Zapruder film on US (NY?) TV in 1963

[Paul Rigby]

This extract is from the expanded – eight-page pamphlet version – of Mark Lane’s original article on the case, “Lane’s Defense Brief for Oswald,” published by the National Guardian, 19 December 1963:

”A motion picture taken of the President just before, during, and after the shooting, and demonstrated on television showed that the President was looking directly ahead when the first shot, which entered his throat, was fired. A series of still pictures taken from the motion picture and published in Life magazine on Nov. 29 show show exactly the same situation.”

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/The_critics/L...l_Guardian.html

[Pat Speer]

This extract is from the expanded – eight-page pamphlet version – of Mark Lane’s original article on the case, “Lane’s Defense Brief for Oswald,” published by the National Guardian, 19 December 1963:

”A motion picture taken of the President just before, during, and after the shooting, and demonstrated on television showed that the President was looking directly ahead when the first shot, which entered his throat, was fired. A series of still pictures taken from the motion picture and published in Life magazine on Nov. 29 show show exactly the same situation.”

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/The_critics/L...l_Guardian.html

uhhh...he read in a paper that a film was shown, and since he hadn't heard of the Muchmore film, assumed it was the Zapruder film....

If Mark Lane--who's jumped at every chance there is to claim conspiracy--saw the Zapruder film on TV in the days after the shooting, don't you think he'd have made a big stink about it for years afterward?

[Bill Miller]

uhhh...he read in a paper that a film was shown, and since he hadn't heard of the Muchmore film, assumed it was the Zapruder film....

If Mark Lane--who's jumped at every chance there is to claim conspiracy--saw the Zapruder film on TV in the days after the shooting, don't you think he'd have made a big stink about it for years afterward?

Paul's thing is propaganda - not accuracy! He's very selective in what he embraces as fact and doesn't reason out well the other variables working against him. I'd be willing to bet that the story Lane read wasn't a first hand accounting either. Three of the witnesses who were there made references to actions that cannot be denied in relation to the first shot being fired. They are as follows ...

1) Hugh Betzner - Takes a photo just prior to hearing the first loud explosion of gunfire. (Z186)

2) Phil Willis - Takes a photo upon hearing the first loud explosion of gunfire. (Z202)

3) Mary Woodard - See's the President turned to his right and waving towards her when the first loud explosion of gunfire sounded and hit the President. Say's the President reacts to being shot by stopping his wave and immediately bringing his hand into the car and across his face. (Z195 - Z198)

All three independent witnesses of each other support the first shot sounding as President Kennedy was looking to his RIGHT. The recalled actions that they witnessed that the Zapruder film time stamps. Paul is aware of this and instead will post something weak in support of a claim he has been trying to sell. Someone writing second hand information does not stack up to JFK looking straight ahead when the first shot hit him.

Bill Miller

[Paul Rigby]

This extract is from the expanded – eight-page pamphlet version – of Mark Lane’s original article on the case, “Lane’s Defense Brief for Oswald,” published by the National Guardian, 19 December 1963:

”A motion picture taken of the President just before, during, and after the shooting, and demonstrated on television showed that the President was looking directly ahead when the first shot, which entered his throat, was fired. A series of still pictures taken from the motion picture and published in Life magazine on Nov. 29 show show exactly the same situation.”

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/The_critics/L...l_Guardian.html

uhhh...he read in a paper that a film was shown, and since he hadn't heard of the Muchmore film, assumed it was the Zapruder film....

If Mark Lane--who's jumped at every chance there is to claim conspiracy--saw the Zapruder film on TV in the days after the shooting, don't you think he'd have made a big stink about it for years afterward?

