researcher from the UK, has provided the OIC with a detailed time line of the Altgens6 photo and has proposed at least a two to three hour "window of opportunity" for alteration. Mr. Rigby's work deserves discussion. He believes that there was a delay in the release of Altgens6 because it was initially wired to the AP headquarters in New York, but then appears to have been "cropped twice".

On the basis of the available evidence, we can -- provisionally at least -- draw the following inferences:
(1) Altgens did not develop his own photos; (2) Altgens6 went by fax, not to the world at large, but to the AP New York HQ, at just after 1:00 PM/CT; (3) The negatives were sent by commercial airline, ostensibly to the same destination but did not arrive until hours after the initial fax; (4) The dissemination of the image from NY did not occur until at least two hours after the fax arrived but before the arrival of the negatives; (5) Both the AP and Altgens appear to have sought to conceal this hiatus; (6) The AP acted against its own commercial interest in delaying release of Altgens6; (7) The version which first appeared in the final editions of newspapers in Canada and the US on the evening of 22 November 1963 was heavily, and very obviously, retouched; (8) Point (7) may not be the explanation, either full or partial, for the concealed delay; it is quite conceivable that obvious alterations were used to draw attention away from other more subtle stuff.
Since The Oakland Tribune afternoon EXTRA edition showing the cropped Altgens6 -- and other visible features beyond the now obscured windshield -- appears to have come out around 5:00PM/PT (or 8:00 PM/ET) and the photograph was taken at 12:30 PM/CT, the span between the photo's being taken and its first newspaper publication would appear to be a maximum of 7 hours, if we accept The Tribune as real. Since Roy took it off the wire-photo-fax the following morning, that suggests it was actually sent out twice.

What the FBI, the AP and ABC knew

The DeLoach memorandum of 25 November 1963, however, unequivocally claims that the AP did not disseminate the Altgens6 to subscribing newspapers until Saturday, November 23, 1963, which means that The Oakland Tribune got an earlier version than was nationally distributed the next day . Here is the memorandum (absent its addendum), which was added subsequently and is discussed below.  Notice the language that is used to describe the photo and that he expected the FBI to further "experiment" with it:

The DeLoach memorandum

 So while Al Resch, the liaison between the Associated Press and the FBI and had informed Mr. DeLoach that the Altgens6 was not distributed until the following day, The Oakland Tribune photo Richard Hooke has found suggests that  Resch was not quite right, since at least one newspaper appears to have published it on Friday, 22 November 1963. The language Resch uses in referring to it -- as the "rough photo" and to "experimenting with the [initial] glossy print" (since there is no point in "experimenting" with the finished glossy print ) -- implies they were going to make more tweaks.

The Memorandum's Addendum

The end of the FBI memorandum contains an interesting "ADDENDUM" by DeLoach (CDD) "A positive identification had been made by interviewing Lovelady at his home." So confident was the FBI that this was the end of the controversy generated by the Altgens6 that DeLoach expressed his opinion that "this matter had washed out":

The memorandum addendum

This is probably the point in time where Billy Lovelady was taken to task and introduced to his new role as "Doorman" in the Altgens6. With his Federal conviction and court martial at Andrews Air Force Base for the theft of government property, gun running, as well as his felonious flight from Maryland in 1961-62 and subsequent arrest at his new job at the TSBD by the FBI in January 1963, he was ripe for the plucking.

The FBI, as they say in Dallas, "called in the markers" -- and made him an offer he could not refuse. They could not have anticipated that he would have a conscience and not only confirm to Jones Harris that he had been wearing the red-and-white, short-sleeved shirt that day but actually go to the FBI in Dallas and show them the shirt to set the record straight,  which the would photograph and send to Washington, D.C.

Where was the Altgens6 altered?

So, where was the Altgens6 altered: in Dallas, in New York or even in Rochester, NY, where the CIA ran a secret photo lab known as "Hawk-eye Works"? The most efficient location to have done the alteration would have been Dallas. The fluidity of the situation would have dictated it. They had to have been aware of the problem because he had been in the doorway and had told Will Fritz he had been there. The level of alteration of the Altgens6 suggests that it was done with a first generation print, which was enlarged to facilitate the alteration. Opaquing, masking and airbrushing are techniques that seem to have been used.

