Midnight Blue to Black: the Vanishing Act of the JFK Presidential Limousine SS100X In Broad Daylight

[Ken Davies]

I must also add that Kellerman testified to the WC that he heard JFK exclaim: " My God, I've been hit!"

He became quite testy when it was suggested that he did not.

[Pamela Brown]

Ken Davis said?

I have a few quick comments on the presentation, namely :

1. How was the Z film shown in 1964 when Life had the ownership and had it hidden away?

What corroboration is there for this?

The misconception that Time-Life had the Z-film(s) "hidden away" was disproved long ago by none other than Dan Rather, who, as we know, is not even a fan of the CT's. Here is a blog entry I wrote on that:

http://ss100x.wordpress.com/2013/11/30/early-zapruder-viewings-dan-rather-makes-my-point-for-me-0/

2. Clint Hill rode on the back of the limo at various times that day. See his book, Me and Mrs. Kennedy;

Clint Hill jumped on and of SS100X in Dallas a couple of times but no agent was assigned to ride on the retractable steps of the limo.

3. Both Mr. Hill and Jackie stated quite clearly that Jackie was trying to retrieve a piece of JFK's skull. There is no evidence that she was trying to escape the vehicle.

That is false. Jackie claimed she didn't remember what she was doing. I am stating my opinion. You are entitled to yours.

[Pamela Brown]

I must also add that Kellerman testified to the WC that he heard JFK exclaim: " My God, I've been hit!"

He became quite testy when it was suggested that he did not.

That was not corroborated by anyone else in the limo. It is my thinking that he made that up in order to cover up for the fact that the SS agents could not, in fact, hear the passengers. Jackie alluded to that in her WC testimony, even saying she thought the privacy window must have been in place that day, because Kellerman could not hear them.

[Ken Davies]

I put my trust in his sworn evidence, rather than in conjecture. Kellerman also said that a flurry of shots came into the vehicle.

He was not supportive of the official version, and does not appear to be hiding anything.

[Ken Davies]

My name is Davies, not Davis. Read Jackie's testimony. Opinions mean nothing.

Ken Davis said?
I have a few quick comments on the presentation, namely :

1. How was the Z film shown in 1964 when Life had the ownership and had it hidden away?

What corroboration is there for this?

The misconception that Time-Life had the Z-film(s) "hidden away" was disproved long ago by none other than Dan Rather, who, as we know, is not even a fan of the CT's. Here is a blog entry I wrote on that:

http://ss100x.wordpress.com/2013/11/30/early-zapruder-viewings-dan-rather-makes-my-point-for-me-0/

2. Clint Hill rode on the back of the limo at various times that day. See his book, Me and Mrs. Kennedy;

Clint Hill jumped on and of SS100X in Dallas a couple of times but no agent was assigned to ride on the retractable steps of the limo.

3. Both Mr. Hill and Jackie stated quite clearly that Jackie was trying to retrieve a piece of JFK's skull. There is no evidence that she was trying to escape the vehicle.

That is false. Jackie claimed she didn't remember what she was doing. I am stating my opinion. You are entitled to yours.

[Ken Davies]

Again, as the late Jack White wrote on another blog on this years ago, where is the corroboration from anyone that the Z film was shown at a NY theatre in 1964?

[Pamela Brown]

I put my trust in his sworn evidence, rather than in conjecture. Kellerman also said that a flurry of shots came into the vehicle.

He was not supportive of the official version, and does not appear to be hiding anything.

Your opinion. You are entitled. I disagree.

[Pamela Brown]

Again, as the late Jack White wrote on another blog on this years ago, where is the corroboration from anyone that the Z film was shown at a NY theatre in 1964?

You have my statement. You can accept it or not. If you think I want you to *believe* what I say, you are mistaken. My only hope is that you will reason through this for yourself. A great part of the mystery of the JFK assassination comes in what is commonly accepted as *truth* (such as the govt always had firm control of the Z-film(s)) being revealed as disinfo or misinfo. If you wish to research, you will find it true in virtually all areas of the assassination that something comforting the govt wants you to believe is completely false.

I gave you corroboration from none other than a public figure to the lack of containment of Time-Life regarding the Z-film(s) and you apparently chose to dismiss that:

http://ss100x.wordpress.com/2013/11/30/early-zapruder-viewings-dan-rather-makes-my-point-for-me-0/

BTW, let's hope that the bad manners of the last fifty years will no longer affect the research community. I have no intention of encouraging them, at any rate. Ironically, bad manners and believing disinfo or misinfo seem to have a tendency to go hand-in-hand.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Pamela Brown

[Pamela Brown]

My name is Davies, not Davis. Read Jackie's testimony. Opinions mean nothing.

Ken Davis said?

I have a few quick comments on the presentation, namely :

1. How was the Z film shown in 1964 when Life had the ownership and had it hidden away?

What corroboration is there for this?

The misconception that Time-Life had the Z-film(s) "hidden away" was disproved long ago by none other than Dan Rather, who, as we know, is not even a fan of the CT's. Here is a blog entry I wrote on that:

http://ss100x.wordpress.com/2013/11/30/early-zapruder-viewings-dan-rather-makes-my-point-for-me-0/

2. Clint Hill rode on the back of the limo at various times that day. See his book, Me and Mrs. Kennedy;

Clint Hill jumped on and of SS100X in Dallas a couple of times but no agent was assigned to ride on the retractable steps of the limo.

