www.defiorejfk.com ~ new website

[Anthony DeFiore]

Gentlemen, As I have read the discussion of how BDM continued to stand at the corner of the concrete wall during the entire assassination, I am having problems with a few things. 1) While Marilyn Sitzman noticed the black couple running behind the fence together, she doesn't mention a third person (BDM?) ~ If the man coming up the stairs after the shooting is the partner joined with the women that Sitzman is referring to, then where is BDM? Sitzman would have had to have seen all three of them there at some point and she would have had to have seen Gordon Arnold too. A bit crowded up there and she only sees the Black couple in her testimony to Josiah Thompson. 2) If BDM stayed at his position through out the assassination, Gordon Arnold did not testify to have had seen him nor did he try to apprehend him, 3) Badgeman could have never have made his shot at Z313 without hitting BDM, 4) the woman with the baby would have seen BDM shoot at the President and done nothing, 5) the men on the stairs never reacted to BDM shooting something at the President before Z313 (even a dart gun makes a sound or a vibration after it is shot and it is hard not to notice something, but no one on the stairs mentions this neither does Gordon Arnold), 6) Bill Newman does not say that anything came from behind him until Z313 and 7) no one has a photo of BDM nor testifies that he was there between Z202 to Z313. Occam's Razor: Maybe BDM walked down the stairs to stand there and watch JFK, then he turned around after the shot at Z313 buzzed over his shoulder and he then proceeded back up the steps to his partner (The woman with baby). Finally, Marilyn Sitzman verifies that she saw the couple run behind the wooden fence between Z313 and the end of the Z Film. Meanwhile, Abraham Zapruder does not react at all to the so called initial shot fired by BDM either.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Anthony DeFiore

[Ron Ecker]

Do we know the opinion of the person who took the photo? Did Willis ever say anything at all about BDM? The image seems so odd, so strikingly dark and out of place, compared to everything else in the photo. I have even wondered (I don't know the history of its handling) if the photo could have been altered. Could this strange image have been added just to muddy the waters? Granted, it seems highly unlikely, if the Z film also was altered. Why would the plotters want to muddy the waters with this image if they went to all the trouble of altering the Z film to support the lone nut scenario? It wouldn't make sense, But the image doesn't make sense either.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Ron Ecker

[Cliff Varnell]

Do we know the opinion of the person who took the photo? Did Willis ever say anything at all about BDM? The image seems so odd, so strikingly dark and out of place, compared to everything else in the photo. I have even wondered (I don't know the history of its handling) if the photo could have been altered. Could this strange image have been added just to muddy the waters? Granted, it seems highly unlikely, if the Z film also was altered. Why would the plotters want to muddy the waters with this image if they went to all the trouble of altering the Z film to support the lone nut scenario? It wouldn't make sense, But the image doesn't make sense either.

From the HSCA

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=40211

Rosemary Willis...noticed two persons who looked "conspicuous." One was a man near

the curb holding an umbrella, who appeared to be more concerned with opening and closing

the umbrella than dropping to the ground like everyone else at the time of the shots. The

other was a person who was standing just behind the concrete wall down by the triple

underpass. That person appeared to "disappear the next instant."

Phil Willis:

[T]he shot caused me to squeeze the camera shutter, and I got a picture of the President as he was hit with the first shot.

http://droberdeau.blogspot.com/2011/05/page-10.html

Who are you going to believe -- the people who were actually in the Plaza, or a bunch of Pet Theorists?

Edited February 18, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Thomas Graves]

Do we know the opinion of the person who took the photo? Did Willis ever say anything at all about BDM? The image seems so odd, so strikingly dark and out of place, compared to everything else in the photo. I have even wondered (I don't know the history of its handling) if the photo could have been altered. Could this strange image have been added just to muddy the waters? Granted, it seems highly unlikely, if the Z film also was altered. Why would the plotters want to muddy the waters with this image if they went to all the trouble of altering the Z film to support the lone nut scenario? It wouldn't make sense, But the image doesn't make sense either.

From the HSCA

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=40211

Rosemary Willis...noticed two persons who looked "conspicuous." One was a man near

the curb holding an umbrella, who appeared to be more concerned with opening and closing

the umbrella than dropping to the ground like everyone else at the time of the shots. The

other was a person who was standing just behind the concrete wall down by the triple

underpass. That person appeared to "disappear the next instant."