So here is The Oakland Tribune's version of the Altgens6, which appears to reflect the first pass, where it would be subjected to additional alteration but where we can already see the features that prove it is fake. Note what appear to be trace marks around JFK, John Connally, both of the sun visors, and the rear view mirror in this very early rendition of the Altgens6. This version of Altgens6 almost looks like a caricature.


The resulting product was probably re-shot and processed with an optical printer to produce an altered negative, which was flown to New York with altered first generation prints. This new negative was then incorporated into the contact sheet which we see today. Had they used an image off of the unifax machine in New York, the resultant image would not have had the quality and resolution to pass on as an original.

According to Roy Schaeffer, all photo processing companies in Dallas were stocked and ready to receive the treasured snapshots and film of people who were lucky enough to see the parade. Among the companies that were available for business Schaeffer mentions the Kodak and Jamieson Printing companies. [Roy Schaeffer, "Was the Abraham Zapruder Film used to mislead the American Public?" (1998), p. 2]

Since we are contemplating alternatives, a company JFK researchers are familiar with, Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, did have the capability to alter photographs and re-generate negatives and was within easy walking distance of Dealey Plaza. Surprisingly, JCS has almost never been mentioned as a place where photo alterations could have been done or coordinated from. (See Jack White's reference to the Stovall Warren Commission Testimony)

Wouldn't it be ironic that the first place that Lee Oswald worked in Dallas in 1962, after his return from the Soviet Union, Jaggars-Chiles- Stovall -- a place which handled contract imaging work for Navy Intelligence and the CIA -- would also be the place where the image that could exonerate him from this heinous crime could have been altered to change his features in the doorway in order to frame him for an assassination that he could not possibly have committed?


Why the Altgens6 matters

As John Simkin reports, Cartha "Deke" DeLoach became friends with Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1950s. It was DeLoach who arranged with LBJ, the Senate majority leader at the time, to push through legislation guaranteeing J. Edgar Hoover, a salary for life. DeLoach would later recall, “There was political distrust between the two of them, but they both needed each other." However, he denied that the two men worked together to blackmail politicians, but it is important to observe that he had ties to both LBJ and J. Edgar.

In his book, Hoover's FBI (1995), for example, DeLoach claimed, "The popular myth, fostered of late by would-be historians and sensationalists with their eyes on the bestseller list, has it that in his day J. Edgar Hoover all but ran Washington, using dirty tricks to intimidate congressmen and presidents, and phone taps, bugs, and informants to build secret files with which to blackmail lawmakers." While DeLoach said this was not true, there are stunning books by Anthony Summers and by Mark North that show otherwise.
(1) Our current research indicates the Altgens6 was altered twice on November 22, 1963. The first revision, a very crude, caricature-like, extremely cropped rendition, which would be sent  to the West Coast, was done in Dallas between 1 and 4 PM/CT. 
(2) This timeframe allowed for the Lovelady/Oswald Doorman alterations to be done as well as others involving Buell Wesley Frazier, a crucial witness, where Frazier had disappeared for at least 5 hours, which is most unlikely to be coincidental. 
(3) It was wired to the West Coast, to newspapers that had not yet reached their afternoon deadlines.This time frame confirms Paul Rigby's original estimate of 2-3 hours. And it is all too probable that these alterations were done at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall. 
(4) From there, the now extant negative and altered Altgens6 were flown, possibly by private jet, to the AP in New York, where the "rough photo" was blown up and "cropped twice" to focus on the left side of the image and to support shots from the TSBD, mainly because it shows Secret Service Agents John Ready and Paul Landis' reacting and turning towards the building. 
(5) That night, it was shown to a grieving nation, for the first time on TV, by Walter Cronkite at about 8:00 PM/ET (5:00PM/PT). The first wire photo published in The Oakland Tribune revealed the crude job done, which required further fine-tuning, probably with experts in New York or in Rochester.
Bear in mind that there would have been no reason to alter images in the doorway area unless someone had been there who should not have been there, where the prime candidate is the designated patsy. Not only were his facial features changed to more closely resemble the face of Lovelady, but Lovelady's face (in the third of his FBI photos) was altered to more closely resemble that of Oswald:


