126 posts in this topic

Nice try.

First: Guilt by association is a logical fallacy.

Second, as Pat well knows, Fetzer and I had a major falling out many years ago. He is not my friend nor do I subscribe to his theories. These days he rarely, if ever, makes worthwhile contributions, but they are so few and far between that they are mostly non-existent.

Michael, have you ever studied basic logic? If you have, then you already know that such an argument is not sound reasoning.

Also see my post: Fetzer and Guilt by Association

This isn't the full story, Greg. As you well remember, Fetzer tried to become the straw that stirs the CT drink. He published a couple of anthologies, and then began claiming everyone who contributed to his anthologies was the top expert on this and the top expert on that. He then used used the supposed expert status of his "all-stars" to bully and berate everyone who disagreed with him. He liked to pretend, moreover, that his experts were all in agreement on anything of substance. He would then use their purported like-mindedness as an argument for their accuracy.

But the center would not hold. He kept expanding his family of experts to the point many of them were in conflict with one another. Doug Horne strongly disagreed with Jack White re 9/11. John Costella fell out over Fetzer's support of Doug Horne. Jack White and David Lifton fell out over Fetzer's support of Judyth Baker. And you fell out, finally, over his support of Ralph Cinque. I think Cinque then fell out over ??? (I really don't care.) But the point is that, outside of Mantik, who never broke away from Fetzer, you were one of the last to leave, and only did so when Fetzer insulted you personally.

For years and years, you sat by while your friend Fetzer pushed all sorts of crazy/sloppy nonsense on this forum, while attacking those who weren't falling for it (e.g. Tink Thompson, myself) as being either CIA shills or incompetent know-nothings. I'm not one to hold grudges. I would go out with you and get a burger right now if you wanted to shoot the shirt. But the fact is that you chose to associate yourself with Fetzer for a very long time, and for a very long time after it was obvious to the rest of us that he was both a bully and an extremely sloppy researcher.

You can't just walk away from that. Your association with Fetzer has had a negative effect on your credibility. With me, and I'm sure with many others.

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks to me like Greg downplays the ridges that apparently should be on occipital bone (by hypothesizing that osteoporosis could have remodeled the skull), and Pat does the opposite (by posting a drawing that emphasizes the ridges).

(I don't believe Pat chose the drawing in order to trick people, but rather because the ridges can be hard to see in a photo.)

As one who had sided with Greg on this issue, I find it it disconcerting that he (or one of his doctor friends) has had to go into apology mode to keep his theory afloat. I think it is a stretch to add to it the hypothetical element of osteoporotic remodeling.

However, my position on this is far from being flipped. Because just as I see Greg in apology mode on the occipital ridge issue, Pat has long been in apology mode on the numerous medical personnel who saw the back-of-head blowout.

I've wondered if the Harper fragment was planted, in front of the limo, in order to support the single shooter theory. If anything, what I've witnessed here makes me consider that possibility more seriously.

That's my opinion, FWIW.

Hi Sandy

The location the Harper fragment was found has always been the fly in the ointment that Lone Nut supporters have used to deny its possibility of being occipital bone. It just makes sense; how could a bone from the back of the head be found in front of the limo's position at z313?

Want to read something REALLY interesting? It's known as Warren Commission Document 298. Here is a link to it:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10699

It seems the FBI believed Connally was shot in the back at about the z313 position, and the fatal head shot occurred when the limo was almost at the steps of the pergola, approximately 45 feet further down Elm St. than the z313 position (see visual aid on Page 26).

Wow, that is crazy!

But maybe not so crazy after all. I mean, didn't the FBI have to watch the Zapruder film to come to these conclusions on when the shots were fired? If so, wouldn't this exhibit be a strong indicator that the Z film has since been altered? I should think so.

Now you're getting it! Remember, crazy is as crazy does, and the only thing limiting us is our ability to be amazed.

NEVER stop thinking outside of the box, my friend. :)

You missed it, Bob. Thinking the film was altered just because the FBI came to some curious conclusions IS thinking inside the box. The CT box, anyhow. The fact is that the SS, using the Z-film, placed the head shot at its current location within a few days of the shooting...and then MOVED it down the road a few weeks later, once they were tasked with giving specifics to their three shots three hits solution. The FBI then followed suit.

They were then made to retreat from this by the WC's staff, which had come to realize the inconsistency of the SS and FBI re-enactments with the films the re-enactments were purportedly based upon. The SS and FBI, using the same films, helped the WC perform a new re-enactment on 5-24-64 and came to quite different conclusions.

So why were the SS and FBI shooting scenarios so wrong? Well, context is everything. One possibility is that when these re-enactments were performed, in December '63, the SS and FBI were under the impression the WC was just gonna sign off on their reports. They had no idea anyone was gonna double-check their work. They presumed, moreover, that there were three shots three hits. Well, this lowered the shooting sequence down to less than six seconds. It seems possible, then, that in December 1963 the SS and FBI were concerned that the films depicted a shooting sequence at odds with Oswald's being the sole assassin, and chose to conceal this fact by pretending the final shot came when the limousine was much further down the road than it really was.