Phil Willis:

[T]he shot caused me to squeeze the camera shutter, and I got a picture of the President as he was hit with the first shot.

http://droberdeau.blogspot.com/2011/05/page-10.html

Who are you going to believe -- the people who were actually in the Plaza, or a bunch of Pet Theorists?

I don't suppose it's reasonable to assume that an innocent bystander (or bysitter) would automatically duck their head (and their baby) below the top of a wall upon hearing nearby gunfire?

Personally I'd much rather believe that "Black Dog Man" was a shooter. But I guess I'm just too open-minded.

--Tommy

[Ron Ecker]

I knew what Rosemary Willis had to say, but was curious has to what her father had to say about BDM in his photo. I guess my question is answered in the linked HSCA report section. It states that during his testimony Willis was not asked about the photo.

[Cliff Varnell]

Do we know the opinion of the person who took the photo? Did Willis ever say anything at all about BDM? The image seems so odd, so strikingly dark and out of place, compared to everything else in the photo. I have even wondered (I don't know the history of its handling) if the photo could have been altered. Could this strange image have been added just to muddy the waters? Granted, it seems highly unlikely, if the Z film also was altered. Why would the plotters want to muddy the waters with this image if they went to all the trouble of altering the Z film to support the lone nut scenario? It wouldn't make sense, But the image doesn't make sense either.

From the HSCA

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=40211

Rosemary Willis...noticed two persons who looked "conspicuous." One was a man near

the curb holding an umbrella, who appeared to be more concerned with opening and closing

the umbrella than dropping to the ground like everyone else at the time of the shots. The

other was a person who was standing just behind the concrete wall down by the triple

underpass. That person appeared to "disappear the next instant."

Phil Willis:

[T]he shot caused me to squeeze the camera shutter, and I got a picture of the President as he was hit with the first shot.

http://droberdeau.blogspot.com/2011/05/page-10.html

Who are you going to believe -- the people who were actually in the Plaza, or a bunch of Pet Theorists?

I don't suppose it's reasonable to assume that an innocent bystander (or bysitter) would automatically duck their head (and their baby) below the top of a wall upon hearing nearby gunfire?

Personally I'd much rather believe that "Black Dog Man" was a shooter. But I guess I'm just too open-minded.

--Tommy

Babies have a "distinct straight-line feature"?

[Cliff Varnell]

Well Gentlemen, it seems that you've read my paper a little bit. Let's get down to it. Willis#5 is synced at Z207. JFK was not hit yet. I believe that is the end of the debate there.

Anthony, it doesn't work that way.

Phil Willis said he took his fifth photo when gunfire made his finger take the shot.

Hugh Betzner said he heard a gun shot right after Betzner #3 (Z186).

In Betzner JFK sat bolt up-right.

In Willis JFK leaned to the left.

If it is synced to Z202, it proves the Z film is altered.

It's commonly accepted at Z202 but I'll pass on the subject.

Yes the shooter on the South Knoll planned to shoot JFK thru the windshield. It was not a bullet proof windshield, and a high powered rifle can blast right thru it with minimal deflection.

That doesn't square with the neck x-ray, which shows minimal damage.

After standing on the South Knoll and the corner of the concrete wing, it is a straight shot to JFK. I have photos in my paper. Also, with shots, IMHO, being taken from The County Building, Dal-Tex Building, (TSBD?), South Knoll and Grassy Knoll wooden fence, there wasn't going to be any head left on JFK's shoulders if the shooters had hit there target. Therefore, a hole in the windshield would have fit nicely into the LHO single bullet shooter theory to prove a shot from the rear. As for the hole in the windshield, Dr. Glanges and Mr. Whitaker's statement to Doug Weldon prove everything to me...not to mention Nick Prencipe and Officer Ellis who I believe said that you could put a pencil thru the hole.

A hole in the windshield doesn't prove that it resulted from the throat shot.

You're assuming the shooters wanted to set up the Lone Assassin.

That's an assmption you cannot make.

More likely, given the sheep-dipped nature of Lee Harvey Oswald, Fidel Castro was the ultimate patsy.

Therefore, they wanted it to look like a conspiracy.

I believe that the Z film was altered and therefore, Z225 may or may not be the exact point at which JFK was hit in the throat thru the windshield. If one likes Gil Jesus' work, then we can't take what he says in a vacuum. The windshield, Connolly's movement left, JFK grasping his neck tie etc and Kellerman touching his cheek area (my observation) must be considered in total.[b

No they don't.

