Jump to content
The Education Forum

Zapruder, Four questions..


Guest Stephen Turner

Recommended Posts

[...]

Dave your link lead to a nice little history lesson, just what is it supposed to prove? No one disputes that optical printers existed for a long time. So the Army got some in WWII. So just when exactly are YOU going to get around to citing a single movie made around the time of or before the assassination that utilized such extensive compositing and doesn't look obviously faked? And since you seem to be implying that the Army's printers were used maybe even a movie made in 1942 or earlier.

dgh03: it's called education for the uninformed, such as yourself -- honestly, you're a 'real' piece of work, aren't you? One only has to perform a few "google' searches and have all pertinent data at you're fingertips -- but not the Gang -- roflmao! They don't read film industry journals, don't read books, don't consult film industry experts, terrified of interviews, they don't need too, they got the Len! ROFLMAO -- can't tell us what RZavada perfected, nor WHEN..... nice try, Gary!

Dave now that I've got you dancing on the end of my string again why don't you reply to my last post on the other thread?

dgh03: oh, Len or whomever you are.... checkout Bernice's contribution in the other thread, regarding the Nix film.....

they have remailers in South America? LOL!

<snipped the rest>

Dave what do you hope to accomplish by harping on points that are not being contended? Doing so makes you look like an idiot. I never denied that compositing and optical printers pre-dated the Kennedy assassination. I'm truly puzzled as why you want to keep "proving" that and then imagine you'd scored some big victory. I don't care if da Vinci had drawn a prototype optical printer in one of his notebooks or if compositing was used in 'Birth of a Nation'. For the umpteenth time the question is not could they do compositing back then but rather 1) could it have been done in a way that doesn't look obviously faked like most compositing does? 2) Could compositing as complex as what Costella claims was done possible then? 3) Could it have been done undetectably? Zavada among others have closely examined the film and said compositing would have left "tell tale" signs.

You will of course say all of this was possible back then. You say we should believe you because you have decades of experience with video and filmmaking and specialize in post-production. You are Fetzer and Company's resident compositing expert. However when asked if you have any experience in compositing you say your experience is irrelevant and tell us to look up a book and some magazines which are not widely available.

When asked if there were any movies made at the time of or before the assassination that would meet the 3 criteria cited above you say there were many but when asked to name one you instead tell us to read that book and those magazines again. Get real – put up or shut up!! Tell us prey tell the title of one movie that meets all three criteria above (or at least 1 and 2). If you can't at least be a man about it and admit you don't know of any such movies.

It's also interesting to see you've gone back to your habit of only replying to 1 or 2 points in my post and not responding to most, I guess they left you stumped!! One of the questions you avoid giving us a straight answer to is when the original alterations and switch were done.

As to Bernice's post, there were 2 different references to the Nix film neither of which proves very much. The first was an excerpt from Livingstone. He seems to presume that the other films weren't altered argues that there are discrepancies between the Zapruder and Nix films which prove that the Z-film was altered. This is in contradiction to your argument that both films were altered to match each other.

" The Zapruder film shows events not present in other films… The Nix film shows him (SSA - Clint Hill) with his arms around her (Jackie) placing her in the back seat... We do not see Hill put his arms around Mrs. Kennedy in the Zapruder film, but instead see him only reach towards her outstretched hand...One might conclude the (Zapruder) film was altered before Hill testified in 1964… the (other) films show entirely different scenes."

I've only seen low resolution copies of the Nix film but Clint Hill's movements look the same in both films to me. If you think there is something to this, post links to high resolution copies of that segment of both films. I also think it's odd that if so many discrepancies exist only Livingstone would have noticed.

The other was an indirect quote from Orville Nix as interviewed by Mark Lane. With out knowing the history, seeing the tape or at least having a direct quote it hard to judge: "(Nix) relates that when he received his film back from the authorities, they had damaged and ruined some of the frames within, and others were missing...a frame here and there also...it was not the same as he had given to them…"

IIRC UPI had possession of the Nix film before the Feds got their hands on it and copies were made. Are there differences between the various copies? Do they all show Zapruder and Stizman on the pedestal? Other than damaged and missing frames what other changes did he believe were made? How many times did he see his film before handing over a copy to the government? How much time went by between when last saw it before giving it to the Feds and when he got it back?

Edited by Len Colby
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 245
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Jack:

As I remember the Pergola area, the Zapruder "pedestal" is farther to the right, and just out of that photo.

_____________________

Gerry:

Wrong.