Well, if he did see the first version of the Z fraud on TV, the version with the left turn from Houston onto Elm still present, we might expect to find this reflected in his first book on the case. Happily, we do:

Mark Lane. Rush to Judgment: A Critique of the Warren Commission’s Inquiry into the Murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J. D. Tippit and Lee Harvey Oswald (London: The Bodley Head Ltd., 1966), p.66, footnote 2:

The Commission explained the method it used to designate the individual frames of the film for purposes of reference: “The pictures or frames in the Zapruder film were marked by the agents, with the number ‘1’ given to the first frame where the motorcycles leading the motorcade came into view on Houston Street. The numbers continue in sequence as Zapruder filmed the Presidential limousine as it came around the corner and proceeded down Elm,” (223).

Note 223 to chapter 3 is to be found on p.423 – it cites WCR at 98. On p.418, Lane explains that the version of the WCR he used was the one published by the “U.S. Government Printing Office (1964).”

Paul

[Bill Miller]

Well, if he did see the first version of the Z fraud on TV, the version with the left turn from Houston onto Elm still present, we might expect to find this reflected in his first book on the case. Happily, we do:

Mark Lane. Rush to Judgment: A Critique of the Warren Commission’s Inquiry into the Murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J. D. Tippit and Lee Harvey Oswald (London: The Bodley Head Ltd., 1966), p.66, footnote 2:

The Commission explained the method it used to designate the individual frames of the film for purposes of reference: “The pictures or frames in the Zapruder film were marked by the agents, with the number ‘1’ given to the first frame where the motorcycles leading the motorcade came into view on Houston Street. The numbers continue in sequence as Zapruder filmed the Presidential limousine as it came around the corner and proceeded down Elm,” (223).

Note 223 to chapter 3 is to be found on p.423 – it cites WCR at 98. On p.418, Lane explains that the version of the WCR he used was the one published by the “U.S. Government Printing Office (1964).”

Paul

Paul, have you ever spoken to Mark Lane ??? ... Because if you have, then you have purposely mislead this forum. Mark Lane doesn't buy into Zapruder film alteration .. never did. I respect Mark Lane ... followed his writings ... listened to his speeches ... and stood next to him at the 35th anniversary of the assassination as he pointed to and called to everyones attention to Jean Hill standing on the south pasture. Once again you have read into something Lane said and your interpretation is slanted to fit what you wish to believe ... and purposely IMO. I challenge you to find one time where Mark Lane has ever written or stated to anyone that the Zapruder film is altered. Feel free to write or call him and ask that question.

When Mark Lane went before the Commission on March 4, 1964, he took them places that I am sure they didn't wish to go, but it didn't stop Mark from saying what he wanted to. Mark gave them his opinion as to how the rifle looked different than the one seen in photographs. About the films, Mark said ... "The statement made by various witnesses, including Mr. Chaney, a motorcycle policeman, Miss Woodward, who was one of the closest witnesses to the President at the time that he was shot, and others. I think that is the I haven't documented that beyond that, because that seemed to be so generally conceded by almost everyone, that the automobile came to--almost came to a complete halt after the first shot--did not quite stop, but almost did ........." Mark didn't say a single word about the assassination films being altered to hide a stopped limo - erase an uneventful turn - that no one was standing on the pedestal - that Moorman was in the street - or anyone of the many other alteration claims concerning the Zapruder film.

My advice to you is to wait until Mark has passed on and then push your propaganda on the grounds that its your word against mine ... like so many alteration pushers have done to date. The difference between most of them and you is that they are smart enough for the person they are trying to speak for to no longer be around so to dispute their allegation.

Bill Miller

Edited June 22, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Thomas H. Purvis]

uhhh...he read in a paper that a film was shown, and since he hadn't heard of the Muchmore film, assumed it was the Zapruder film....

If Mark Lane--who's jumped at every chance there is to claim conspiracy--saw the Zapruder film on TV in the days after the shooting, don't you think he'd have made a big stink about it for years afterward?

Paul's thing is propaganda - not accuracy! He's very selective in what he embraces as fact and doesn't reason out well the other variables working against him. I'd be willing to bet that the story Lane read wasn't a first hand accounting either. Three of the witnesses who were there made references to actions that cannot be denied in relation to the first shot being fired. They are as follows ...