And then there's another possibility. Many of the early witness statements suggested there was a shot after the head shot. It seems possible, then, that the third shot coming further down the road in these scenarios was originally supposed to represent a third shot miss, but that SS and FBI bureaucrats intervened to change it to being a third shot hit, so that the shooting scenario would not be at odds with the recollections of Governor Connally. (Now that's thinking outside the box!)

This is discussed in great detail in chapters 2 and 2b at patspeer.com.

Suuuure, Pat, that must be the answer. Those pesky FBI and SS devils, what won't they try to get away with when no one is watching?

Let me guess, not enough time for three shots so they moved the first shot back up near the corner and called it 8 seconds, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The location of the fatal head shot is clear when one studies the films. It was just past the Newmans. No one honestly disputes that. So how could both the SS and FBI place the shot well past its actual location, after initially getting it right, and closely studying the films?

They couldn't, IMO. As a consequence, I suspect they lied about the location for a reason.

Now, I went round and round over this with Tom Purvis. For years. He refused to believe the SS and FBI would lie about something in their reports, and felt certain it was Specter and the WC who lied when they said the head shot was at 265 ft. He claimed the third shot just after the head shot was in fact the Connally shot. When I found the early SS and FBI reports in which the shooting sequence was identified, in which it was claimed the second shot hit Connally and the third shot was the head shot, he couldn't handle it.

The SS and FBI reports were lies. The WC's job was to make these lies palatable for a skeptical public. Thus, the May 24 1964 re-enactment. Thus, the single-bullet theory.

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Mary Ann Moorman, she heard the first shot as she took her famous photo. She then heard two more shots after she took her photo.

James "Ike" Altgen, an experienced journalistic photographer, testified to the Warren Commission he was no more than 15 feet from JFK at the moment of the fatal head shot, yet he is not seen in this position until z350.

z350.jpg

He is nowhere near JFK at z313.

z313.jpg

Assuming the limo was travelling 12 mph or 17.6 feet per second, we should be able to calculate the distance between z313 and z350, also assuming Zapruder's camera was exposing 18.3 frames per second.

350 - 313 = 37 frames.

37 / 18.3 = 2.02.

2.02 x 17.6 = 35.52

This is not the additional 42 feet further down Elm St. claimed by the FBI in WCD 298, but Altgens definitely places the limo much further down than the Zapruder film shows us. Altgens also heard the first shot at almost the precise moment he took the famous Altgens 6 photo below, which corresponds to frame z255 of the Zapruder film.

6884068061_2f16033d7c.jpg

Here is the full testimony of James Altgens to the WC.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/altgens.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't just walk away from that.

I most certainly can and I have!

Pat Speer said: Your association with Fetzer has had a negative effect on your credibility. With me, and I'm sure with many others.

Guilt by association is not logical, but that has never stopped you before.

Rather than address the many issues you are now engaged in yet another fallacy: Poisoning the Well.

You may as well claim that: "Since Burnham once was associated with Fetzer, there is no need to consider his arguments, as they must be flawed."

You have again succeeded in redirecting the topic away from your inability or unwillingness to address the issues.

Edited by Greg Burnham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't just walk away from that.

I most certainly can and I have!

Pat Speer said: Your association with Fetzer has had a negative effect on your credibility. With me, and I'm sure with many others.

Guilt by association is not logical, but that has never stopped you before.

Rather than address the many issues you are now engaged in yet another fallacy: Poisoning the Well.

You may as well claim that: "Since Burnham once was associated with Fetzer, there is no need to consider his arguments, as they must be flawed."

You have again succeeded in redirecting the topic away from your inability or unwillingness to address the issues.

It's not a fallacy, Greg, as the "guilt" to which I referred was not the "guilt" of your associates, but your own. You were a Fetzer cheerleader. You remained a Fetzer cheerleader until his bullying turned on you and your family. You then distanced yourself from Fetzer. That's fine.

But you still emulate his behavior. It's like Frank Sinatra, Jr. touring with his dad's band. He can't help himself.

In case you can't recognize this in yourself, here's the M.O.

1. You start threads on the Forum pushing the findings of people who are not members of the forum.

2. You then serve as a go-between and cheerleader between these non-members and the forum, when these non-members should simply join the forum if they want to comment here.

3. When the thread starts to go astray, you chastise those throwing in their own two cents, who take the focus off your intended subject of discussion, or intended target.

4. You then start a new thread with a slightly different slant. This both increases the exposure of whatever or whoever you're championing, and decreases the exposure of those who've already responded in a way that damages the cause you are championing.

4. When someone opposing your champion makes a point that seriously damages the cause you are championing, you obfuscate and dodge with desperate arguments, such as claiming the use of an anatomy drawing (as opposed to a photo) is misleading.

5. When the person you are championing responds to a point in a manner acknowledging the validity of the point, such as Mantik's agreeing that the Harper fragment fails to show the "sulcus" or at least the "sulcus" one would expect from looking at anatomy drawings and photos, and wondering if this isn't because Addison disease had "remodeled" his skull, you fail to present this point, and acknowledge that your champion has conceded anything. (And that you were blowing smoke in your earlier response.)