To convert Billy into Doorman, Lovelady's head was blacked out and Buell Frazier was removed. Frazier was then available to replace Lovelady as the now "Black Hole Man". Lovelady was identified as "Doorman" in lieu of Oswald, who was standing there; and his face was also slightly altered to look like more like Lovelady. Lee, after all, could not be in the doorway watching the motorcade and also on the 6th floor shooting at JFK. By demonstrating that both the FBI and the AP were actively involved in altering the Altgens6, those who insist that the chain of custody did not permit it have been shown to have been wrong. Whether they were sincere in maintaining that position or not will now be tested by their willingness or not to admit that they were wrong and that Oswald was in the doorway, after all, and cannot possibly have even been among the shooters.  

Detailing additional Alterations

In collaboration with other members of the OIC, I have now published a dozen articles about the Altgens6:

Dennis Cimino has demonstrates that the photograph was also altered extensively in the windshield area, which was appears to have been among of the refinements that were undertaken during the second pass; see "Tampering with the Limo in the JFK Altgens6";

Ralph Cinque has shown that, during the Warren Commission hearings, Joseph Ball performed a sleight-of-hand to convey the false impression that Lovelady had drawn an arrow on CE 369 to identify himself as Doorman, when he had pointed instead to himself;

Larry Rivera has explained why Buell Wesley Frazier, a key witness who incriminated Lee Oswald in a crime he did not commit by claiming he had carried  "curtain rods" into the Book Depository, was taken out of the photo; see "Why Buell Wesley Frazier was erased from the Altgens6";

Richard Hooke has discovered why Bill Shelley's face had to be obfuscated in the Altgens6, since Lee had told Fritz he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" and his presence there would have raised too many very uncomfortable questions; see "The JFK Altgens6: Bill Shelley's Shrunken Head".
Indeed, Richard has done a brilliant job of analyzing the key moves that appear to have been involved:

So where does that leave the Josiah Thompsons, the Robert Grodens, the (surprisingly) David Liftons, the Robin Ungers, the JFK Assassination Research Bureau and other of their ilk, who persist to this day in the claim that Doorman was Billy Lovelady, as everyone has known for a very long time?  There is an answer.

lovelady copy

It appears they belong in the same category with John McAdams, who long ago published this composite, which represents the state of affairs before Ralph Cinque contacted me to explain that I was right in my conclusion (that Oswald was in the doorway) but wrong in my premises (because it was not Lee's face that had been obfuscated), where it was the clothing they were wearing that made the difference in sorting this out to exonerate an innocent man from the accusation that he was "the lone, demented gunman" who killed JFK.

 Larry Rivera, the son of a career military man who served as CID officer in the Army and a Certified Network Engineer, has made a lifelong study of the JFK assassination.  He has given interviews on the assassination to Spanish media and has the most complete dossier on Billy Nolan Lovelady ever done.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth.

The JFK War: Outing the JFK Assassination Research Bureau

by Jim Fetzer

Web site featured imageDuring the past few days, I have been drawn into an extended exchange about the assassination of JFK on a facebook web site that carries the most imposing name, "JFK Assassination Research Bureau"

It certainly sounds impressive, but I have discovered -- through personal experience -- that they do not live up to the impression they convey. This site is not about JFK Truth. If they don't like you, they simply delete you.

With the 50th observance of the death of John Kennedy rapidly approaching, the government is spending millions -- probably tens of millions -- of US taxpayer dollars to keep the public unaware of the facts of the case as we have established them to be, including that the home movies of the assassination, including especially the Zapruder film, were reworked to more closely support the "official account". If the public caught on, the people would be furious that their government has so massively deceived them.