3. Both Mr. Hill and Jackie stated quite clearly that Jackie was trying to retrieve a piece of JFK's skull. There is no evidence that she was trying to escape the vehicle.

That is false. Jackie claimed she didn't remember what she was doing. I am stating my opinion. You are entitled to yours.

Apologies. Davies it is.

Opinion is basically what you are stating, whether you claim it is 'evidence' or something else. You are entitled. Why not agree-to-disagree and move on?

[Ken Davies]

There is sworn evidence by Kellerman, that is not opinion. There is no corroboration to the Z film being shown in NY in a theatre in 1964. That is a fact.

One can disagree over opinions, but facts are facts, n'est ce pas?

[Pamela Brown]

There is sworn evidence by Kellerman, that is not opinion. There is no corroboration to the Z film being shown in NY in a theatre in 1964. That is a fact.

One can disagree over opinions, but facts are facts, n'est ce pas?

With all due respect, you seem to have a somewhat superficial understanding of Kellerman. That is a fact.

In addition, if you *believe* every statement in WC testimony, there is a big bridge in NYC I would love to sell you.

There is indeed an open door to the Z film(s) being shown in NYC in 1964. You choose to dismiss it. That is a fact.

One can try to label opinions 'facts', but they are still opinion, bien sur. :-0

It also seems to me that the subject of claiming opinions to be 'fact' or 'evidence' has been exhausted. Why not agree-to-disagree and move on? Perhaps you have something new and exciting you would like to share?

Edited December 12, 2013 by Pamela Brown

[Pamela Brown]

Regarding my search for corroboration of a copy of one of the Z-film(s) being shown in NYC in 1964, you will see if you scroll down this page that I am asking readers for information about it. It seemed to me there were at least a few hundred people there that evening.

http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/6017

pamelajfk(me) said:

on June 4, 2010 at 9:05 am

"Does anyone recall seeing the Wolper documentary “1000 Days” about the Kennedy administration (b+w) followed by a screening of a copy of the Zapruder film in late November/early December 1964?

Is anyone aware of any other early screenings of the Zapruder film, which was not released to the general public until the mid-70’s?

Thank you."

Edited December 12, 2013 by Pamela Brown

[Ken Davies]

I believe that I can tell the difference between sworn evidence/testimony as I do so on a daily basis

in various courts.

Your personal attacks accomplish nothing. Your inability to produce corroboration as to the alleged1964 Z film showing in a NY theatre speaks volumes. (There seems to be a lengthy blog on this on David Reitzes site. I don't support his beliefs, but do agree that people proclaiming things should be able to support said claims.)

[Pamela Brown]

I believe that I can tell the difference between sworn evidence/testimony as I do so on a daily basis

in various courts.

Your personal attacks accomplish nothing. Your inability to produce corroboration as to the alleged1964 Z film showing in a NY theatre speaks volumes. (There seems to be a lengthy blog on this on David Reitzes site. I don't support his beliefs, but do agree that people proclaiming things should be able to support said claims.)

So a tad of ad hom and insinuation are your response to my request to agree-to-disagree and move on? That in itself speaks volumes, unfortunately.

You are entitled to your opinion. You can choose to dismiss whatever you want. That doesn't matter to me.

Apparently you are not at this point in time yet able to keep an open door to the possibility of a lack of containment of the Z-film(s). Ironically, even Dan Rather, who is a firm WC defender, is not one of those who denies that any Time-Life executive who wanted a copy of a Z-film could have it sent to their office. This lack of containment, much less the lack of provenance, is obviously an emotional issue for some people. You are not alone. Tink Thompson, who worked at Time-Life in the 60's, was apparently unaware of what was going on behind their closed doors. David Lifton, who lived in LA at the time, seems to find it *impossible* that anyone saw the Z-film(s) in any other place but at NARA.

I was even hesitant to include this discussion of my viewing a copy of the Z-film(s) in Midnight Blue to Black, as I was concerned that it might detract from my focus on the limo. However, it is essential to my thesis, which is that deliberate disinfo was put out about significant areas of the assassination in order to throw the public off the scent. The rumours and stories about the limo are at the core of this practice, but it extends throughout virtually all the areas of the assassination. Was the autopsy really just a 'Little Shop of Horrors?' DId the SS actually sanitize the limo before turning it over to the FBI? How could LHO *act alone* even if he did fire the shots when he set off alarms in the intelligence agencies of three different countries prior to the assassination? Was there really no "SBT", but instead, just a series of SBT scenarios?

If anyone wants to get to the heart of what happened in Dallas, is it not necessary to be able to question every comforting statement the govt tells us and look for the truth underneath the disinfo? Otherwise, why not just read a good novel and forget about how grisly the real world of the JFK assassination can be? :-0

Edited December 13, 2013 by Pamela Brown

[David Andrews]

Delete. Trying to upload too big of a photo. More later.

Edited December 15, 2013 by David Andrews