6. When someone responds to your bullying in a manner not to your liking, moreover, you insist that this opponent is "intellectually dishonest" or has committed the "fallacy" of this or that.

(This last one is vintage Fetzer, btw. If you're trying to be your own man, you need to stop walking in his shoes, and wearing his clothes. How can you not see this?)

So, here's the challenge, Greg. If you don't want to be tainted by your long-time association with Fetzer, stop emulating him.

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geez. I feel like I'm in a debate with Trump, Cruz, or Hillary!

I will address each of your points above if / when you address the many red items in the article, which is the only subject that this thread is about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Mary Ann Moorman, she heard the first shot as she took her famous photo. She then heard two more shots after she took her photo.

James "Ike" Altgen, an experienced journalistic photographer, testified to the Warren Commission he was no more than 15 feet from JFK at the moment of the fatal head shot, yet he is not seen in this position until z350.

z350.jpg

He is nowhere near JFK at z313.

z313.jpg

Assuming the limo was travelling 12 mph or 17.6 feet per second, we should be able to calculate the distance between z313 and z350, also assuming Zapruder's camera was exposing 18.3 frames per second.

350 - 313 = 37 frames.

37 / 18.3 = 2.02.

2.02 x 17.6 = 35.52

This is not the additional 42 feet further down Elm St. claimed by the FBI in WCD 298, but Altgens definitely places the limo much further down than the Zapruder film shows us. Altgens also heard the first shot at almost the precise moment he took the famous Altgens 6 photo below, which corresponds to frame z255 of the Zapruder film.

6884068061_2f16033d7c.jpg

Here is the full testimony of James Altgens to the WC.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/altgens.htm

Those pushing that the film is fake and that the head shot happened just in front of Altgens (because Altgens said so) inevitably avoid that Altgens long insisted that 1) all the shots came from behind; 2) there was a lot of blood on the front of the head (he mistakenly claims the left side of the head); and 3) all the ejecta from the fatal shot came forward and at him (an impossibility if the fatal shot came from the front and exploded out the back of Kennedy's head). He is a mixed witness, at best.

From patspeer.com, chapter 7:

James Altgens can be seen in Zapruder frame 345 just to the east of Malcolm Summers. (11-22-63 eyewitness account, presented as an AP dispatch and published in Cover-Up) "There was a burst of noise - the second one I heard - and pieces of flesh appeared to fly from President Kennedy's car. Blood covered the whole left side of his head. Mrs. Kennedy saw what had happened to her husband. She grabbed him exclaiming, "Oh, No!". The car's driver realized what had happened and almost as if by reflex speeded up towards the Stemmons Expressway. There seemed to be utter confusion. One motorcycle officer ran his cycle into the curb, almost falling off. Police came from everywhere as the President's car disappeared from sight. At first I thought the shots came from the opposite side of the street. I ran over there to see if I could get some pictures. But it turned out to be just more confusion. Police ran in all directions in search of the assassin. I did not know until later where the shots came from. I was on the opposite side of the President's car from the gunman. He might have hit me. The motorcade was moving along in routine fashion until there was a noise like fireworks popping. I snapped a picture of the motorcade at just about that time, still unaware of what was happening. I cranked my camera for another shot. The procession still moved along slowly. Then came the second burst of noise." (11-22-63 AP report preceding the announcement of Kennedy's death and found in the Frederick Maryland News) "AP Photographer James W. Altgens said he saw blood on the President's head. Altgens said he heard two shots but thought someone was shooting fireworks until he saw the blood on the President. Altgens said he saw no one with a gun." (11-22-63 news bulletin on WBAP, shortly after the AP report) "The Associated Press reports from Dallas that President Kennedy was shot today just as his motorcade left the downtown section. Mrs. Kennedy is said to have jumped up and grabbed her husband and cried "Oh, no!" as the motorcade sped off. Photographer J.W. Altgens of the Associated Press said that he saw blood on the President's head. The photographer said he heard two shots but thought someone was shooting fireworks until he saw the blood on the President. He said he saw no one with a gun." (11-22-63 announcement on WFAA that the President had been shot) “An Associated Press photographer, James Altgens…reports he saw blood on the President’s head. The AP man said he heard two shots but that he thought someone was shooting fireworks until he saw blood on the President.” (5-24-64 article in the New York Herald-Tribune) "I was about 30 feet in front of the President's limousine on Mrs. Kennedy's side. I remember hearing what I thought was a firecracker at the instant I snapped the picture. I was going to make another picture, the one I was really set up for, when I realized what had happened and I froze, aghast." (6-5-64 FBI report, CD 1088 p.1-6) “at about the instant he snapped the picture, he heard a burst of noise which he thought was firecrackers… he does not know how many of these reports he heard…After taking the above photograph…he heard another report which he recognized as a gunshot. He said the bullet struck President Kennedy on the right side of his head and the impact knocked the President forward. Altgens stated pieces of flesh, blood, and bones appeared to fly from the right side of the President’s head and pass in front of Mrs. Kennedy to the left of the Presidential limousine. Altgens stated Mrs. Kennedy grabbed the President and Altgens heard her exclaim “Oh, no!” as the president slumped into her lap. Altgens said he also observed blood on the left side of the President’s head and face.”