The second most carefully guarded secret is Lee Oswald was caught in the background of a famous photograph taken by AP photographer James "Ike" Altgens. For the government to so grossly frame an innocent man requires a special kind of depravity. And the third is that Oliver Stone's "JFK" inadvertently appears to have minimized the shooters and the shot sequence, where there appear to have been at least six rather than three. But many Americans still do not realize how close Oliver was to the truth.
As I have recently explained, Hany Farid, a professor at Dartmouth College and Jefferson Morley, a news journalist-turned-JFK-expert, have been doing their best to obfuscate these findings, where Farid has in the past attempted to vindicate the authenticity of the "backyard photographs" and, more recently, the Zapruder film; while Morley now moderates the web site, which, alas, seems dedicated to distorting the truth rather than revealing it.   
If ever a web site was misnamed, Morley's takes the cake. But there are other, less sophisticated but nevertheless public, web sites out there, whose moderators are, like Farid and Morley, in the business of undermining research on JFK and promoting uncertainty with the objective of creating a public mentality according to which, as Marty Schotz so eloquently expressed it, "Everything is believable and nothing is knowable".  I was therefore intrigued when Jim Feliciano tipped me off that the JFK ASSASSINATION RESEARCH BUREAU was ripping on me, with the expectation that I might want to respond and set the record straight.  He was right and I ventured into this new domain.

In the beginning . . .

When I arrived, I was welcomed by Charles Cliff, who moderates the site under the direction of others, one of whom, Brian Haskins, terminated me.  That is their right.  If they don't want to discuss and debate the evidence, then there really is no good reason for me to be there.  But I initially arrived to debunk attacks that were being made upon me in my absence, where I initially asked Jim to post a response on my behalf and subsequently arrived to post for myself.  

I posted a dozen or more comments over the past two days, which were chock full of evidence and argument; but when I arrived this morning to extend the exchange, it had disappeared.  The moderator, Charles Cliff, claimed in had happened inadvertently, as follows:
Short take on deleting the thread
But that explanation is clearly indefensible:  We have all moved emails, articles or attachments to the trash and then retrieved them.  This is not rocket science.  As it happened, I had not closed the window on this web site last night, so I was able to recover the whole thread today, even though Charles believed he had deleted it permanently.  I invite the reader to judge why they felt they had to make it "disappear"!

The semi-promising thread initiation

Jim has told me that he liked my piece on Farid and Morley and simply wanted to make it accessible to the members of the forum.  He was fairly astonished when the first comment was posted by Charles, since he as the chief moderator was thereby telegraphing that my work was suspect and not to be taken seriously. Jim believes this set the tone, where I was somewhat optimistic because of the posts by Alan L. Kent:


Cliff attacked my association with the OIC

What struck me about this attack was that he offered no reasons to support his dismissal.  Ralph Cinque has a blunt manner in discussions and debates, but he has made one of the most important discoveries in the history of JFK research.  Alan L. Kent was again the most positive (apart from Jim), but even he did not understand the difference between collecting old studies and inviting authors to compose new studies:


Jim posted a response on my behalf

Since I was preoccupied with other projects and was not sure I wanted to get involved on another forum -- where The Education Forum had taken exception to my defense of Ralph Cinque and my extensive and detailed defenses of the identification of Oswald as Doorman, I composed a rebuttal to the attacks that had already been launched against me and welcomed his posting my specific responses to them on my behalf:


The moderator took exception to Jim's post

Hostile moderators can find endless reasons to object to posts supporting positions with which they just happen to disagree, so I was not really surprised that Charles Cliff, like Charles Drago before him on The Deep Politics Forum -- where Drago objected to my contention that Lyndon was the pivotal player in the assassination of JFK and blocked me from continuing to post there -- would issue complaints of his own:


Freed up, I began posting for myself

So, as soon as I had the chance, I began debunking their claims against me, from Charles' contention that I was "hiding behind others" to Clark Rob's completely absurd claim that I was a "coattail rider" and even to Alan Kent's suggestion that my research was "sloppy", for which no examples were ever produced.  But that is the nature of smears:  create a negative impression without having to back it up with any evidence!


Then I brought the discussion back to Doorman

The beginning of the end may have been when I returned my discussion to their ignorance of the evidence surrounding the Altgens6, about which Ralph Cinque, Richard Hooke, Clare Kuehn, Larry Rivera and K.D. Ruckman have published so much. These people are so ignorant that they cannot begin to appreciate the importance of collaborative research:

This was my last post. It all took place over just three days, where Jim first alerted me to the attacks on Wednesday, had posted my response on Thursday, and later than day I had published my replies, which apparently was too much for the JFK Assassination Research Bureau. Friday, when I returned to the fray, I had already been taken out. They deleted this thread and buried the arguments that expose them.