Jack

Take the following panorama image from the Wiegman film with the Stemmons street sign enhanced and compare it to the color photo showing the pedestal, sign and Zapruder and his secretary on the pedestal.

The Wiegman frames show the Stemmons sign masking the structure behind the pedestal.

The color photo does not.

One may infer from this that the Wiegman frames are taken further down Elm than the color photo.

Therefore the pedestal in the Wiegman frames should be closer to the 'structure' than in the color photo.

It seems to me possible that the Wiegman frames are taken from about where the first shot is often located, where the limo is hidden by the Stemmons sign. This would place the pedestal and Zapruder et al behind this sign.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to post
Share on other sites

Colby is not aware that Wiegman, who caught several clear frames

of the pedestal, SHOWS THE PEDESTAL WITH NOBODY ON TOP.

Apparently in the dragnet of films, the govt missed this.

In FULL SUNLIGHT, Wiegman should have shown SOMETHING

on top of the pedestal. Below, Wiegman is compared to Betzner.

Both are in b/w just seconds apart.

Jack

In the Wiegman frame below which shows NOBODY ON THE PEDESTAL,

I have moved the man in the hardhat from the curb to the pedestal

to show what a person in FULL SUNLIGHT would look like.

Jack

Jack, Zapruder was not in full sun, he was backlit and in dark clothing. Consult your moorman in a previous post. Why did you put a person in light clothes on the pedestal to try and make your point?

Anyways, you cant see him on the pedestal? I'm shocked!

In any case a backlit subject in dark clothing against a very dark background, blurred by camera movement...you call this evidence that Zapruder was not on the pedestal? Even more in light of the fact that everything else shows him htere?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Zapruder was not in full sun, he was backlit and in dark clothing?

While I don't subscribe to Jack White's degree of film alteration, I can't help but take exception to the argument that Zapruder was backlit. The sun was at its midday zenith to the south (camera left). That is anything but backlit.

Tim

Link to post
Share on other sites
Zapruder was not in full sun, he was backlit and in dark clothing?

While I don't subscribe to Jack White's degree of film alteration, I can't help but take exception to the argument that Zapruder was backlit. The sun was at its midday zenith to the south (camera left). That is anything but backlit.

Tim

The perspectived arrow here implies the sun light direction.

The red dot approximates Wiegmans position at the time of the frames shown by Jack.

It appears that 'backlit' (though more correct would be over right shoulder lit) is not entirely incorrect for this frame.

However, I wonder if 'dappled over right shoulder lit might be even more correct'.

Dappled from light shining through tree and hence giving a real camouflage structure to Zapruders image here, particularly when viewed only as grayscale luminance (and very poorly scaled at that) without the color component to differentiate from the background.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to post
Share on other sites
It appears that 'backlit' (though more correct would be over right shoulder lit) is not entirely incorrect for this frame. However, I wonder if 'dappled over right shoulder lit might be even more correct'.

Sidelit is not backlit, especially with regard to midday sunlight. The perspective arrow in the previous post shows the sun to be at a lateral angle no greater than 90 degrees; backlit would be 180. We are talking about midday sunlight, no more than 90 degrees from straight on.

Tim

Link to post
Share on other sites
It appears that 'backlit' (though more correct would be over right shoulder lit) is not entirely incorrect for this frame. However, I wonder if 'dappled over right shoulder lit might be even more correct'.

Sidelit is not backlit, especially with regard to midday sunlight. The perspective arrow in the previous post shows the sun to be at a lateral angle no greater than 90 degrees; backlit would be 180. We are talking about midday sunlight, no more than 90 degrees from straight on.

Tim

High noon or not, from the Weigman camera position Zapruder is backlit for all intents. Its not 180, but at least 120 140 degrees. That qualifies as backlit in my book. One thing is for sure, he's not front lit in full sun. For a good indication of the shadow angle look at the back of the 59 chevy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It appears that 'backlit' (though more correct would be over right shoulder lit) is not entirely incorrect for this frame. However, I wonder if 'dappled over right shoulder lit might be even more correct'.

Sidelit is not backlit, especially with regard to midday sunlight. The perspective arrow in the previous post shows the sun to be at a lateral angle no greater than 90 degrees; backlit would be 180. We are talking about midday sunlight, no more than 90 degrees from straight on.