(7-22-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 7H517-525) “I made one picture at the time I heard a noise that sounded like a firecracker—I did not know it was a shot, but evidently my picture, as I recall, and it was almost simultaneously with the shot—the shot was just a fraction ahead of my picture, but that much—of course—at that time I figured it was nothing more than a firecracker, because from my position down here the sound was not of such volume that it would indicate to me it was a high velocity rifle…it sounded like it was coming up from behind the car from my position—I mean the first shot, and being fireworks—who counts fireworks explosions? I wasn’t keeping track of the number of pops that took place, but I could vouch for number 1 and I can vouch for the last shot, but I can not tell you how many shots were in between. There was not another shot after the President was struck in the head. That was the last shot--that much I will say with a great degree of certainty.” (When asked how he could be certain it was the last shot) "Because, having heard these shots and then having seen the damage that was done on this shot to the President's head, I was aware at that time that shooting was taking place and there was not a shot--I looked--I looked because I knew the shot had to come from either over here, if it were close range, or had to come from a high-powered rifle." (When asked where he meant by "over here") "The left side of the car." (When asked if that meant the little street running in front of the school book depository, the Elm Street extension, presumably behind the knoll) "Somewhere in that direction, yes, sir. But if it were a pistol it would have to be fired at close range for any degree of accuracy and there was no one in that area that I could see with any firearms, so I looked back up in this area." (When asked if "this area" meant the buildings at Houston and Elm, including the depository.) "Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at the time----well, he was in a position-- sort of immobile. He wasn't upright. He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have just lodged--it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head. Also, the fact that his head was covered with blood, the hairline included, on the left side all the way down, with no blood on his forehead or face--- suggested to me, too, that the shot came from the opposite side, meaning in the direction of this Depository Building, but at no time did I know for certain where the shot came from." (On the head shot) “up to that time I didn’t know that the President had been shot previously. I still thought up until that time that all I heard was fireworks and that they were giving some sort of celebration to the President by popping these fireworks. It stunned me so at what I saw that I failed to do my duty and make the picture I was hoping to make. The car never did stop. It was proceeding along in a slow pace and I stepped out in the curb area and made another picture as the Secret Service man stepped upon the rear step of the Presidential car and went to Mrs. Kennedy's aid and then after that I immediately crossed the street and once again I was looking to see if I could find anything in this area of Elm and Houston Streets that would suggest to me where the shot came from. Moreover, I was interested in knowing whether or not somebody else had been struck by a bullet or one of the bullets in this area. I saw that no one else had been hit.”

(Interview with CBS broadcast 6-26-67) “As I was getting ready to make some pictures why I heard this noise-- I thought it was a firecracker explosion—but I just went ahead and made the picture which shows the President right after he was struck by a bullet, struck in the neck, the first shot, and this was the picture that the Warren Report later fixed as being made two seconds after the shot was fired. And as they got in close to me, I was prepared to make the picture—I had my camera about at eye level—that’s when the President was shot in the head. And I do know that the President was still in an upright position, tilted, favoring Mrs. Kennedy. And at the time that he was struck by this blow to the head, it was so obvious that it came from behind. It had to come from behind because it caused him to bolt forward, dislodging him from this depression in the seat cushion, and already favoring Mrs. Kennedy, he automatically fell in that direction.” (Interview presented as part of radio show Thou Shalt Not Kill, on Canadian radio station CTFR. broadcast 5-10-76. Transcript provided by Randy Owen on the JFK Lancer Forum, 6-29-10) "I was watching the President and was prepared to make a picture of he and Jackie Kennedy, a good, closeup, smiling picture of them. At the time, Jackie was looking at me and John Kennedy was almost staring straight ahead--no expression, no smile, hardly any emotion showing at all--and just as I raised my camera to go ahead and make the picture anyway, although he wasn't looking at me, well then, that's when he received the shot in the head and this disturbed me so much I just stood there looking at the whole operation... The caravan never did stop, but if it ever came close to stopping it was right at that point. And as I turned and made the picture of the Secret Service man going up to help Jackie back into the limousine, I heard someone on the radio say, "We've been hit. Get us to the nearest hospital quick." And that's when they threw into high gear and took off." (11-21-93 Reporters Remember conference, as shown on C-Span) (On the first shot) "I made a picture--you probably have seen it--where John Kennedy is grabbing his throat... (On the head shot) "His head when it exploded sent a signal to everybody that there was a gun being fired from some source. And when the fragments came over and some of it falling at my feet, it was very, very real...When John Kennedy was hit by this bullet that obliterated the back of his head--and it did come from the rear, there was no question about it, because the movement of the body...But here is what's important--as John Kennedy was falling down into Jackie Kennedy's lap, there was no blood on the right hand side of his face, there was no blood on the front of his face, but there was a tremendous amount of blood on the left hand side, and at the back of the head..." (On the crowd's racing towards the knoll) "I got over on the other side, thinking perhaps that they had run the assassin up into that corner. I knew it had to be coming from the rear. So I figured they had scouted him out and the guy was on the run." (No More Silence, p.41-59, published 1998) “I only recall the President hit once that I can vouch for because that first camera shot… made any definite conclusion uncertain. But this particular one where he was hit, the head shot, was obvious to everyone that it was a shooting, not fireworks. I don’t know how many shots there were. If I were guessing, I would figure that was probably the third shot. In other words, he was hit when I was taking the picture, and the fatal shot should have been somewhere around the third shot, and that should have been the last… The tissue, perhaps bone, a lot of fragments, all came my way… But the majority of the mass that was coming from his head came directly like a straight shot out my way on to the left in a straight line. When he fell over into her lap, the blood was on the left side of his face. There was no blood on the right hand side which suggested to me that the wound was more to the left than it was to the right.”