1) Hugh Betzner - Takes a photo just prior to hearing the first loud explosion of gunfire. (Z186)

2) Phil Willis - Takes a photo upon hearing the first loud explosion of gunfire. (Z202)

3) Mary Woodard - See's the President turned to his right and waving towards her when the first loud explosion of gunfire sounded and hit the President. Say's the President reacts to being shot by stopping his wave and immediately bringing his hand into the car and across his face. (Z195 - Z198)

All three independent witnesses of each other support the first shot sounding as President Kennedy was looking to his RIGHT. The recalled actions that they witnessed that the Zapruder film time stamps. Paul is aware of this and instead will post something weak in support of a claim he has been trying to sell. Someone writing second hand information does not stack up to JFK looking straight ahead when the first shot hit him.

Bill Miller

2) Phil Willis - Takes a photo upon hearing the first loud explosion of gunfire. (Z202)

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol15_0354a.htm

Since the alignment can be easily replicated, most of us accept that Shaneyfelt at least came closer to the truth than is Z202.

Besides the simple fact that any idiot can see that the Willis photo was taken well after JFK had gone behind the sign/alignment view of Abraham Zapruder.

And lastly, one just may want to correlate the "jiggle/blur" analysis of frames Z209/210/ & 211 with the testimony of Shaneyfelt and Willis.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/willis_p.htm

Mr. WILLIS. No, sir; I took that picture just seconds before the first shot was fired, to get back close up. Then I started down the street, and the regular weekly edition of Life magazine came out and shows me in about three different pictures going down the street. Then my next shot was taken at the very--in fact, the shot caused me to squeeze the camera shutter, and I got a picture of the President as he was hit with the first shot. So instantaneous, in fact, that the crowd hadn't had time to react.

Mr. WILLIS. That picture was made at the very instant that the first shot was fired. As a matter of fact, the fellow standing on the ledge under the right-hand corner of the Stemmons Highway sign is a gentleman who took the last pictures that appeared in Life, and his pictures showed that this instant with this sign in between the photographer and the President, shows that at this instant he had already grabbed his throat.

Mr. LIEBELER. All right. Now, you are certain that the first shot was fired at approximately the time or shortly at approximately the time you took the picture that has been marked Hudson Exhibit No. 1; is that right?

Mr. WILLIS. I am positive.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember hearing the shot?

Mr. WILLIS. Absolutely. I, having been in World War II, and being a deer hunter hobbyist, I would recognize a high-powered rifle immediately.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you recognize this as a high-powered rifle?

Mr. WILLIS. Absolutely.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you heard it just about the time you took the picture that has been marked?

Mr. WILLIS. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Prior to the time you took the picture, which is marked Hudson Exhibit No. 1?

Mr. WILLIS. Absolutely.

Mr. LIEBELER. How many shots were fired altogether, Mr. Willis?

Mr. WILLIS. Three shots.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any question about that at all?

Mr. WILLIS. No, sir.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of which, not unlike virtually all other evidence, places the first shot as having been fired in the approximate Z204 to Z206 time frame.

Which also happens to be exactly where Time/Life determined it to be.

Which also happens to be exactly where the speed of sound v. elapsed frames of Z-film (jiggle/blur - elapsed frames)= shot

fired, also places it.

Which also happens to be exactly where all those who had a relively clear copy of the Z-film also placed it.

-----------------------------------------

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

FROM: Melvin A. Eisenberg

Subject: Conference of April 14, 1964, to determine which

frames in the Zapruder movies show the impact of

the first and second bullets

The reaction shown in frames 224-225 may have started at

an earlier point - possibly as early as frame 199 (when there appears

to be some jerkiness in his movement) or, with a higher degree of

possibility, at frames 204-206 (where his right elbow appears to be

raised to an artificially high position).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shall I also expend time and effort in demonstration of the incorrectness of your other stated claims?

[Paul Rigby]

Paul, have you ever spoken to Mark Lane ??? ... Because if you have, then you have purposely mislead this forum.