Tim

For the Wiegmen frame in question::

OK, even more accuracy: angled down over the left shoulder and on to side from posterior of Zapruders exact midline, (not sure exactly what the point is here, as the light that hits Zapruder is filtered through the tree structure and on a poor resolution grayscale image of this type only further complicates any attempt to use it as evidence for anything in shadow, dappled or otherwise.) Basically what this means is that most of Zapruders anterior body parts are in total shadow except for those exposed through profile. Hence I suppose 'backlit' is really quite correct.

Here the green arrow in the insert adapted from Don map indicates the direction of sunrays and the reddish arrow the direction to Wiegman from Zapruder for the frame in question.

EDIT: I've assembled this description poorly, mixing up descriptions of the two different photos, color and Wiegman which were taken at different times.This may be clearer: In the Wiegman frame the parts of Zapruder that are 'facing' Zapruder would be mostly in shadow. However as the quality of the frames in question is so poor it is doubtful that on the frames used Zapruder is even visible (hidden by the Stemmons sign). Either way, the use of 'backlit' to describe the relation of light to figure is not bad in relation to Wiegmans view point on this frame.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to post
Share on other sites

When this same topic came up on a different JFK assassination research forum sometime ago. I was able to crop and enlarge the image from a posted Wiegman frame. It shows Zapruder and Sitzman sitting side by side at the front of the abutment with their legs hanging downwards. Sitzman is seated nearest to the camera and she has her arms around Zapruder's upper body. Her right arm is around Zapruders back and neck, and her right hand can be seen on his shoulder. Because of the way she is supporting him, Zapruder has to push his camera away from his face and outward from his body.

Anyone requesting a copy of the file can e-mail me via the board facility. I tried unsuccessfully to attach it herewith.

Edited by Ed O'Hagan
Link to post
Share on other sites
[...]

Dave your link lead to a nice little history lesson, just what is it supposed to prove? No one disputes that optical printers existed for a long time. So the Army got some in WWII. So just when exactly are YOU going to get around to citing a single movie made around the time of or before the assassination that utilized such extensive compositing and doesn't look obviously faked? And since you seem to be implying that the Army's printers were used maybe even a movie made in 1942 or earlier.

dgh03: it's called education for the uninformed, such as yourself -- honestly, you're a 'real' piece of work, aren't you? One only has to perform a few "google' searches and have all pertinent data at you're fingertips -- but not the Gang -- roflmao! They don't read film industry journals, don't read books, don't consult film industry experts, terrified of interviews, they don't need too, they got the Len! ROFLMAO -- can't tell us what RZavada perfected, nor WHEN..... nice try, Gary!

Dave now that I've got you dancing on the end of my string again why don't you reply to my last post on the other thread?

dgh03: oh, Len or whomever you are.... checkout Bernice's contribution in the other thread, regarding the Nix film.....

they have remailers in South America? LOL!

<snipped the rest>

Dave what do you hope to accomplish by harping on points that are not being contended? Doing so makes you look like an idiot. I never denied that compositing and optical printers pre-dated the Kennedy assassination. I'm truly puzzled as why you want to keep "proving" that and then imagine you'd scored some big victory. I don't care if da Vinci had drawn a prototype optical printer in one of his notebooks or if compositing was used in 'Birth of a Nation'. For the umpteenth time the question is not could they do compositing back then but rather 1) could it have been done in a way that doesn't look obviously faked like most compositing does? 2) Could compositing as complex as what Costella claims was done possible then? 3) Could it have been done undetectably? Zavada among others have closely examined the film and said compositing would have left "tell tale" signs.

You will of course say all of this was possible back then. You say we should believe you because you have decades of experience with video and filmmaking and specialize in post-production. You are Fetzer and Company's resident compositing expert. However when asked if you have any experience in compositing you say your experience is irrelevant and tell us to look up a book and some magazines which are not widely available.

When asked if there were any movies made at the time of or before the assassination that would meet the 3 criteria cited above you say there were many but when asked to name one you instead tell us to read that book and those magazines again. Get real – put up or shut up!! Tell us prey tell the title of one movie that meets all three criteria above (or at least 1 and 2). If you can't at least be a man about it and admit you don't know of any such movies.

It's also interesting to see you've gone back to your habit of only replying to 1 or 2 points in my post and not responding to most, I guess they left you stumped!! One of the questions you avoid giving us a straight answer to is when the original alterations and switch were done.

As to Bernice's post, there were 2 different references to the Nix film neither of which proves very much. The first was an excerpt from Livingstone. He seems to presume that the other films weren't altered argues that there are discrepancies between the Zapruder and Nix films which prove that the Z-film was altered. This is in contradiction to your argument that both films were altered to match each other.