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thanks to Robert Prudhomme for bringing Warren Commission Document 298 to my attention, and to Jim DiEugenio for putting it in context with the April 27th memo from Redlich to Rankin.

And again thanks to Robert for helping me make sense of it all by posting information gathered from the testimony of Mary Moorman and James Altgens, which places the the limo for the first and final shots (sans Z-film dependency).. If I understand correctly, Moorman's testimony agrees with Altgens' regarding the first shot, and this gives me confidence in their testimony.

But there is one thing I'm not sure I understand correctly. According to both Moorman's and Altgens' testimony, the first shot occurred when the scene was as depicted in Z-frame 255. Okay, so they agree with each other. Problem is, JFK had already been hit prior that. Right? The Z-film has JFK being shot more than 1 1/2 seconds earlier. Of course, the Z-film could be wrong. But if we consider only Moorman's photo, JFK had to have reacted very quickly to the shot.

The problem with this hypothesis is that one has to figure out from where the extant Z-film got its frames depicting Kennedy bringing his hands up toward his throat just before slumping. Moorman shows only the slumping part.

Am I understanding this correctly? (This question is directed only to those who believe the Z-film has been altered.)

(Sorry Greg for going off topic. Though it sounds like you've given up on Pat.)

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From patspeer.com, chapter 7:

Mary Moorman was on the south side of Elm across from the Newmans, and to the east of Toni Foster. She can be seen in the Zapruder film, Nix film, and Muchmore film, as well as stills such as the Bond photo. She took a picture of Kennedy a split second after the impact of the head shot. (11-22-63 article in the Dallas Times-Herald) "Mrs. Moorman, who snapped a picture just at the time the President was shot, and said: 'I took the picture exactly at the moment the shot rang out. My Polaroid shows Kennedy slumped over in the car and it shows Jackie leaning towards him. I heard Mrs. Kennedy say 'My God, he's been shot.' I heard another shot or two and I turned to my friend and we got on the ground.'" (3:16 PM 11-22-63 WBAP TV interview, available on Youtube) (When asked why she took the photo at that moment) “That was the only chance I had. Mine is a Polaroid and I can only take one every ten seconds, and that was at that time whenever I took it. (When asked if she'd realized he'd been shot when she took the picture) "No I didn't. I must have snapped it immediately when he slumped, cause in the picture that’s the way she’s there and he’s slumped over.” (When asked if she'd seen the shooter) "No, I had taken the picture. And then the shots. And I decided it was time to fall on the ground." (3:30 PM 11-22-63 KRLD interview, as transcribed by David Lifton and posted on the Education Forum, 6-30-11) (When asked if she took her Polaroid picture before or after the first shot) “Evidently, just immediately, as the… Cause he was, he was looking, you know, whenever I got the camera focused and then I snapped it in my picture, he slumped over.” (When asked how far way she was from Kennedy at this time) “10 or 15 foot, I, no, more (unint) because I fell behind my camera.” (When asked where she was standing) “Just a few feet from the underpass" (When asked if she was by the grassy bank) "Yes, that's where we were and I stepped out in the street. We were right at the car.” (When asked if she saw any suspicious persons) "Yeah, of course, I have, I was just uh you know (unclear word) my camera, and when I took that the shots had rang out, and I wasn’t looking around." (When asked how many shots she heard) “Oh, oh, I don’t know. I think three or four is what I, uh, that I heard…that I’m sure of. Now, I don’t know, there might have been more. It just took seconds for me to realize what was happening. (When asked Kennedy’s response to the first shot.) “He grabbed his chest, and, of course, Mrs. Kennedy jumped up immediately and fell over him, and she said “My God, he’s been shot.” (When asked the reactions of others) “Uh, they hesitated just for a moment ‘cause I think they were like I was, you know—'Was that a shot or was it just a backfire, or just what?' And then, of course, he clutched himself and they immediately sped up, real fast, you know, like to get out of there. And, uh the police, there were several motorcycles around him, and uh, they stopped, and uh—one or two must have went with him. And one ran up the hill, and a friend that was with me ran up the hill across the street, from where the shots came from.” (When asked if the shots sounded loud) "Yes, they did. Just like a firecracker going off..." (When asked if they seemed close by) "Yes, uh huh." (When asked where the shots came from) “Oh, (unintelligible, 'Lord' or possibly 'North') Just back there.” (When asked if this meant the shots were fired toward her) “Yes, sir... The sound popped, well it just sounded like, well, you know, there might have been a firecracker right there in the car.” (When asked again if her picture was taken before the shot) “Evidently, at the minute that is, that it hit him because, uh, he was, he was looking, at me, or I mean, he was looking, you know, at the people when (or “whenever”) my picture came out. They just, just slumped over, so I must have got it. (words, unintelligible).” (When asked if this is shown in her picture) “Yes, uh huh. You could (unint) he’s clutched. He’s bent over, and she’s…and she hadn’t even gotten up in my picture, and she did get up, stood up, in the car.”