For those who want to confirm the gross violation of standards of reasoning, go to the site and check out the (much shorter) thread about Oswald in the Dooway, introduced by Clark Rob. Special pleading by citing only the evidence favorable to your side abounds. No one can begin to understand the case unless they base their reasoning on all the available relevant evidence, which they appear to be committed to avoiding.

My final pitch

Perhaps it's the professor in me. After 35 years offering courses in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning, it still bothers me when students of JFK commit the kinds of fallacies -- the ad hominem, special pleading and the straw man -- I spent so many years teaching undergraduates to avoid. And I suppose I should not be surprised that this web site turns out to be supported by Robert Groden and by Jefferson Morley.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth and an editor for Veterans Today.

The JFK War: Hany Farid, Jefferson Morley and the Zapruder film

by Jim Fetzer

"How can Jefferson Morley pretend to be an expert on the assassination of JFK when he is abysmally ignorant about it?"--Jim Fetzer

Hany Farid
We are encountering the most massive disinformation in American history as the 50th observance of the assassination of JFK approaches. Long discredited theories--such as that a Secret Service man accidentally shot JFK with his AR-15, that Jackie shot JFK with a derringer, and an impostor was killed, while JFK is in Tahiti sipping Mai-Ties--are being marketed around the web.

The obvious cases are bad enough, but some not so obvious continue to make the rounds, including that William Greer, the driver, who pulled the limo to the left and to a stop to make sure JFK was killed, shot him with a .45 during the stop. But if that had been the case, then JFK's brains would have been blown out to the right/rear, when they were instead blown out to the left/rear.

 More insidious are those who deny the existence of the limo stop or make other attempts to prove that the Zapruder film is authentic. That poses a daunting task, since it would be necessary to show that, in every respect, the extant film corresponds to what actually happened during the event as it took place in Dealey Plaza. If that is not true in any respect, its authenticity has been falsified.

Hany Farid, a computer scientist from Dartmouth College, who has a lab funded by the FBI, offers a striking case of a faculty member abusing his position to disseminate false information about the assassination of JFK. Jefferson Morely, a well-known reporter, whose work I have previously questioned, has created a new web site to promote his own extremely slanted view about JFK, including the Zapruder film.

Hany Farid and the backyard photos

We last encountered Hany Farid, a computer scientist from Dartmouth College, when he claimed to have shown that the backyard photographs of Lee Oswald, which were allegedly taken by his wife, Marina, had been verified by showing that he had been able to reconstruct the nose shadow in one of the photographs, which he claimed thereby established their authenticity. I kid you not!


Since there are at least four of these photographs (and the negative for a fifth is missing), you might have thought that he would at least extend his argument to all of them, instead of focusing on only one. And it might have been appropriate had he acknowledged that the nose shadow was only one of multiple proofs that the photos were faked, where he did not bother with any of the rest.


Thus, for example, the chin in the photos is a block chin, not Oswald's more tapered and pointed chin. There is an insert line between the lower lip and the chin. The tips of the fingers of his right hand are cut off. And when you use the newspapers he is holding as an internal ruler, it turns out that the man in the photos at 5'6" is too short to be Lee Oswald, who was approximately 5'10".


Moreover, for a photographic expert, his claims are astoundingly shoddy, since it even turns out that the face in all four of the photos is exactly the same, which is an optical impossibility, insofar as the subject was photographed at different times and positions. As Lee told Homicide Detective Will Fritz during his interrogation, his face had been pasted on someone else's body--which is true!


This matte was subsequently discovered in the desk of a DPD detective, who claimed he had only make it to see if it could be done. I wrote to the President of Dartmouth, Jim Yong Kim, at the time to object to the abuse of his faculty position, but it was swept under the rug. Jim Marrs and I subsequently published "Framing the Patsy: The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald", which leaves no doubt about it.