" The Zapruder film shows events not present in other films… The Nix film shows him (SSA - Clint Hill) with his arms around her (Jackie) placing her in the back seat... We do not see Hill put his arms around Mrs. Kennedy in the Zapruder film, but instead see him only reach towards her outstretched hand...One might conclude the (Zapruder) film was altered before Hill testified in 1964… the (other) films show entirely different scenes."

I've only seen low resolution copies of the Nix film but Clint Hill's movements look the same in both films to me. If you think there is something to this, post links to high resolution copies of that segment of both films. I also think it's odd that if so many discrepancies exist only Livingstone would have noticed.

The other was an indirect quote from Orville Nix as interviewed by Mark Lane. With out knowing the history, seeing the tape or at least having a direct quote it hard to judge: "(Nix) relates that when he received his film back from the authorities, they had damaged and ruined some of the frames within, and others were missing...a frame here and there also...it was not the same as he had given to them…"

IIRC UPI had possession of the Nix film before the Feds got their hands on it and copies were made. Are there differences between the various copies? Do they all show Zapruder and Stizman on the pedestal? Other than damaged and missing frames what other changes did he believe were made? How many times did he see his film before handing over a copy to the government? How much time went by between when last saw it before giving it to the Feds and when he got it back?

**********************************************

Hi All:

Here is further information on Orville Nix's film....his interview with Mark Lane...and also

informing us that UPI did Not ever have possession of his film, before he gave it to the Federal authourities..

Where he believed the shot or shots came from as well what SS Agent Forrest Sorrells said to him.

Also information from his grand daughter.....on the teatment of his original film, that he Never received back,

but about which there were excuses made by the Archives and UPI..and how he was teated over his inquiries, and how he also was treated by CBS in helping with the "Beyond JFK" documentary....

Orville Nix :

"Rush to Judgment "was the title of a book written by Mark Lane and published not long after the JFK Assassination..(1966)..

The book takes issue with the conclusions of the Warren Commission and suggests that there was a conspiracy to assassinate John F. Kennedy.

(Video.also titled "Rush To Judgment.".Begins with the date.. Feb. 1964) a 1966 film documentary about the John F Kennedy Assassination that was directed by Emile de Antonio and hosted by Mark Lane. It is a black and white film, 122 minutes long. It has also been shown on BBC TV since 1967 as part of the much longer (300 minutes) film entitled "The Death of Kennedy".

Included are several video clips showing Dealey Plaza how it existed in 1963 and 1966, clips of Lee Harvey Oswald .Dallas Chief of Police Jesse Curry, Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade, Jack Ruby and his defense attorney Melvin Belli..

Some of the assassination witnesses who present their observations on-camera include Abraham Zapruder, James Tague, Charles Brehm, Mary Moorman, Jean Hill, Lee Bowers,Sam Holland, James Simmons, Richard Dodd, Jessie Price, Orville Nix, Patrick Dean, Napoleon Daniels, Nancy Hamilton, Joseph Johnson, Roy Jones, and Cecil McWatters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_to_Judgment

*************************

Orville Nix Verbatim from the Video....

Mark Lane: "Mr.Nix .Where were you on November 22nd ?.."

Orville Nix: "I was standing on the corner of Main and Houston "..(Sts).

Mark Lane: "And did you take any pictures of the Presidental Limousine as it went through Dealey Plaza ?.."

Orville Nix: "Yes, I had taken pictures before and after --before and during the assassination "..

Mark Lane: "And you know of course that your pictures were used by the Government to determine where the limousine was when some of the shots were fired ?"..

Orville Nix: "Yes "..

Mark Lane:"And did you deliver a copy of your film to the Federal Government ?"..

Orville Nix:"Yes, I delivered a copy of my film to the Federal Government about December 1st "..

Mark Lane:"About a little over a week after the assassination ?"..

Orville Nix:"Yes, my film got lost in the processing plant !"..

Mark Lane: "Where is the original film ?"..

Orville Nix: "The original film --uh--belonged to United Press International .The Government has a duplicate copy "..

Mark Lane: " Where is that copy ?"..

Orville Nix: " In the Archives"..

Mark Lane:"And is that the duplicate copy which was used by the Warren Commission determining along with other films, the Muchmore film and the Zapruder film where the Presidential limousine was when some of the shots were fired ?"..

Orville Nix: "I would say so"..