(11-22-63 WFAA interview, as quoted in Pictures of the Pain) “My picture when I took it was at the same instant that the President was hit, and that does show in my picture…it shows the President, uh, he slumped…It all happened so suddenly, I don’t think anyone realized, you know, what had happened.” (About the shots) “There was three or four real close together, and it must have been the first one that shot him, ‘cause that was the time I took the picture, and during that time after I took the picture, and the shots were still being fired, I decided I better get on the ground. I was no more than 15 foot from the car, and in the line of fire, evidently.” (11-22-63 statement to Dallas Sheriff’s Department, 19H487, 24H217) “As President Kennedy was opposite me, I took a picture of him. As I snapped the picture of President Kennedy, I heard a shot ring out. President Kennedy kind of slumped over. Then I heard another shot ring out and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and said “My God, he has been shot!” When I heard these shots ring out, I fell to the ground to keep from being hit myself. I heard three or four shots in all.” (11-23-63 FBI, report, 22H838) “She took a second photograph of the President as his automobile passed her, and just as she snapped the picture, she heard what she first thought was a firecracker and very shortly thereafter heard another similar sound which she later determined to have been gunfire. She knows that she heard two shots and possibly a third shot. She recalls seeing the President sort of “jump” and start to slump sideways in the seat, and seems to recall President Kennedy’s wife scream “My God, he’s been shot!...She recalls that the President’s car was moving at the time she took the second picture, and when she heard the shots, and has the impression that the car either stopped momentarily or hesitated and then drove off in a hurry.” (Interview with CBS, aired 9-27-64) I stepped out into the street. So, I took the camera and aimed it, uh, focused it. And I stood there and looked through it for quite a few seconds, since I wanted to be sure that they were looking at me. And uh, I followed it, for, oh, so many seconds, and then I did take the picture." (Later, on Kennedy's reaction to being hit) "His arm flew up, and you know, his hair kind of jumped." (A more complete version of the same interview, as transcribed by former CBS employee Roger Feinman, and reported in his online article The Closest Living Witness, 1999) "And as they neared where we were standing, I stepped in the street in order to get a closer picture of him, and I...turned the camera I was focusing it was, oh, guess, three or four seconds that I moved with the car in order to be sure that I was getting a real clear picture for my son. And the moment that I snapped the picture was the moment of the first shot --- that’s when he was hit. He slumped at that very instant. And I stepped back up on the curb in time enough to see him shot again. He – his arm flew up and you know, his hair kind of jumped. And my first thought was, there’s a firecracker in the car and the way he jumped and moved, well, he’s trying to get away from the firecracker. And there was another shot, and I told my friend, I said, Jean, they shooting something. Get down. And I whirled around and fell and by then of course the shots were all over, and just pandemonium. Everybody was running in all directions. And I looked and Jean was gone. She had took off across the street, and I ran across to catch her and nearly ran over by a policeman, who was trying to get off his motorcycle.”

(2-15-69 testimony in the trial of Clay Shaw) “as the Presidential limousine approached me I stepped forward to observe closer in order to take a picture, that is what I planned to do and just what I did....I heard three noises and they sounded like firecrackers.” (1997 interview on KRLD, as posted online by Debra Conway) "Uh, just immediately before the presidential car came into view, we were, you know, there was just tremendous excitement. And my friend who was with me ( Jean Hill ) we were right ready to take the picture. And she's not timid. She, as the car approached us, she did holler for the president. 'Mr. President, look this way!' And I stepped out off the curb into the street to take the picture and snapped it immediately. And that evidently was the first shot. You know I could hear the sound. and…" (When asked if she recognized it as a rifle shot) "Oh no. A firecracker, maybe. There was another one just immediately following which I still thought was a firecracker. And then I stepped back up on to the grassy area. I guess just, people were falling around us, you know. Knowing something was wrong. I certainly didn't know what was wrong”. (Appearance in Discovery Channel program Unsolved History: Death in Dealey Plaza, first aired 2-26-2003. Transcript provided by James Fetzer) (Moorman is standing on the grass where she is seen in the Zapruder film) "I just stepped to the, uh, to the edge here, and Jean is hollering, "Look Mr. President, look our way!" and then I snapped the picture, which was at the same instant, evidently, as the bullet hit him, not realizing that's what had happened. But I did hear a noise, and then I could see people around me falling to the ground, or running, and doing--and that led me to know that something was happening." (April, 2007 interview on KRLD) (When asked how many shots she heard) "I heard three." (When asked what they sounded like) "I stepped up to snap a picture and at the instant that I snapped a picture there was a shot. And I know I stepped back a few steps and another shot. And then there was another one shortly in a matter of seconds...The first two were closer together than the last one." (News interview found on youtube, in which Moorman discusses deciding to sell her photograph, 2008) "My thought was those are firecrackers, not shots." (When discussing her photograph) "It just so happened it was the same instant that he was hit. And that was the first shot." (On the possibility there was a shooter in front of Kennedy, on the knoll) "Whether there was or not, we may not ever know."