No, Bill, never spoken to the man, but if you are in communication, do ask him for his assistance in clearing up this little mystery. I've even given it a title.

Mark Lane and the “quiet transformation” of evidence: The strange case of the vanishing sentence (and left turn)

In Mark Lane’s Citizen’s Dissent: Mark Lane Replies (Fawcett Crest, April 1969), he resurrects a line from Hugh Trevor-Roper’s verdict on the efforts of the Warren Commission (1), as to be found in the British historian’s Introduction to Lane’s own Rush To Judgment: A Critique of the Warren Commission’s Inquiry into the Murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J. D. Tippit and Lee Harvey Oswald (2).

“It is fascinating, for instance, to watch the quiet transformation of the medical evidence,”

No less fascinating, I can’t help feeling, is the handling of the Zapruder film in the works of Mark Lane. Not so much “quiet” as stealthy:

1) Mark Lane. Rush to Judgment: A Critique of the Warren Commission’s Inquiry into the Murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J. D. Tippit and Lee Harvey Oswald (London: The Bodley Head Ltd., 1966), p.66, footnote 2:

The Commission explained the method it used to designate the individual frames of the film for purposes of reference: “The pictures or frames in the Zapruder film were marked by the agents, with the number ‘1’ given to the first frame where the motorcycles leading the motorcade came into view on Houston Street. The numbers continue in sequence as Zapruder filmed the Presidential limousine as it came around the corner and proceeded down Elm,” (223).

Note 223 to chapter 3 is to be found on p.423 – it cites WCR at 98. On p.418, Lane explains that the version of the WCR he used was the one published by the “U.S. Government Printing Office (1964).”

So far, then, so clear: Zapruder filmed the turn from Houston onto Elm, precisely as attested by the former on November 22, 1963. Now, two years on, look what happens to the left turn at Lane’s hands: A source is conveniently truncated!

2) Mark Lane’s Citizen’s Dissent: Mark Lane Replies (Fawcett Crest, April 1969), p. 244:

“The frames of the Zapruder film were numbered, as the Report noted, “with the number ‘1’ given to the first frame where the motorcycles leading the motorcade came into view on Houston Street.” (44)

(44) p.307: WCR98

Now, if you can't get a straight answer to the strange case of the inexplicably truncated senstence, you could always try blackmail. After all, you've used that before.

Notes:

(1) Mark Lane’s Citizen’s Dissent: Mark Lane Replies (Fawcett Crest, April 1969), p.91 n9, detailed on p.293: “RTJ, 12.”

(2) Rush To Judgment: A Critique of the Warren Commission’s Inquiry into the Murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J. D. Tippit and Lee Harvey Oswald (London: Bodley Head Ltd., 1966), p.12.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

uhhh...he read in a paper that a film was shown, and since he hadn't heard of the Muchmore film, assumed it was the Zapruder film....

If Mark Lane--who's jumped at every chance there is to claim conspiracy--saw the Zapruder film on TV in the days after the shooting, don't you think he'd have made a big stink about it for years afterward?

Paul's thing is propaganda - not accuracy! He's very selective in what he embraces as fact and doesn't reason out well the other variables working against him. I'd be willing to bet that the story Lane read wasn't a first hand accounting either. Three of the witnesses who were there made references to actions that cannot be denied in relation to the first shot being fired. They are as follows ...

1) Hugh Betzner - Takes a photo just prior to hearing the first loud explosion of gunfire. (Z186)

2) Phil Willis - Takes a photo upon hearing the first loud explosion of gunfire. (Z202)

3) Mary Woodard - See's the President turned to his right and waving towards her when the first loud explosion of gunfire sounded and hit the President. Say's the President reacts to being shot by stopping his wave and immediately bringing his hand into the car and across his face. (Z195 - Z198)

All three independent witnesses of each other support the first shot sounding as President Kennedy was looking to his RIGHT. The recalled actions that they witnessed that the Zapruder film time stamps. Paul is aware of this and instead will post something weak in support of a claim he has been trying to sell. Someone writing second hand information does not stack up to JFK looking straight ahead when the first shot hit him.