Mark Lane: "Well you now have a copy, of your film which you were kind enough to show to us this afternoon .Is that copy the same as the original that you gave to the FBI on December 1st ?"..

Orville Nix: " I would say, No--- there is some films maybe missing---some --uh--frames--uh--some of the frames were ruined "..

Mark Lane :"Does the film which you have at the present time ,have the same number of frames as the film that you delivered to the FBI on December 1st ?"..

Orville Nix: "--uh--I would say No--but its' cause of loosing maybe a --uh--frame --uh--here and there "..

Mark Lane :" At the time of the shots were fired ,did you look at the Book Depository building ?"..

Orville Nix :" No"..

Mark Lane : " Did you think ,at that time ,that the shots came from the Book Depository ?"..

Orville Nix : "No, I thought it came from a fence --uh--between the Book Depository and the Railroad Track"..

Mark Lane:"--uh--Did anyone else ,who you know, that you've spoken with ,also believe that the shots came from there "..

Orville Nix: " Most everyone thought it came from the fence behind the Book Depository "..

Mark Lane :"Did you have the occasion to speak with Forrest Sorrels ---who is of course a friend of yours ,and is the Secret Service agent in charge of Dallas that day ?"..

Orville Nix:" Yes, I did "..

Mark Lane : "Did he tell you where the thought the shots came from ?"..

Orville Nix : " He thought they came from the same place"..

Mark Lane : " Which is ?"..

Orville Nix: "Behind the fence"..

Mark Lane : " At the present time where do you believe the shots came from ?"..

Orville Nix : " Well they came from the Book Depository because there's proof it did come from there "..

Mark Lane :" I see---and this you've read in Newspapers and you've read the Report ?"..

Orville Nix :" Yes,--er-- I believe the Warren Report"..

*****************************************end of his interview on tape****

Orville Nix:

Conspiracy Beliefs (and Denials) In High Places..

By Vince Palamara

According to Orville Nix, a Dealey Plaza eyewitness who filmed the assassination and who was a good friend of Sorrels (Nix was an air-conditioning repairman for the General Service Administration in the Dallas Secret Service Building), Sorrels told him that the shots came from the grassy knoll. ["Rush To Judgment" film by Mark Lane; see also Who's Who in the JFK Assassination by Michael Benson, 1993, p. 314]

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/beliefs.htm

***************************************

Orville Nix..

JFK: How the Media Assassinated the Real Story...

From Real History Archives

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/...assination.html

Although Salant asserts to this day that CBS was only after the truth, a recently released documentary indicates otherwise. Danny Schechter's "Beyond JFK: The Question of Conspiracy," features Walter Cronkite conceding that CBS News in 1970 censored Lyndon Johnson's own doubts about the lone-assassin theory. Cronkite tells Schechter that Johnson invoked "national security" to get CBS to edit out his remarks long after they had been captured on film. Cronkite and CBS, of course, reflexively complied.

But perhaps nothing revealed CBS's prejudice in the series more tellingly than the network's treatment of Orville Nix, a man who was wielding a movie camera across from the grassy knoll on that fateful day. Nix, who had worked for the General Service Administration as an air conditioning repairman in the Dallas Secret Service building, sold his footage to UPI for $5000 in 1963. But, according to his granddaughter Gayle Nix Jackson, the film only brought him heartache.

"The FBI had issued a dictum to all of Dallas's film labs that any assassination photos had to be turned over to the FBI immediately," recalls Gayle Jackson. "The lab called my granddad first and, like the good American he was, he rushed it to the FBI." Nix had to turn his camera over to the FBI as well. "They took the camera for five months. They said they needed to analyze it. They returned it in pieces," recalls Jackson. In 1967 Nix dutifully turned out for the CBS re-creation. Recalls his granddaughter: "His turn came to reenact what he saw. They said, 'Mr.Nix. where did the shots come from?' He said, `From over there on that grassy knoll behind the picket fence.' Then it would be, `Cut!' We went through this six or seven times and each time it was, `Cut!' And then a producer stepped forward and said, `Orville where did the Warren Commission say the shots came from?' My granddad said, `Well, the Texas Book Depository.' The producer said, `That's what you need to say.'" CBS producer Bernard Birnbaum, who worked on the documentary, denies the exchange. "We never tried to put any words in anybody's mouth, absolutely not," he told the "Voice." Birnbaum says CBS did give Warren Commission critics air time and cites a segment of the documentary where another eyewitness contends shots came from the grassy knoll. "We were looking to disprove everything," he insists.