(5-24-11 interview conducted live on iantique.com) (When asked if she'd stepped out into the street to take a photograph of motorcycle officer McBride, before Kennedy's arrival) "Yes." (When asked if she'd stepped out into the street to take a picture of a second motorcycle officer, George Lumpkin) "Yes, I did, because he was in the middle of the street." (When describing the shooting) "I had been in the street to take the picture of Lumpkin. When the limousine turned the corner, it was coming towards me and I focused--I don't know if I focused--but I looked in the camera to watch the car as it approached, and uh looking up the area, waiting for him to get close enough and Jean hollered 'Mr. President look this way, we want to take a picture!' As I thought he was where I wanted it to be, I snapped the picture. And at the same time I snapped the picture I heard a sound. And I just uh, I had my picture taken, I was not holding the camera in front of my face. And I heard two more sounds, which I thought were firecrackers." (When asked if she'd stepped into the street to take the photo of Kennedy) "I'm pretty sure that I had stepped back just onto the very edge of the curb, to get off the street, onto the grass." (When asked again about the first shot) "I heard that while the camera was still up in my face. I heard a noise. I heard a sound." (When asked about this shot in comparison to her taking her picture.) "At the same time... Seconds or...awfully quick." (When asked if she heard a second shot.) "I did. Immediately. It was like Pow...Pow Pow. Y'know it was that quick. And, this second shot, I was looking at this man, and my thought was 'I saw his hair jump.' Well, it was his head, y'know, the hair." (When asked if she thought he'd been hit by the first shot) "Yes." (And the second shot.) "Not sure about the second shot other than that I did see something happen to him." (When asked about a third shot.) "I heard three shots." (When asked to confirm that she didn't hear the two shots prior to the head shot described by most writers) "That's right. I guess not. And if there was a first shot, I don't think I would stand there and then take a picture, knowing that I'd heard something." (When asked if she could have been mistaken about the sounds.) "Well, yes, I thought they were firecrackers. I did not know there was a gunshot, no." (When asked if the motorcycles had been backfiring) "No." (When asked if the limo slowed down.) "It slowed down almost if not to a stop, and I saw Jackie. She hollered 'Oh, my God, he's been shot!' I heard that. And I saw her start to climb out over that car." (When asked when the limo slowed down) "After all the shots. There was no more shots." (When asked if she had a sense where the shots had come from.) "I did not." (When asked if she'd seen any shots hit the windshield.) "No, I did not. (Or the pavement.) "No, I did not." (When asked if she had a sense that some of what she'd heard were echoes.) "No, I didn't. I'm not accustomed to hearing shots." (When asked about Jean Hill's claim in her book that a SS agent stole Mary's photos from her--Jean Hill's--pocket.) "It didn't happen." (When asked whether Jean Hill had ever mentioned to her that she'd seen smoke or a man with a rifle on the grassy knoll--as she was later to claim.) "No, she did not." (When asked if she'd noticed anything on 11-22-63 that she now considers suspicious.) "I have no idea." (When asked why she didn't testify before the Warren Commission) "I just told them that I'd turned my ankle and couldn't go, and I never heard from them ever again." (On whether she thinks the Zapruder film coincides with her recollections) "Not really. I appreciate it...It does show that I was there." (If she has an opinion on whether there was more than one shooter.) "No. But I believe there's a whole lot more to the story than what's been told. I don't know about how many shooters or don't really care other than to know for sure what's happened." (Interview of Moorman shown in The Kennedy Half-Century, first broadcast on PBS, 11-4-13) "I'd stepped out into the street twice to take pictures of the motorcycle policemen...The car got closer to us and Jean yelled 'Mr. President, look this way' and about that time, I snapped the picture." (The camera then shows the Moorman photo) "That was the first shot that I heard. I heard Jackie--you know we were so close--and then she said 'Oh, my God, he's been shot.' Well, on the second shot that I heard, I thought how'd some of that man's hair jump? And I'll never forget that as long as I live. It was not his hair jumping, it was his head." (11-18-13 article on Moorman in the Richmond Times-Dispatch) "To this day, she is certain that it was the first shot that hit Kennedy’s head. 'It’s real vivid in my mind, exactly what I saw of what I felt like was taking place. I have not forgotten any of the details,' she said. When the Warren Commission concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman, Moorman wasn’t convinced. 'I really don’t know what exactly happened, but I do know there is bound to be a lot more to the story that hasn’t been told,' she said. 'I was hoping it would come out in my lifetime, but who knows. So much has been hidden by the government; anything can take place and it can be hidden. Oswald probably wasn’t a lone person, he probably had backers. I really do think it was a conspiracy,' she said." (Video accompanying the article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, presumably posted on its website on 11-18-13, and then posted on youtube via the JFK Assassination Forum, 11-20-13) "As it got closer to us, Jean hollered 'Look this way, Mr. President, we want to take your picture.' And then as it got closer to us, I put the camera up to my face, to focus, to be able to snap the picture when I thought it was time. And when I snapped the picture, I heard what I thought was a firecracker. And, then people, I could feel that people were falling on the ground and I really didn't know what was happening. But I guess in the second or third shot (I said) 'Get down, Jean, something is happening." And it was over with. We did hear Jackie holler "Oh my God, he's been shot!" And she started to climb out over the back of the car. We were right there, saw it, so close."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That memo I posted I think is really important.