There is nothing inherent about the throat wound to indicate it resulted from a shot thru the windshield.

I am sorry but the angle discussed for the "nick" in the neck area is not valid. Nor is the "nick" in the neck.

By all means quote the relevant passages which address this issue.

A slight left (South Knoll) to right front entrance shot trajectory proves my point.

Ron Ecker is correct. BDM was wide out in the open, and Gordon Arnold, if he is telling the truth, would have mentioned him after shooting the President. Also, BDM is the missing man not standing on the concrete platform step in Willis 5. BDM could not have simply disappeared. If Marilyn Sitzman saw the Black Couple run behind the wooden fence, then the BDM certainly did not run in that direction before Z313. She would have seen him.

More assumptions you can't possibly make. "Evelyn King," for what it's worth, indicated this guy was in a hurry.

Rosemary Willis said the person "disappeared the next instant."

"Evelyn King" is one thing (she won't come forward), but why are you making liars out of Rosemary and Phil Willis (who have come forward)?

I will agree that a front shot hit the President in the throat before the Z313 head shot. To be right or to be incorrect is not the point with me, but to agree that there was a front shot to the throat is all that matters to me.

I welcome your comments on my research. And I will respond as quickly as possible.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Jon G. Tidd]

Any analysis based on the Z-film is an analysis based on the assumption the extant Z-Film is an accurate recording of what happened.

There are reasons to believe the extant Z-Film is not an accurate recording of what happened.

Therefore, there are reasons to believe any analysis based on the extant Z-Film is based on false premises.

[Cliff Varnell]

Any analysis based on the Z-film is an analysis based on the assumption the extant Z-Film is an accurate recording of what happened.

There are reasons to believe the extant Z-Film is not an accurate recording of what happened.

Therefore, there are reasons to believe any analysis based on the extant Z-Film is based on false premises.

I asked Jack White and John Costella if there was any reason to think Z186-Z255 (which includes the timings of Betzner #3, Willis #5, and Altgens #6)

was inauthentic.

They said there were no anomalies Z186-Z255 to indicate it was faked at that point.

All of their problems with the Z came after Z255.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Anthony DeFiore]

Cliff,

I disagree with you completely. You criticize my research and you just keep telling me everything is not possible or true. You provide nothing to dispute my work.

Tony

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

I disagree with you completely.

It's Phil Willis you disagree with.

It's Rosemary Willis you disagree with.

It's JFK's position change from Betzner 3 to Willis 5 you disagree with.

You criticize my research and you just keep telling me everything is not possible or true. You provide nothing to dispute my work.

Tony

Sorry you feel that way, Tony. Are we supposed to pretend that Phil Willis didn't take his 5th photo in startle response to gunfire?

Are we supposed to pretend that Rosemary Willis didn't describe Black Dog Man as a "conspicuous person" who "disappeared the next instant"?

Are we supposed to pretend the HSCA didn't analyze the "distinct straight-line feature...in the region of the hands" of BDM?

Are we supposed to pretend that the neck x-ray doesn't show damage inconsistent with a high-powered rifle?

You're telling us what Sitzman could or could not have seen -- are we supposed to take your word for this stuff?

Edited February 19, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Anthony DeFiore]

Cliff,

Try being academic. I say you are begging the question. 1) Your Willis premise is false. Z202. Fine. JFK still did not get hit from a shot from the right hand side as I have explained ad nauseam. 2) You are quoting Rosemary Willis ~ the ten year old ~ as I will agree that from the mouth of babes.... ~ if anything, BDM does not exist and she saw Gordon Arnold disappearing behind the wall similar to Sen. Yarborough's statement. And Rosemary "distinctly" heard four shots. We need to take her testimony in total (?) But testimony is not science nor logic. 3) The straight line from the "figure"? Are we even sure that that is true? Occam's Razor: BDM is moving down the concrete stairs to be one of the three men on the stairs. I will never agree that BDM is your shooter. He simply could not shoot at JFK and have The three men on the stairs, the woman with the baby, her partner, Bill Newman and family, Gordon Arnold, Zapruder and Sitzman not seeing him shoot at the President. 4) The direction of your so called xray showing a nick in the neck area proves it comes left (The South Knoll) to the right. 5) My word on Sitzman? Sitzman's words to Josiah Thompson. I simply am not seeing an form of logic with what you are saying. I appreciate your opinion, but I just think it is very wrong. And please, It is nothing personal Cliff.