According to Jackson, her grandfather also told CBS that there were four shots fired during the assassination, an observation subsequently endorsed by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1975, based on controversial acoustical evidence. But what did the CBS viewing audience hear from Nix? "Bang, bang, bang," as if to suggest that Nix also subscribed to the three-bang theory.

After being browbeaten by CBS, Orville Nix, a normally mild-mannered man, became furious. "He was hitting the steering wheel on the ride back home saying, `Why are they trying to make me feel like I am insane?'" Jackson recalls. She remembers that a year or so later, when District Attorney Jim Garrison called for Nix to testify, her grandfather wouldn't talk. He was afraid for his life.

How many other witnesses experienced the Orville you-never-heard/saw-that phenomenon we will never know. But one other was Kenny O'Donnell, a confidant and adviser to JFK who was in the motorcade. In Tip O'Neill's book Man of The House, O'Neill describes a conversation with O'Donnell, who told him he was sure that two shots had come from the fence behind the grassy knoll. O'Neill said to O'Donnell, "That's not what you told the Warren Commission." O'Donnell responded, "You're right, I told the FBI what I had heard, but they said it couldn't have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn't want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family."

Since Orville Nix's death in 1988, his granddaughter, a former loss-prevention executive, has been waging a one-woman war to get the original film back from UPI. She wants it analyzed to reveal the details that a copy does not provide. "You know my granddad believed in the Texas handshake, and that is how he made his deal with UPI." According to Jackson, the rights to the film were to revert to Nix's estate in 1988. After initially getting a green light from UPI for the return of the film, the then-media giant informed her that the attorney that granted her request was "no longer with the company." She was told to wait until 1991. Then on June 4, 1991, came a note from UPI's general counsel, Frank Kane. "UPI agrees that, in accordance with the oral agreement . . . UPI hereby releases all rights over the Nix Film to Mr. Nix's heirs and assigns." There was only one problem. UPI no longer had the film. Jackson received a letter saying the film had gone to the Warren Commission and was supposedly housed in the National Archives. With the Warren Commission out of business, she contacted the National Archives only to learn that the original was not there either.

The last official place the film was said to have been was in the House Select Committee on Assassinations files. That Committee was convened in 1975 to investigate the assassinations of John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King. The chief counsel for the HSCA, G. Robert Blakey, who has a penchant for gagging his staff via mandatory secrecy oaths, came clean with Nix's granddaughter about the fate of the family heirloom, says Jackson. "Blakey's the only one who takes full responsibility for the loss of the film because it was his committee that was supposed to assure that all evidence was returned to the rightful owner," Jackson says. So much for posterity's view of the grassy knoll on November 22, 1963. A former HSCA staff member, Gaeton Fonzi, recalls that back at the time of the hearings the staff "heard rumors that Blakey planned to classify all of the committee files, but we didn't believe them because that would be too reminiscent of what the Warren Commission had done." In fact many of the files were classified and this same man, Blakey, is the one who has been recently assigned to help draft legislation about what will be released from the original Kennedy assassination files.

***************************************

Orville Nix:

How Credible Is The Warren Commission..

From The John F.Kennedy Assassination

Homepage..

During the testimonies of the 395 witnesses, the examination went about 300 times off the record, merely at crucial point and sometimes up to 7 and 8 times per witness. The most interesting case is the testimony of Patrick T. Dean. The counsel accused him of perjury and had threaten him with the loss of his job. Later, Dean requested to be heard before the Commission and told his story for the record, so we know about it today.

Among the 489 witnesses, only 395 appeared to testify, less than a fourth (94) before the Commission itself. And during these testimonies, the Commission was never present as a body or throughout the full length. [5] Although the Chairman was present at least on all 94 examinations, the estimated numbers of the other members were:

Representative Ford 70

Mr. Dulles 60

Senator Cooper 50

Mr. McCloy 35

Representative Boggs 20

Senator Russell 6

Nobody of the Commission heard one of the witnesses who appeared before the Counsel (over 350), among them crucial witnesses such as Forrest V. Sorrels, Billy Lovelady, Abraham Zapruder, Domingo Benavides, George DeMohrenschildt, Jean L. Hill, James Tague (was wounded during the assassination!!!) and Sylvia Odio. Some witnesses never appeared before the Commission: James Chaney (saw JFK when he was shot at the head, saw him struck in the face), Bill and Gayle Newman (stood on Grassy Knoll, said shots came from behind), Charles Brehm (closest bystander when JFK was hit), J.C. Price (told he saw a man with rifle running behind the wooden fence on Grassy Knoll), Milton Jones (said the FBI sought for Oswald after he left the bus although nobody knew him yet), James Simmons (told the shots came from Grassy Knoll), Richard Dodd (told about shot and smoke behind the fence), Ray Rushing (told he saw Ruby 2 hours before Oswald shooting in the police headquarter although he was claimed to be at home), Marvin Robinson (saw Oswald left with a Rambler station wagon from the Texas School Book Depository), Ralph Yarborough (was next to LBJ and said he smelled smoke when passing the Grassy Knoll). [6]

Many witnesses told about alterations of her testimonies, such as Jean Hill, Phil Willis, Orville Nix, James Tague, Sam Holland, Roger Craig, Chester Breneman and Robert West (Reenactment figures), and Julia Ann Mercer. Mercer even told about the faking of her signature by the FBI. [7]

I hope this gives you a slight idea of the credibility of the Warren Report. A complete destroying of the report in comparison to the witnesses' testimonies can be found in Silvia Meagher's book "Accessories after the fact". A few of the arguments I will cite here to answer the other questions.

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/faq.php

*************************

In reply to a statement, in the previous thread..... that Zapruder was standing with his back to the TSBD, at the time Zapruder heard the shot behind him...and that behind him was not the corner fence area..where some believe shots came from.......the corner to my knowledge was not mentioned..?

In the WC testimony: Mr.Zapruder says......"then I started yelling, "They killed him, they killed him," and I just felt that somebody had ganged up on him and I was still shooting the pictures until he got under the underpass--I don't even know how I did it...... And then, I didn't even remember how I got down from that abutment there,...... but there I was, I guess, and I was walking toward--back toward my office and screaming,........ "They killed him, they killed him," ..excerpt continues below...

"At 9:55 p.m. Dallas time on November 22..United States PRS Special Agent Maxwell D. Phillips sent a hand-written memo (Warren Commission Document, CD87) to U.S. Secret Service Chief James Rowley that accompanied one of the first generation copies said of Zapruder's origins of at least one shot, "According to Mr Zapruder the position of the assassin was behind Mr Zapruder." Behind Mr. Zapruder was the Dealey Plaza grassy knoll However, (by the time) in his testimony to the Warren Commission Zapruder was less certain.."

From the Warren Commission:

Mr. LIEBELER - 313--you remember that one?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - That was--that was the horrible one.

Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, as the car came in line almost--I believe it was almost in line. I was standing up here and I was shooting through a telephoto lens, which is a zoom lens and as it reached about--I imagine it was around here--I heard the first shot and I saw the President lean over and grab himself like this (holding his left chest area).

Mr. LIEBELER - Grab himself on the front of his chest?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - Right---something like that. In other words, he was sitting like this and waving and then after the shot he just went like that.

Mr. LIEBELER - He was sitting upright in the car and you heard the shot and you saw the President slump over?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - Leaning--leaning toward the side of Jacqueline. For a moment I thought it was, you know, like you say, "Oh, he got me," when you hear a shot--you've heard these expressions and then I saw---I don't believe the President is going to make jokes like this, but before I had a chance to organize my mind, I heard a second shot and then I saw his head opened up and the blood and everything came out and I started--I can hardly talk about it [ the witness crying].

Mr. LIEBELER - That's all right, Mr. Zapruder, would you like a drink of water? Why don't you step out and have a drink of water?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - I'm sorry--I'm ashamed of myself really, but I couldn't help it.

Mr. LIEBELER - Nobody should ever be ashamed of feeling that way, Mr. Zapruder. I feel the same way myself. It was a terrible thing.

Let me go back now for just a moment and ask you how many shots you heard altogether.

Mr. ZAPRUDER - I thought I heard two, it could be three, because to my estimation I thought he was hit on the second--I really don't know. The whole thing that has been transpiring--it was very upsetting and as you see I got a little better all the time and this came up again and it to me looked like the second shot, but I don't know. I never even heard a third shot.

Mr. LIEBELER - You didn't hear any shot after you saw him hit?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - I heard the second--after the first shot--I saw him leaning over and after the second shot--it's possible after what I saw, you know, then I started yelling, "They killed him, they killed him," and I just felt that somebody had ganged up on him and I was still shooting the pictures until he got under the underpass--I don't even know how I did it...... And then, I didn't even remember how I got down from that abutment there,...... but there I was, I guess, and I was walking toward--back toward my office and screaming,........ "They killed him, they killed him," and the people that I met on the way didn't even know what happened and they kept yelling, "What happened, what happened, what happened?" ....