Because, 1.) The WC had not decided on the SBT yet, and this is late April.

2.) Not just that, but they had the first shot at 190--which is where it belongs I think. But they then pushed it up to about 210.

But let me ask Pat:

1. Do you think there is a shot beyond 313?

2. Where do you think the Harper fragment belongs in JFK's skull? IF at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thanks to Robert Prudhomme for bringing Warren Commission Document 298 to my attention, and to Jim DiEugenio for putting it in context with the April 27th memo from Redlich to Rankin.

And again thanks to Robert for helping me make sense of it all by posting information gathered from the testimony of Mary Moorman and James Altgens, which places the the limo for the first and final shots (sans Z-film dependency).. If I understand correctly, Moorman's testimony agrees with Altgens' regarding the first shot, and this gives me confidence in their testimony.

But there is one thing I'm not sure I understand correctly. According to both Moorman's and Altgens' testimony, the first shot occurred when the scene was as depicted in Z-frame 255. Okay, so they agree with each other. Problem is, JFK had already been hit prior that. Right? The Z-film has JFK being shot more than 1 1/2 seconds earlier. Of course, the Z-film could be wrong. But if we consider only Moorman's photo, JFK had to have reacted very quickly to the shot.

The problem with this hypothesis is that one has to figure out from where the extant Z-film got its frames depicting Kennedy bringing his hands up toward his throat just before slumping. Moorman shows only the slumping part.

Am I understanding this correctly? (This question is directed only to those who believe the Z-film has been altered.)

(Sorry Greg for going off topic. Though it sounds like you've given up on Pat.)

Altgens corresponds with extant Z-film frame 255. Note Jackie's gloved hand grasping the president's left arm raised to his throat as seen through the limo windshield in Altgens 6. Then note the exact same hand position in the extant Z-film frame 255. It matches to a tee.

The Moorman photo corresponds to extant Z-film frame 312. Both of these can be easily confirmed with distinct corresponding "features" within both the still photos and the film frames respectively. As an example one can draw an imaginary straight line from the Z-lens POV to the Moorman lens that passes directly between the motor cop's torso and his motorcycle's windshield on the way to Moorman's lens. At the same time, one can draw a corresponding straight line from the reverse angle--from the Moorman lens POV to the Z-lens--that also passes directly between the motor cop's torso and his motorcycle windshield on its way to the Zapruder lens.

I hope that helps. I can post a graphic tomorrow if you want.

Edited by Greg Burnham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From patspeer.com, chapter 7:

2-26-2003. Transcript provided by James Fetzer) (Moorman is standing on the grass where she is seen in the Zapruder film) "I just stepped to the, uh, to the edge here, and Jean is hollering, "Look Mr. President, look our way!" and then I snapped the picture, which was at the same instant, evidently, as the bullet hit him, not realizing that's what had happened.

(Thanks for the Moorman quotes, Pat.)

Well this is odd. Moorman talks as though she is taking a picture of the president from the FRONT. Yet her famous photo shows Kennedy from BEHIND. What am I misunderstanding here?

Also, I thought she took the photo at the time of the first shot. Wikipedia says it was at Z313, and indeed the Moorman photo looks like ~Z312 but from the other side. (With Kennedy slumping and Jackie leaning over him.) Taking only the Moorman photo, the Z-film, and Moorman's testimony into consideration, it seems like she took the same shot as ~Z312, and somehow thought that what she heard was the FIRST shot, and that for some reason she heard a couple of shots after that.

Am I understanding this right? This is confusing.

EDIT: Greg answered my second question. (Thanks Greg!) But what about my first question?

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, who can see JFK's brains flying skyward in Moorman's Polaroid? Don't be shy, now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The problem with this hypothesis is that one has to figure out from where the extant Z-film got its frames depicting Kennedy bringing his hands up toward his throat just before slumping. Moorman shows only the slumping part."

The same way I created 3x the frame count for this extant zfilm span.

There were more to begin with.

Optical%20Flow.gif

Edited by Chris Davidson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now