Bill Miller

2) Phil Willis - Takes a photo upon hearing the first loud explosion of gunfire. (Z202)

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol15_0354a.htm

Since the alignment can be easily replicated, most of us accept that Shaneyfelt at least came closer to the truth than is Z202.

Besides the simple fact that any idiot can see that the Willis photo was taken well after JFK had gone behind the sign/alignment view of Abraham Zapruder.

And lastly, one just may want to correlate the "jiggle/blur" analysis of frames Z209/210/ & 211 with the testimony of Shaneyfelt and Willis.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/willis_p.htm

Mr. WILLIS. No, sir; I took that picture just seconds before the first shot was fired, to get back close up. Then I started down the street, and the regular weekly edition of Life magazine came out and shows me in about three different pictures going down the street. Then my next shot was taken at the very--in fact, the shot caused me to squeeze the camera shutter, and I got a picture of the President as he was hit with the first shot. So instantaneous, in fact, that the crowd hadn't had time to react.

Mr. WILLIS. That picture was made at the very instant that the first shot was fired. As a matter of fact, the fellow standing on the ledge under the right-hand corner of the Stemmons Highway sign is a gentleman who took the last pictures that appeared in Life, and his pictures showed that this instant with this sign in between the photographer and the President, shows that at this instant he had already grabbed his throat.

Mr. LIEBELER. All right. Now, you are certain that the first shot was fired at approximately the time or shortly at approximately the time you took the picture that has been marked Hudson Exhibit No. 1; is that right?

Mr. WILLIS. I am positive.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember hearing the shot?

Mr. WILLIS. Absolutely. I, having been in World War II, and being a deer hunter hobbyist, I would recognize a high-powered rifle immediately.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you recognize this as a high-powered rifle?

Mr. WILLIS. Absolutely.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you heard it just about the time you took the picture that has been marked?

Mr. WILLIS. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Prior to the time you took the picture, which is marked Hudson Exhibit No. 1?

Mr. WILLIS. Absolutely.

Mr. LIEBELER. How many shots were fired altogether, Mr. Willis?

Mr. WILLIS. Three shots.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any question about that at all?

Mr. WILLIS. No, sir.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of which, not unlike virtually all other evidence, places the first shot as having been fired in the approximate Z204 to Z206 time frame.

Which also happens to be exactly where Time/Life determined it to be.

Which also happens to be exactly where the speed of sound v. elapsed frames of Z-film (jiggle/blur - elapsed frames)= shot

fired, also places it.

Which also happens to be exactly where all those who had a relively clear copy of the Z-film also placed it.

-----------------------------------------

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

FROM: Melvin A. Eisenberg

Subject: Conference of April 14, 1964, to determine which

frames in the Zapruder movies show the impact of

the first and second bullets

The reaction shown in frames 224-225 may have started at

an earlier point - possibly as early as frame 199 (when there appears

to be some jerkiness in his movement) or, with a higher degree of

possibility, at frames 204-206 (where his right elbow appears to be

raised to an artificially high position).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shall I also expend time and effort in demonstration of the incorrectness of your other stated claims?

Since the alignment can be easily replicated, most of us accept that Shaneyfelt at least came closer to the truth than is Z202.

Besides the simple fact that any idiot can see that the Willis photo was taken well after JFK had gone behind the sign/alignment view of Abraham Zapruder.

And lastly, one just may want to correlate the "jiggle/blur" analysis of frames Z209/210/ & 211 with the testimony of Shaneyfelt and Willis.

----------------------------------------------------------------

And I was so misguided as to assume you actually knew something in regards to witness testimonies!