Hany Farid and the Zapruder film

As so often happens in Washington--where the bigger the liar, the further you go--Jim Youg Kin became the President of the World Bank, where, as Karen Hudes has explained, he has been doing more of the same but on a grander scale. Hany Farid, in the meanwhile, having demonstrated his competence with regard to the backyard photos, has turned his attention to the Zapruder film.
As in the case of his work on the backyard photo(s), he commits the fallacy of special pleading by ignoring all the evidence that contradicts his predetermined position. Even if he were correct about the nose shadow in one photograph, it should not be the same across all four photos, not to mention other proofs of fakery. He wants to show that the black area in Frame 317 is a naturally occurring phenomenon.

Even if he were correct, that would not overcome the mountain of evidence from more than 60 witnesses, the internal contradictions in the extant film, its inconsistency with the medial and ballistic evidence and other witnesses who have viewed another and more complete film that includes, for example, the limo coming to a complete stop. As before, Hany Farid implies that, if one issue is resolvable, he has resolved them all.

So he compounds one fallacy (special pleading) with another (hasty generalization), which of course is the strategy he has adopted, hoping that those who are unfamiliar with the evidence in this case will be taken in. But he has to know that there is ample proof that the dark area at the back of the head was painted over in black and that the film is not even internally consistent, as Frame 374 reveals:

Since the blow out at the back of his head -- the blue-gray, cashew-shaped defect, as opposed to the pinkish skull flap, which was also blown open when JFK was hit in the right temple by a frangible (or "exploding") bullet -- it has to have been cover-up in those earlier frames, as as group of Hollywood film restoration experts have long-since concluded. So Farid is committing a fraud by abusing his position at Dartmouth to spread false information to the public about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Hany Farid is a fraud.

Jefferson Morley and the Zapruder film

Jefferson MorleyIs there any chance that he is unaware of the importance of Frame 374 or the confirmation of the painting over of the blow out in Frame 317 and many other frames? He lists The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003) among his references, which gives the specious impression that he has actually studied its contents and findings. Frame 374, which is emphasized in the prologue, refutes his claims about the film, as I have shown. So Hany Farid only had to read as far as page 25 to know that what he was claiming was false. An even more blatantly fallacious approach to the film is found on Jefferson Morley's web site:

About JFK Facts

It is not difficult for even new students of JFK to discover there is something odd about Jefferson Morley's new web site, since he lists the web site of John McAdams, who is a notorious proponent of the lone-gunman theory, as "one of the best", and my, as "one of the worst". When he was challenged about this classification, he explained that his derogation of my site was because I promote the alteration of the Zapruder film, which is ironic, since the faking of the film is a fact about the assassination of JFK. Here is the challenge (posed by someone other than I) and his response thereto:
Questioning my listing

He dismisses the alterationist thesis, not by refuting any of the evidence, but on the basis of hypothetical questions, where the answer to 1) appears to be that it is flawed and they did not want to make it available for research that might expose its shortcomings, as John P. Costella, Ph.D., has done; and 2) that it DID ignite a call for a reinvestigation by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (1977-79), because it appears to show the effects of a shot fired from the right/front! How can Jefferson Morley pretend to be an expert on the assassination of JFK when he is abysmally ignorant about it? He characterizes his questions as "elementary facts" when they are both predicated on false assumptions. On JFK, Morley is a moron.

Approved comment #1

Indeed, to be precise about it, questions cannot qualify as facts because (apart from their presuppositions, which in this case are false) they are non-assertive. Asking a question is not the same thing as positing an answer. On a proper understanding of the meaning of the word "fact" as a claim that is not only true but provably true, he has blundered. It is a fact that the Zapruder film cannot possibly be authentic, even on the basis of the simple proof I have advanced comparing frames 317 and 374 above! It is not even internally consistent, since it shows both a blow-out and no blow out at the back of the same head at approximately the same time.

Approved comment #2

Morely characterizes as "misnamed", which is absurd. Even Vincent Bugliosi has observed that my three are "the only exclusively scientific books" ever published on the death of JFK. It is also a fact that I have published many articles making this point, including "JFK: Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?" and "Did Zapruder film 'the Zapruder film'?", to which the answer is emphatically, "No!", because no one took a film fabricated in a laboratory, as was the extant film at a CIA lab in Rochester, NY, near Kokak Headquarters.