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

When Mr.Zapruder took the "horrible one" see Frame 313...he was almost , facing the limo, almost in line..is what he relates..""Well, as the car came in line almost--I believe it was almost in line"". his back would be towards the, pergola, the parking lot behind, and to his right, behind him was the wooden fence behind the Pergola.....see the camera alignment in frame 313 at the site below....it is not to the back of the limo when the head shot was received, it is almost in line of the Limo....as Mr.Zapruder stated..imo

""Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, as the car came in line almost--I believe it was almost in line.""

At 9:55 p.m. Dallas time on November 22..United States PRS Special Agent Maxwell D. Phillips sent a hand-written memo (Warren Commission Document, CD87) to U.S. Secret Service Chief James Rowley that accompanied one of the first generation copies said of Zapruder's origins of at least one shot, "According to Mr Zapruder the position of the assassin was behind Mr Zapruder." Behind Mr. Zapruder was the Dealey Plaza grassy knoll However, (by the time) in his testimony to the Warren Commission Zapruder was less certain..

Below the "awful "one..is Zapruder frame 313.......if you open this site and have a look at the frames, please check..

Frame 317..in this one you will notice that the President has the top of his head, hair and a forehead,....and a large wound which appears to the side of his head...in the temple area.....

Then check frame 326... and imo you will see that the President no longer has ,a top to his head, nor forehead..

Then skip to frame 374 , and the side of his head is totally gone......IMO...I have no idea why ?, but that is what I see.....

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/?

Thanks for your time....

B..

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

Jack, Zapruder was not in full sun, he was backlit and in dark clothing. Consult your moorman in a previous post. Why did you put a person in light clothes on the pedestal to try and make your point?

[...]

Zapruder was backlit? roflmfao! Photographer and photo anaylyst, yeah, right..... LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites
[...]

Jack, Zapruder was not in full sun, he was backlit and in dark clothing. Consult your moorman in a previous post. Why did you put a person in light clothes on the pedestal to try and make your point?

[...]

Zapruder was backlit? roflmfao! Photographer and photo anaylyst, yeah, right..... LOL

Yes David, from the Weigman camera position, Zapruder was backlit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
[...]

Jack, Zapruder was not in full sun, he was backlit and in dark clothing. Consult your moorman in a previous post. Why did you put a person in light clothes on the pedestal to try and make your point?

[...]

Zapruder was backlit? roflmfao! Photographer and photo anaylyst, yeah, right..... LOL

Zapruder wore a white shirt. Sitzman wore a light beige dress.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
Zapruder wore a white shirt. Sitzman wore a light beige dress.

I'm no photo analyst, I'm just talking off the top of my head, so feel free to attack. As I recall (I don't have it in front of me), some of the people along the street in the Wiegman frame look like nothing but black smudges. Were they all black people, dressed all in black? I don't think so. One may have even worn a white shirt or a light beige whatever. In any case, would Zapruder or Sitzman (if we could see them) necessarily look different from these black-smudge people on the sidewalk? Put one of the black-smudge people on the pedestal with its black background and see if you can see him or her. I'll bet it would look like no one is there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

'Craig Lamson' wrote:

[...]

Jack, Zapruder was not in full sun, he was backlit and in dark clothing. Consult your moorman in a previous post. Why did you put a person in light clothes on the pedestal to try and make your point?

[...]

Zapruder was backlit? roflmfao! Photographer and photo anaylyst, yeah, right..... LOL

Yes David, from the Weigman camera position, Zapruder was backlit.

________

What? If he turned with his back towards Elm Street and faced Sitzman, perhaps. Zapruder has NO backlight in that photo, the Zapruder camera position has more than adequate KEY-SIDE light from Weigman's camera position.

What you need there Craig, is a few 5K HMI's and a 2K (all 5600) rim light "behind" Zapruder and Sizman now THAT's outdoor backlight (or the sun), then we could see whose actually ON the pedestal, (despite the piss poor quality of ALL photos/film taken that day which I do find interesting in and of itself, that we mere mortals have been allowed to view) -- nobody can positively ID him, Zapruder (based on on-the-record DP photos), not that I doubt it's probably him.

Edited by David G. Healy
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
×
×
  • Create New...