Tony

[David Andrews]

Jon Tidd,

When I look at the view of JFK through the windshield in Altgens 6, it strikes me that, given the decline of Elm Street toward the underpass, and the probable elevated position of the front shooter, JFK's head as a target visible through the windshield is disappearing fast as the limo descends. You can no longer see his eyes and brow through Altgens' lens.

Factor in the top of the windshield frame and the limo roof crossbar (visible through the windshield in the photo), and the front shooter who struck the throat may have had to take whatever above-the-shoulders shot he could, or else take no shot through the windshield.

If I am correct - what does that say about that shooter being able to fire again after the throat hit? What does it say about the shooter's position in relation to Altgens? (These questions are for everyone.)

Sorry I can't put up Altgens 6, but everybody knows where to find their preferred version. Note Kellerman apparently eyeballing the bullet hole in the windshield.

Edited February 19, 2015 by David Andrews

[Jon G. Tidd]

David Andrews @ post # 43:

You write:

"When I look at the view of JFK through the windshield in Altgens 6, it strikes me that, given the decline of Elm Street toward the underpass, and the probable elevated position of the front shooter, JFK's head as a target visible through the windshield is disappearing fast as the limo descends. You can no longer see his eyes and brow through Altgens' lens."

I agree.

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

Try being academic. I say you are begging the question. 1) Your Willis premise is false. Z202. Fine. JFK still did not get hit from a shot from the right hand side as I have explained ad nauseam.

And yet in Betzner 3 JFK sat bolt up right, but in Willis 5 he leaned to the left.

This is consistent with what Phil Willis stated -- he took the photo in startle response to a gun shot.

The witness statement matches the photographs.

Same thing with Rosemary Willis. In Betzner 3 and Willis 5 there is a figure standing behind the concrete wall in front of the picket fence.

That was not Gordon Arnold's position.

Rosemary Willis stated she saw a "conspicuous person" at that exact location.

The fact that BDM is absent from any other photos is consistent with her statement that BDM suddenly disappeared.

2) You are quoting Rosemary Willis ~ the ten year old ~ as I will agree that from the mouth of babes.... ~ if anything, BDM does not exist and she saw Gordon Arnold disappearing behind the wall similar to Sen. Yarborough's statement.

Who's begging the question, here? What "distinct straight-line feature" did Gordon have in his hands?

Gordon Arnold has the same problem "Evelyn King" has -- no confirmation they were even in the Plaza.

And Rosemary "distinctly" heard four shots. We need to take her testimony in total (?) But testimony is not science nor logic. 3) The straight line from the "figure"? Are we even sure that that is true?

I see the BDM in Betzner/Willis.

I can see JFK bolt up-right at Z186, and leaning to the left at Z202.

Who am I going to believe -- Tony DeFiore or my own lyin' eyes?

Occam's Razor: BDM is moving down the concrete stairs to be one of the three men on the stairs.

How is that Occam's Razor?

Lying witnesses who have no reason to lie, photos faked to match those lies?

How in the world is that an exercise in parsimony?

I will never agree that BDM is your shooter. He simply could not shoot at JFK and have The three men on the stairs, the woman with the baby, her partner, Bill Newman and family, Gordon Arnold, Zapruder and Sitzman not seeing him shoot at the President.

The plotters could count on the following: (1) all eyes would be on on the motorcade, (2) the diversionary shot behind the motorcade, (3 )a pro shooter who only needed a matter of seconds to get in position, take the shot, and get out, (4) the plotters wanted the deed to look like a conspiracy.

4) The direction of your so called xray showing a nick in the neck area proves it comes left (The South Knoll) to the right.

Very slightly left to right. With his head turned to the right away from the South Knoll that trajectory is not slight.

5) My word on Sitzman? Sitzman's words to Josiah Thompson.

So as the motorcade approached and she was keeping Zapruder steady she only had her eyes on an empty area behind the concrete wall?

According to Tink Thompson Sitzman said Kennedy "put his hands up as to guard his face" in response to the first shot.

Her eyes were on Kennedy, not the concrete wall.

I simply am not seeing an form of logic with what you are saying. I appreciate your opinion, but I just think it is very wrong. And please, It is nothing personal Cliff.

Tony

It's not personal, Tony. It's strictly business...