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol15_0354a.htm

Had you actually known anything, then:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol15_0348b.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0004a.htm

1. You would have known that this little tidbit of information was (hidden) found within the Warren Report and was only taken some 23 days prior to the finished report being presented to LBJ.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

2. That in order to "derive" the Z210 position, Shaneyfelt platted (drew) in the line-of-sight from Willis to Zapruder, and then from the Zapruder position, drew in the line-of-sight back to the Z210 position.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol15_0353b.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol15_0354a.htm

And, based on this, determined that Willis#5 occurred at Z210.

Now, recognizing how complicated this is for a winner of the "Mary Ferrell Award", one needs to think about this little sideshow for a while in order to figure out exactly how in hell something like this has any validity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. And lastly, anyone who has not been totally asleep for many months (longer than ole Mr. R.V.Winkle), would know that there is no "Z210" position platted on the WC Survey Plat.

Now of course, we do have Z207 and Z208 originally!

And then, we have an altered survey data block which makes Z208 become Z210.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0464b.htm

However, we/aka Shaneyfelt & Company were working with a purported "exact duplication" of the survey plat, which clearly establishes/has marked on it Z207 & Z208. NOT Z210.

Therefore, me thinks that Shaneyfelt just told us something which only those persons responsible for alteration to the survey data would know.

SO!

If Z210 (by the WC's altered data were truely Z208) as surveyed in, and even then there is a slight "fudge factor" on actual alignment, then the actual position is in reality in almost exact correlation with that position which Time/Life gave us.

4. If one will recall, I long ago informed that those who have not followed and understood, would ultimately be somewhat embarassed to have allowed Shaneyfelt & Company to get away with the "Adjusted Position".

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm

Mr. SPECTER. Was that position ascertained where the chalk spot on the back of President Kennedy's coat was first visible from the sixth floor window through the telescopic sight?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. DULLES. This is after passing the tree.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. After passing out from under the oak tree.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. What frame did that turn out to be?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That was frame 207.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have an exhibit depicting the same photographic sequence on frame 207?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I do.

Mr. SPECTER. What Commission Exhibit number has been affixed to that frame?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Commission Exhibit No. 892.

Mr. SPECTER. Is the car in the same position on "photograph through rifle scope" and "photograph from reenactment" on that exhibit?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Is the car in the same position, as closely as you could make it, on the "photograph from reenactment" and "photograph from Zapruder film"?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you now read the statistical data from that exhibit?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. Distance from the chalk mark on the back of the stand-in for the President to the station C is 136.6

Distance to rifle in the window is 174.9 feet. The angle to the rifle in the window based on the horizontal is 21b050. The distance to the overpass is 350.9 feet, and the angle to the overpass is 0b012'.

This is on frame 207, Commission Exhibit No. 892.

Mr. SPECTER. Was an adjustment made on that position for the heights of the automobiles?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. What was the adjusted frame for the first view that the marksman had of the President's stand-in coming out from under the tree?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is frame 210 and has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 893 and represents the 10-inch adjustment for the difference in the height of the car as compared with frame 207.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Math!---------------207 can equal 210!

With all of this work surrounding Z210, one often wonders exactly why the WC forgot to publish those missing frames in/around Z210.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol18_0017a.htm

And that is how the game is played!

[Bernice Moore]

Willis 5.....

B......

[Jack White]

Z202 is the corresponding moment to Willis 5.

Willis said he pressed the shutter on hearing a shot.

But Z202 is BEFORE the official WC first shot.

Jack

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Z202 is the corresponding moment to Willis 5.

Willis said he pressed the shutter on hearing a shot.

But Z202 is BEFORE the official WC first shot.

Jack

NOPE!

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z202.jpg

Perhaps, even at this advanced stage in life, it may serve a purpose were you to take a course in survey as well as photographic imagery interpretation.

[Jack White]

Z202 is the corresponding moment to Willis 5.

Willis said he pressed the shutter on hearing a shot.

But Z202 is BEFORE the official WC first shot.

Jack

NOPE!

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z202.jpg

Perhaps, even at this advanced stage in life, it may serve a purpose were you to take a course in survey as well as photographic imagery interpretation.

Check it out.