Multiple proofs the film is a fake

So much proof that the film is a fabrication has been published--where some of those proofs are as simple and straightforward as the one I have just presented--that I shall simply summarize some of the most important proofs that have appeared since the publication of The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003), where it is beyond belief that any serious student of the assassination of JFK, much less experts on film and photos, would continued to deny them:
(1) We have more than 60 witnesses who reported seeing the limo slow dramatically or come to a complete stop, where it slowed dramatically AS it came to a complete stop, where those witnesses include all four of the motorcycle escort officers: See "What happened on Elm Street? The Eyewitnesses Speak" compiled by John P. Costella, Ph.D.

(2) We also know that Officer James Chaney motored forward to inform Chief Curry the president had been shot, which was confirmed by Chief of Police Jesse Curry, Secret Service Agents Winston Lawson and Forrest Sorrels, as well as Motorcycle Officers Bobby Hargis, James Chaney, and Marrion Baker: See "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery".

(3) We know that, for nearly 50 years, Clint Hill has described climbing on the trunk, pushing Jackie down, lying across their bodies, peering into the wound, observing a fist-sized blow-out and giving a "thumbs down", all before the limo had reached the Triple Underpass: See “JFK: Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?”
[youtube lYpY8zI_wwA]
(4) We know that the original 8mm, already split film developed in Dallas, was taken to the NPIC on Saturday, the 23rd, and that a substitute 16mm, unsplit film, developed in Rochester, was taken there on Sunday, the 24th, where two different teams worked on the different versions: See "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication".

(5) We also know that a half-dozen or more have viewed one or another film, different from the extant, including William Reymond, Rich DellaRosa, Gregory Burnham and others, whose contents generally converge, where Rich DellaRosa's description of what he has seen appears as an Appendix to The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003): See “Did Zapruder film ‘the Zapruder film’?”

(6) We have John Costella's precise visual tutorial about evidence internal to the film that explains how we can know that the film is a fabrication, where all of its frames had to be reshot to create the right sequence of "ghost panels": See "The JFK Assassination Film Hoax: An Introduction". Here's an informal discussion of his research on the film:

(7) We know that they not only removed the limo stop but painted over the blow-out in early frames and that the "blob" and the blood spray were painted in, but that they overlooked that in later frames, especially in Frame 374, the blow-out can be seen, as I explain in many places, including "What happened to JFK--and why it matters today":

(8) More recently, in “The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events: Signposts Pointing to the Film’s Alteration”(2012) and “The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events: Analysis and Implications” (2012), Doug Horne has substantiated that the original was taken to the NPIC on Saturday, the 23rd, and the substitute was brought there on Sunday, the 24th.

The timeline argument--that there was no opportunity for the film to have been faked, which Josiah Thompson has endlessly promoted--has no basis in fact and was merely a gambit. We know that the film was altered, which is proven by the multiple lines of argument I have advanced. We also know when and where it was altered and when and where the fake film was substituted for the original.

Since rationality requires that we revise our beliefs with the acquisition of new evidence and alternative hypotheses, the time has come to abandon the fantasy that the Zapruder film is authentic. But don't expect the Josiah Thompsons, the Robert Grodens and the lesser fry to abandon their promotion of Zapruder film authenticity. Consider this: The JFK Lancer Conference for the 50th observance of the death of JFK in Dallas is featuring as its keynote speaker Jefferson Morley!

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth.

Rachel Maddow, MSNBC 9/11 Shill

By Jim Fetzerrachel

"The secrecy state is at the heart of the leaks by whistleblowers Manning and Snowden; the court proceedings and surveillance of journalists by the government; the necessary or unnecessary (who knows?) closure of diplomatic posts abroad; the refusal to respond to FOIA requests by the public; the efforts even by local and state governments to even keep citizens from overseeing the tabulation of ballots cast in their own public elections."--Brad Friedman

There was a time when I was a huge fan of msnbc, especially of "Countdown" with Keith Olbermann, whom I continue to regard as one of the most brilliant, if not the most brilliant, political commentators to ever take the role of the anchor of a major news program of any kind.

When Keith was replaced by Rachel Maddow, I was open-minded and, at least at the beginning, very impressed by her analytic ability, which was not quite on a par with Keith's but was far above what we encounter on the major networks.