Jack

[Pat Speer]

From patspeer.com, chapter 4:

By early September, the government has begun preparing for the release of its report. On 9-1-64, in an attempt to tie up some loose ends, the Commission takes testimony from FBI photo expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt. This is the the third time he's testified. He discusses the various photos of Oswald with his rifle, and how the newspapers and magazines showing these photos had tampered with them, and accidentally created the illusion the rifle was not the rifle recovered at the Book Depository. He then discusses photos of Oswald's shirt, which essentially prove nothing other than that Oswald had been wearing that shirt when arrested. He also discusses a photograph by Phil Willis. This photo was taken, per Willis' testimony, a split second after the first shot. Egged on by Norman Redlich, Shaneyfelt testifies "it is my opinion that photograph A of Shaneyfelt exhibit no. 25 was taken in the vicinity of the time that frame 210 of the Zapruder film was taken. This is not an accurate determination because the exact location of Mr. Willis is unknown. This would allow for some variation, but the time of the photograph A, as related to the Zapruder film, would be generally during the period that the President was behind the signboard in the Zapruder films, which covers a range from around frame 205 to frame 225." Redlich then interjects "Prior investigation has also revealed that when viewed from the southeast corner window of the sixth floor, the President emerges from the oak tree at approximately frame 210." Redlich then asks Shaneyfelt if it would be possible to fix Willis' exact location, and thus the exact time of his photograph as compared to the Zapruder film. Shaneyfelt replies "Yes, it would be possible having Mr. Willis' camera, to fix his location with some degree of accuracy..." When then nudged by Redlich "You are reasonably satisfied, however, that the technique that you have used to fix his location is a reasonably accurate one upon which you can base your conclusions which you have stated today?" Shaneyfelt responds "Yes, yes. I feel that the exact establishing of the position of Mr. Willis would not add a great detail of additional accuracy to my present conclusions."

Well, wait a minute. On June 4, Shaneyfelt testified in a curious manner that Kennedy appeared to be unhit before he went behind the sign around frame 210 of the Zapruder film. Now he has testified that the Willis photo was taken around frame 210, the exact moment, as Norman Redlich was so kind to point out, that Kennedy was first visible to the sniper's nest after passing under the oak tree. A more accurate location for Willis might mean that Willis took his picture before Kennedy went behind the sign. It might be an indication that someone fired a shot when Kennedy was hidden from the sniper's nest. It might be an indication there was a second shooter. That Shaneyfelt refused to accurately plot Willis' location, and thus the timing of his photo, when added to the fact that he and Redlich went to such great lengths to assure everyone a more accurate assessment was unnecessary, when added to the fact that this testimony is being taken in the last weeks of the Commission, suggests the possibility that both men know the photo was taken when Oswald couldn't have fired the shot, and were trying to keep this off the record. (Sure enough, it was subsequently demonstrated that the photo was taken at frame 202 of the Zapruder film, before Kennedy went behind the sign. Equally intriguing, when asked a series of questions about his work on the Willis photo in a 1977 civil suit brought by Harold Weisberg, Shaneyfelt testified "I may have" three times and "I don't recall" five times, and asserted blandly that "I am sure the record speaks for itself." Yes, it does--to those who listen.)

[Bill Miller]

Z202 is the corresponding moment to Willis 5.

Willis said he pressed the shutter on hearing a shot.

But Z202 is BEFORE the official WC first shot.

Jack

[/quote

You are correct, Jack. The alignment of Clint Hill with the road sign tells the story. Its been demonstrated many times in the past by various researchers. If Tom wishes to believe otherwise, then let him do so.

Bill

[David G. Healy]

From patspeer.com, chapter 4:

...

Equally intriguing, when asked a series of questions about his work on the Willis photo in a 1977 civil suit brought by Harold Weisberg, Shaneyfelt testified "I may have" three times and "I don't recall" five times, and asserted blandly that "I am sure the record speaks for itself." Yes, it does--to those who listen.)

Pat, where can one find a transcript of the Weisberg civil suit?

Thanks,

David