Major events like JFK and 9/11, alas, are not among either of their strong suits, but I have been appalled to discover the role of Rachel Maddow as a shill for The 9/11 Commission Report (2004), a preliminary draft of which was author by Philip D. Zelikow, its Executive Director, a year before he shared it with any member of the 9/11 commission staff.   

Nevertheless, it was astonishing to discover that, prior to joining the Bush administration, his area of academic expertise had been "the creation and maintenance of, in his words, public myths or public presumptions", which he gave us in the commission's official report, which did not even mention the destruction of WTC-7.

Click here: "This is an orange"

That the "official account" is indeed a myth has been demonstrated innumerable times, as I explained in "20 reasons the official account of 9/11 is wrong", including  the fires in the Twin Towers burned neither hot enough nor long enough to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt; the buildings were blown apart in every direction from the top down, unlike a bona fide gravity driven collapse, and when it was over, there were no massive piles of "pancakes", because they were largely converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust.  What happened to them is well illustrated by "9/11: The Towers of Dust":

Click here: "9/11: The Towers of Dust"

These were not classic "controlled demolitions", exemplified by the destruction of WTC-7, but "demolitions under control", intended to preserve the dyke-like "bathtub", which was designed to keep Hudson River water from flooding beneath lower Manhattan, the most valuable real estate in the world, including the subway and PATH train tunnels, which had to be avoided at all cost.  They even used massive explosions in the subbasements to drain the sprinkler systems of water to insure that they did not extinguish the very modest fires that remained after the alleged "jet fuel" was consumed in those spectacular fireballs.  You do not have to be a rocket scientist to know that 9/11 was "an inside job" and not the act of 19 Arab fanatics.

Click here: "RT: '9/11 was an inside job'"

I was therefore gratified to discover that Abby Martin of Russia Today had taken on Rachel Maddow and explained her roll as a shill for 9/11, which is exactly right.  Among the absurd arguments she presents is that 9/11 Truthers find conspiracy theories "psychologically reassuring", as though the belief that your very own government is conspiring to murder thousands of your fellow citizens brings with it a "sense of relief" that it wasn't actually a group of Islamic fundamentalists who were acting under the control of a guy in a cave in Afghanistan!

As virtually everyone should know, the situation is precisely the opposite. Information that threatens our core beliefs--such as that the government is nurturing and protecting us--are normally suppressed and denied as a function of cognitive dissonance. It is the primary reason that so many Americans resist 9/11 Truth. If I needed any more proof that Rachel Maddow is a shill for 9/11, that has now done it for me. And she is not the only one peddling psychological rubbish, because it is also being done by shills for The Warren Report (1964) about the assassination of JFK, as I discovered from an article in the LA Times.

PBS has run a special, "Cold Case: JFK", which is aimed at undermining conspiracy theories about JFK.  One of those it touts is John McAdams, a notorious "lone nutter", who proclaims that JFK was "killed by "one guy with a grudge and a gun".  In response to a reporters question about those who may fell that he has sold out to the "official account" of JFK, McAdams claims that people prefer to believe in conspiracies:
That's because conspiracy theories make people feel safe, said McAdams. "There are a lot of advantages in believing in a conspiracy theory. People are proud to say, 'I'm skeptical, I don’t buy the official version,'" he said. "People don’t feel comfortable believing that small, trivial causes -- or sheer accident -- can change history. They'd rather believe that dark forces are at work."
The PBS special also maintains that "science" shows that JFK could have been hit twice with the Mannlicher-Carcano from the 6th floor of the Book Depository and that the so-called "magic bullet" theory is defensible, in response to which I posted this reply: Response on magic bullet

Which shows that their knowledge of human anatomy is no greater than their knowledge of human psychology. If anyone really believes that the belief that our lives is dominated by powerful special interests who can even remove the President of the United States in broad daylight in a major American city is psychologically "more comforting" than the belief that it was done by a lone, demented gunman, I would be astonished. 

But that is the song and dance that Rachael Maddow and John McAdams are bringing us in lieu of rational analysis based on logic and evidence, where Rachel has gone further by also shilling for Obama and Biden, which others have addressed.

 Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth.