Pat Speer

That's reaching, IMO. Apparently, McHugh claimed from the get-go that LBJ's behavior aboard AF1 had been "obscene". All indications are that McHugh was a Kennedy loyalist. His involvement in a plot seems most unlikely.

Sometime not so long ago I was watching early newsreel footage of the assassination on Youtube, and noticed a quick scene I hadn't noticed before. It was a shot of an unidentified DPD Identification Bureau officer (Doughty? Hicks?) holding up Oswald's fingerprint card for the cameras. Now that I'm investigating this aspect of the case, of course, I can't find it. Any links to this footage or photos of this incident will be greatly appreciated. It may prove important. Thanks in advance, Pat

Well, Mark, you agree with Posner, my favorite government apologist, who is quoted at the conclusion of the current Times story: “Most conspiracy theorists don’t understand this... But if there really were a C.I.A. plot, no documents would exist.” I'm not sure how Posner actually knows this, but he certainly sounds authoritative, doesn't he? I suppose Nosenko told this to Posner in one of their top secret meetings.

Does anyone know whether this went ahead? I'm in the wrong time zone to listen live, and there's nothing on the Black Op website as yet. Len usually gets at least a link up in the archives section by now. I've been looking forward to it. Paul. I heard the last 20 minutes or so. After they'd been going at it for almost two hours, they reached the half-way point. McAdams, who lives in the Central Time Zone, then said he'd only like to go another hour. Rather than short-change the second batch of questions, they all agreed to do the second part next week. From what I heard it was quite civil and informative. McAdams had an answer for a lot of DiEugenio's points. DiEugenio, however, was well-prepared, and was able to shoot down a lot of McAdams' explanations. I'm not sure if the first part went as well, but, if so, someone should prepare a transcript of the debate, and post it all over the internet. It would allow ill-informed CTs to see that there is another point of view, and allow LNs fond of repeating the same old nonsense to see that there is plenty of info supporting the other side, and that distrust of the official story is not the sure sign of mental illness they've been led to believe.

Len, perhaps you're both right. Just because ONE paper printed the correct total five weeks later does not mean it became common knowledge... Cover-ups are rarely one hundred percent successful...but they don't need to be. As far as Greg's basic point--that governments cover-up and lie to protect politicians and that it sometimes takes decades to uncover the truth, how can you argue? I'll give you my favorite example. The vast majority of Americans STILL believe the United States HAD to drop the bomb on Japan, because the Japanese military had vowed to fight to the last man. Virtually no one knows that Japanese leaders had been trying to negotiate a surrender with Allen Dulles and others in Europe for months before the bomb was dropped. Virtually no one knows that Douglas MacArthur, of all people, said that the battle of Iwo Jima was totally unnecessary. We continued fighting and dropped the bomb because we wanted to assure Japan's UNCONDITIONAL surrender (and perhaps just perhaps send a message to the Russians). But how many Americans knew this? How many soldiers fighting at Iwo Jima were told that the Japanese had already agreed to surrender, and give up all the gains they'd made in the war, but were fighting on because they didn't want us to occupy their homeland? Probably zero. The American people were sold the war under the premise the Germans and Japanese were out to conquer the world; they were not sold the war on the premise we needed to conquer Germany and Japan and rebuild them to suit or economic interests. And so the lie was repeated after the war was over. And repeated and repeated and repeated. Until it became doctrine.

Exactly. I watched the video in which he fires the shots. He fires on a stationary target (a door) and never lifts his head. One of the problems with the Carcano--to my understanding--was that the bolt action was extremely stiff and people had to take their eyes off the target between rounds to operate the bolt. And so I mentioned that his rifle was clearly not in the same condition as Oswald's. (I would guess he has fixed it up in some way--perhaps he replaced the bolt with something much much easier to operate.) That was what led to both his deleting my old messages and making me a wager.

I exchanged a few words with the maker of this video, and he revealed himself to be quite the fraud by deleting all the negative comments on his video. He insists he can hit seven shots on a moving target in seven seconds with his Carcano, and wants to bet me on it. I've tried to explain to him that I don't care what he can do with his Carcano, but that he is implying anyone can hit seven shots in seven seconds with an hour's practice, on a rifle in the condition of OSWALD'S Carcano. I have tried to explain that the FBI, Army, CBS News, Dr. Lattimer, etc. all performed tests on the rifle, or on rifles in similar condition, and found it to fire no faster than once every 2 seconds when firing on a moving target. But he's too ignorant to care. "You implying I can't hit the shots? Wanna man-up and make a bet on it?" What a joke... He's an obvious fraud trying to make a name for himself by proving that rat bastard commie killed Kennedy. Probably a birther...

David, while doing a comparison between the Z-film and Dale Myers' animation I took a closer look at frames 208-211 and came to a similar belief. While JFK stays put just above the top of the sign, Jackie bounces all over the place. It is clear she's reacting to a shot and staring at her husband. I believe that's one of the reasons Myers couldn't find the time to include her in his cartoon. It also raised the question with me if that wasn't why the frames disappeared. Perhaps someone...Specter?... realized if those frames were published, the public would never believe the first shot wasn't fired til Z-210, as the WC was preparing to propose.

Pamela, you might find chapter 9b at patspeer.com interesting. I compare Bugliosi's assaults on Stone with his own deceptive use of footnotes and citations, and demonstrate quite clearly, IMO, that Vincent Bugliosi is the "real" Oliver Stone.

I met Bugliosi in January at a book-signing. He is indeed a weird egg, full of himself, and his belief his arguments are irrefutable. He is also an atheist.

David, presuming the Z-film is not a fake, there is no way Kennedy was hit at the time of the Croft photo. The Croft photo is at Z-161. The Z-film shows Kennedy turn to his right, smile and wave to some women after this point. There is no way he could have or would have done this after being shot. The witnesses, furthermore, claimed Kennedy was shot during this wave. This supports that Kennedy was hit circa Z-190. Connally, when first shown the film, thought Kennedy was hit at this time. Since the Warren Commission was afraid to say Kennedy was hit at this time, as the limousine was at this time partially hidden behind a tree, they decided to have the FBI's Lyndal Shaneyfelt testify that there was no evidence Kennedy was hit before coming out from behind the sign. They then proposed JFK was hit somewhere between Z-210 and Z-225, when he was behind the sign or just coming out from behind the sign. I believe they knew this to be a lie. In any event, the HSCA photographic panel studied the film and, as Connally, decided Kennedy was hit before heading behind the sign in the film. The HSCA said okay, and claimed a shooter from the sniper's nest might have tried to fire through a break in the tree at this point. Okay. I agree. In their zeal to prop up the single-bullet theory, however, the HSCA decided Connally was also hit at this point, and that he showed no reaction until seconds later. Well, this was a problem, even for single-assassin theorists, who never met a ridiculous assertion propping up the single-bullet theory that they didn't like. Close study of the film by theorists in the 80's and 90's suggested that yes, indeed, the HSCA was full of smoke, and that Connally was hit circa Z-224 and not Z-190. Now this is the good part. They then decided to pretend there was no evidence Kennedy was hit before Z-224. The claimed his rapid reaction to being wounded after Z-224 was related to something called Thorburn's response. This was later proved to be a hoax. They created animated versions of the Z-film showing Kennedy smiling and waving until being hit at the same time as Connally. This animation has since been proven to be inaccurate, and inaccurate in such a way that it suggests a deliberate deception. Kennedy's movements on the film before he heads behind the sign are the proof of the lie. Dale Myers, the creator of the most widely-seen animated version of the shooting, tried to get around the HSCA photographic panel's interpretation by claiming close study of the film shows that Kennedy was not reacting to a shot, but checking out some chicks. Ridiculous. But at least he has plausible deniability. When the eyes of history look down on him and say "How could you be so mistaken?" he can claim "Well, I guess I was wrong! Sorry!" Not so Vincent Bugliosi. In the 1986 mock trial of Oswald, Bugliosi called as a prosecution witness Cecil Kirk, head of the HSCA photographic panel. He had Kirk testify Kennedy was hit circa frame 190, before he went behind the sign. When Bugliosi's book Reclaiming History came out in 2007, however, Bugliosi was now claiming, a la Myers, that Kennedy was not hit until circa frame 224. So you'd think he'd just ignore Kirk, right? Wrong? He repeatedly cites Kirk in his book, trading upon Kirk's expertise, but NEVER tells his readers that not only did Kirk believe Kennedy was shot seconds before Bugliosi claims Connally was shot, but that Bugliosi had taken testimony saying as much in the mock trial serving as the back drop for Bugliosi's book. ARRGGHH! Will the parade of lies and liars never cease!

If the above is accurate, it is a shameful part of Ted Kennedy' legacy, and is disappointing, knowing what many of us know, concerning the flaws in the Warren Commission Report, so well documemnted, for example, in the threads on this forum. Well, that helps explain things. Warren, to his everlasting shame, personally "sold" the commission's findings to the family. It would be hard not to be swayed by such a thing. I wonder if Warren told them: "Uhhh, the doctors wanted to look at the autopsy photos THEY'D created to assist them in writing their reports, and to help them in their testimony, but I REFUSED to let them look at these photos because I was concerned with upsetting Bobby, even though he'd told Katzenbach that they could look at them if they wanted to. Y'know, out of my loyalty... I just couldn't bear the thought of the doctors who--in point of fact, OWNED the photographs--looking at them, and creating accurate exhibits representing the President's wounds. And oh, by the way, these photographs would never have been allowed in a court of law anyway, cause they were just too gruesome, and they would have overly-influenced the jury into convicting Oswald. Of course, if there was something in the photos that suggested Oswald's innocence, they would have been allowed, but that's another matter. I mean, I looked at the photos myself, and made the decision that there was NOTHING in these photos that could possibly suggest his innocence--that is, unless you count that the neck wound in the exhibits we're gonna publish is two inches higher on the back than the back wound in the photos, and that this totally helps sell that the bullet striking your brother from behind exited his throat and went on to hit Connally, and that this helps us sell that one man could have fired all the shots. I mean, some snakey public defender, some Mark Lane-type, might try and do something with that. But no one needs to know about that, now do they? We all know that squirrelly commie did it, and did it alone, and actually studying the medical evidence and bringing up all those memories, well...really what's the point? Yeah, yeah... I know what you're thinking. You're thinking "But Earl, your appointing yourself an expert and determining the relevance of these photos without the consultation of an expert is a violation of everything you're supposed to represent, and would almost certainly have resulted in an overturn of a conviction, should it have been done in an actual court room." But you're forgetting---this wasn't a court room. It was a fact-finding commission, and we could do whatever we wanted to find facts or not find facts, without fear of one of those embarrassing reversals. That's the beauty of it... And that's why I think we should circumvent the rights of the accused in all criminal investigations of highly-charged political events in the future by creating Presidential commissions answerable only to the President...particularly when the President is himself under suspicion for the crime. I mean, we can't have that, can we? I mean, if the legitimacy of the Presidency itself is ever under question, then our whole American way of life is in jeopardy. So it only follows that we need to destroy everything that people think matters--the rule of law, etc--in order to save what we here in Washington know REALLY matters...RESPECT FOR AUTHORITY."

Oh, so I get it...they weren't trained in assassination, only torture. How dare we think someone trained to "take up the rear guard" and "collect information" and "interrogate" might also kill a commie or two! The horror! This convinces me even more that Op 40 was trained to kill the likes of Manolo Ray. The assassination lists found in the CIA files were intended for someone. Who better than the guys serving as "internal investigators" while "taking up the rear guard"?

George Carlin, Bill Hicks...I think Lenny Bruce might have cast some suspicion also. Why is it that our comedians seem to have more common sense than our politicians?

Jackie Kennedy's cousin John Davis not only believed JFK had been killed by a conspiracy, he wrote Mafia Kingfish, fingering Marcello as the mastermind. There is also RFK and LBJ, and Alexander Haig, and Ted Sorensen, and Senators Richard Schweicker and Gary Hart. There is, also, of course, the bulk of the HSCA committee. It's only second-hand, but it was reported by screenwriter Eric Hamburg that JFK's sister, Jean Kennedy Smith, suspected the anti-Castro Cuban crowd. And then there's folks like Al Gore. I think Hillary Clinton also voiced some suspicion somewhere along the line. On the other side of the pond you have Khruschev, and, apparently, deGaulle.

Craig, your response once again demonstrates that you don't even understand the issues involved. The bullet hole on the clothes places it around the T-3 level of Kennedy's spine. Now the line among many CTs is that this alone proves the single-bullet theory impossible. There are two ways around this, however. Dr. Humes and Arlen Specter proposed that Kennedy's jacket was bunched up on his neck, and that this brought the bullet hole on the clothes up to the level of the back wound depicted on their autopsy drawings--at the base of the neck, around C5-C6. This, of course, seemed unlikely, and aroused much suspicion in the conspiracy research community circa 1966. No one then, or now, has been able to demonstrate that this could happen, without clothing being bunched up ABOVE Kennedy's collar. (If you think you can demonstrate this, fire away.) But this issue was brushed aside in 1978, when the HSCA FPP acknowledged that the autopsy photos proved that the wound was NOT at C5-C6, as depicted on the drawings, but at T-1, on Kennedy's back. They then found another way around the bullet hole location and claimed the single-bullet theory trajectory still worked because Kennedy leaned forward as he passed behind the Stemmons Freeway sign. Well, this was laughable, as Kennedy was behind this sign for only a second. Even more shocking, the committee, based upon the photographic and acoustic evidence, concluded the SBT shot occurred BEFORE Kennedy went behind this sign...AT A POINT THAT THEIR MEDICAL PANEL CLAIMED THE SBT WAS IMPOSSIBLE. So...in the years since 1978 the LN community has returned to claiming the bullet hit Kennedy around C5-C6. They do this without acknowledging that this is in defiance of the last medical panel to look at the photos, and even the autopsy doctors. You see, when the original autopsy doctors were shown the photos in 96...UNDER OATH...they acknowledged that yes, indeed, the back wound was on the back and not in the location depicted in the drawings they submitted to Specter and the WC. NOW, although you seem to be operating under the delusion I have many "friends" in the research community who have been led astray by my interpretation of the Croft photo, the FACT is that many CTs, perhaps most, think the back wound in the autopsy photo is still incompatible with the bullet hole location on the clothes. I, however, have long pushed that the clothes WERE SLIGHTLY BUNCHED, and that this bunching of the clothes lifted the bullet hole on the clothing to the level of T-1, and that the back wound photo, therefore, would appear to be legitimate. I also have long held that this bunching was not significant enough to lift the level of the bullet hole to C-5/C-6, where most LNs place the entrance wound (in bold defiance of the medical experts). So...when I came across the John Hunt article claiming the Croft photo showed there to be enough bunching to lift the bullet hole to the traditional LN entrance location, and noticed that he drew a line straight out from the back of Kennedy's neck in order to demonstrate the amount of clothing in his proposed "bunch", I decided to get a better look at this photo. Sometime after, Bill Miller posted the color Croft online, and I saw what I suspected. The furthest part of the "bunch" from Kennedy's neck, as designated by a green curve on your photo, WAS NOT sticking straight out from Kennedy's neck, but was on the right side of Kennedy's back, in his shoulder area, only seen at an angle. This is perhaps best demonstrated by following Kennedy's back line in the photo. Based upon the appearance of his left shoulder, it is absolutely clear to me that his back is not in profile and that the far part of his back in the photo is on the right side of his back. Now follow this back line upwards. When you get to the neck area there is indeed a bunching of the clothing. This appears to me to be on the right side of Kennedy's jacket. Now, I guess you think this is to the left of the midline. So be it. The ISSUE, Craig is not where this bunching is, but whether or not it lifts the bullet hole to the level of C5/C6 as claimed by the LN community. To me it is 100% clear that this bunching, no matter what side of the back on which it relies, only lifts the clothing an inch or two above its normal location on Kennedy's back. If you think otherwise, then you should try to prove it. You can do this by 1) re-creating the photo using a stand-in and some clothing, or 2) perform a detailed analysis of the photo in which you present measurements and what you believe in the photo to be the eventual location of the bullet hole on the clothing. Feel free to do either. But your continued harping about my sending out "disinformation" (when in fact you don't even understand the discussion) will go unacknowledged.

Craig, you just don't get it. What you call "unbending laws of light" means nothing to me. You can call me uneducated on this issue. Fine. But your suggestion that I know you're right and am deliberately spreading "disinformation" is incredibly insulting, and reflective of an ego that is way out of control. For the record, I agree with you on 90% of your posts. If I saw your point on this one, I'd readily agree. So get over yourself. To be clear, to me the Croft photo closely mirrors the photo in the upper right hand corner on this slide. There is a crease running laterally across the jacket, with a slight bunching above, and with the jacket peaking along the right shoulder. Now I've asked a few people about this, and they've all agreed with me that the peak of the jacket in Croft is on Kennedy's right shoulder. NONE of them are able to look at the photo and conclude it is to the LEFT of Kennedy's mid-line, as you apparently are claiming. So PLEASE, if you really want to argue about this, draw a line down the middle of Kennedy's back in Croft and SHOW us how the peak of the material sticking out behind JFK's neck is someway somehow on the left side of his jacket. This I gotta see. But back to the real issue. Are you now claiming the single-bullet theory trajectory "works"? Are you now claiming the back wound was above the throat wound? Or are you claiming Kennedy was leaning forward at the time he was shot? Just what exactly are you pushing? Because if you're ready to argue that the autopsy photos show the back wound above the throat wound or that the Croft photo shows Kennedy leaning forward far enough to lift his back wound 20 degrees or so above his throat wound, you're gonna need a bit more than some argument based upon YOUR unique interpretation of the middle of Kennedy's jacket. And if you're not ready to argue that the single-bullet theory trajectory "works" then you should stop all your bellyachin' and character assassinatin'...

My, Craig, what a typical response! I raise a valid point and you immediately try to derail the discussion. Bravo! You can have that argument somewhere else. As you don't even pretend to believe the bunching in Croft lifts the hole in the jacket to the point pushed by Lattimer/Artwohl etc... what's the point, really? As far as this thread...Mr. Photo Expert...please explain how the Secret Service and FBI--AFTER having accurately established the location of Kennedy at frame 313 within a few feet on 11-27--could POSSIBLY have concluded JFK was 30 feet or more further down the street, unless they were doing so for political purposes. They had the Z-film. They had the Moorman photo. The FBI even had the Nix film. My 72 year-old mom and a troop of girl scouts could do better... Craig, the disinformation you peddle is that my intellectual honesty is questionable, and that peopls those reading my webpage should DOUBT everything Geeze Pat, if your mom and her girl scouts are as inept as you are when to comes to matters photographic, no doubt they would stuff it up as badly as you did with Croft. I'm not having an argument with you Pat, just keeping you honest, if that's possible. You see you screwed the pooch big time with your oh so ignorant notion tha that the bunch is Croft was his RIGHT SHOULDER! Never mind that the unbending laws of light, shadow and geometry show you are simply full of caca. And what is the response by patspeer.com to the news that that they got it all wrong as shown by unimpeachalbe proof? Does patspeer.com correct it's gross error? No... instead pastspeer.com continues to fill the internet with pure disinformation. And low and behold the owner of said site takes others to task for not telling the "truth" while he does the same himself. patspeer.com and it's author...intellectually honest? Not even close. Just another ct who can't deal with truth. As fo the FBI and the Secret Service? Don't have a clue nor do I care. I don't deal in speculation. "Recreations" are a fools errand. Now who's proven himself to be the disinformation peddler? You "don't care" whether or not the Secret Service or FBI deliberately faked a reenactment in order to deceive the Warren Commission that Oswald acted alone, but fill this forum with attacks on my character because I have a different interpretation of the word "shoulder" than you do? Now, I would have thought the many times I've differed with my fellow CTs on issues like photo alteration and body alteration would have convinced you that, right or wrong, I'm trying to get at the truth of this thing, and don't deserve to be harassed in such a manner. But no, I dare think the Federal Government lied about something over 40 years ago...and that makes makes me fair game... P.S. thanks again for setting me straight on the frame rate/film speed issue. Exactly what "disinformation" have I offered? Oh yea, NONE! I've not studied the FBI, SS situation you mention. Since I don't have an opinion (and I don't do "opinions") and don't care, now I'm somehow peddling disinformation? Once again you prove your logic truly sucks. You don't get to have an "interpertation" when it comes to Croft. It's black and white. The unbendable laws of light, shadow and the angle of incidence of the sunlight in relation to JFK are not up for "interpretation". The proof is unimpeachable. Now eihter you have the intellectual honesty to deal with this unimpeachable fact or you don't. That Pat is what decides your character. You make your own bed... Question the government all you wish. I have no problem with that at all. But when you make a serious error and fail to correct it, you get what you get. Craig, use a dictionary. Learn the meaning of words. You haven't been arguing that I am mistaken on one of a thousand arguments on my webpage. You have been calling my interpretation of Kennedy's shoulder "disinformation". Here is the common understanding of the meaning of this word. "Disinformation is false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. It is synonymous with and sometimes called Black propaganda." You are saying that I am deliberately lying on a minor point on a webpage involving years of research, the vast majority of which is irrefutable, in order to deceive people. Well, to deceive people about what, exactly? Well, since my point is on a chapter about the single-bullet theory, it would seem you are suggesting that the single-bullet theory would be supportable without my making this point, which is positively LUDICROUS. (You, in fact, refuse to argue in its favor.) You are also suggesting that EVERYTHING I say or write is questionable because I am as yet unswayed by your arcane argument that some barely discernible shadow line proves Kennedy's clothing was bunched to a significant degree. I have asked you if this bunching is to the extent it could lift the bullet hole on JFK's jacket and shirt in line with a trajectory from the sniper's nest. You have indicated you are unconcerned with that. If I recall, I have also asked you if you could re-produce this photo to demonstrate your point. You say that would be pointless. Essentially, you are stomping your feet on a minor point and saying that anyone who doesn't believe you is a disinformationist. This is exactly the kind of behavior people have come to expect from those you frequently criticize. Which is why I suggested that you, if anyone, is the disinformationist. I mean, to take one point on which I may be mistaken and extrapolate from this that I am a deliberate xxxx out to deceive people into questioning the single-bullet theory, when there are dozens of far more relevant points that positively put it in the trash can, is deceptive, to say the least. As far as Croft, you don't even understand the context of my argument the bunch of clothing is on the shoulder. It had previously been argued by John Hunt that the bunch of clothing was significant. He had used the photo in the upper left corner of this slide to sell this. http://www.patspeer.com/coatdoublecheck.jpg The black line suggested that the clothing stuck straight out from Kennedy's back, and that one could measure this amount of clothing, and that this amount was enough to bring the bullet hole on the jacket in line with the trajectory from the sniper's nest. A look at the color Croft, however, convinced me otherwise. It is 100% clear to me the photo is taken at an angle to JFK's back and that it is not in profile. It is 100% clear to me that the "bunch" appearing to stick straight out in Hunt's photo, is a much smaller "bunch" on Kennedy's back and his right shoulder seen at an angle. If you want to re-create this photo and demonstrate your belief the clothing sticks straight out from the back, and that this lifts the bullet hole location on the clothing in line with a shot from the sniper's nest exiting Kennedy's throat, fire away. But, until that point, we'll have to agree to disagree. FWIW, even though your attack on me is totally misguided, I wouldn't stoop so low as to suggest that you "fill the internet with pure disinformation." I mean, where do you get this stuff? The David Von Pein playbook?

My, Craig, what a typical response! I raise a valid point and you immediately try to derail the discussion. Bravo! You can have that argument somewhere else. As you don't even pretend to believe the bunching in Croft lifts the hole in the jacket to the point pushed by Lattimer/Artwohl etc... what's the point, really? As far as this thread...Mr. Photo Expert...please explain how the Secret Service and FBI--AFTER having accurately established the location of Kennedy at frame 313 within a few feet on 11-27--could POSSIBLY have concluded JFK was 30 feet or more further down the street, unless they were doing so for political purposes. They had the Z-film. They had the Moorman photo. The FBI even had the Nix film. My 72 year-old mom and a troop of girl scouts could do better... Geeze Pat, if your mom and her girl scouts are as inept as you are when to comes to matters photographic, no doubt they would stuff it up as badly as you did with Croft. I'm not having an argument with you Pat, just keeping you honest, if that's possible. You see you screwed the pooch big time with your oh so ignorant notion tha that the bunch is Croft was his RIGHT SHOULDER! Never mind that the unbending laws of light, shadow and geometry show you are simply full of caca. And what is the response by patspeer.com to the news that that they got it all wrong as shown by unimpeachalbe proof? Does patspeer.com correct it's gross error? No... instead pastspeer.com continues to fill the internet with pure disinformation. And low and behold the owner of said site takes others to task for not telling the "truth" while he does the same himself. patspeer.com and it's author...intellectually honest? Not even close. Just another ct who can't deal with truth. As fo the FBI and the Secret Service? Don't have a clue nor do I care. I don't deal in speculation. "Recreations" are a fools errand. Now who's proven himself to be the disinformation peddler? You "don't care" whether or not the Secret Service or FBI deliberately faked a reenactment in order to deceive the Warren Commission that Oswald acted alone, but fill this forum with attacks on my character because I have a different interpretation of the word "shoulder" than you do? Now, I would have thought the many times I've differed with my fellow CTs on issues like photo alteration and body alteration would have convinced you that, right or wrong, I'm trying to get at the truth of this thing, and don't deserve to be harassed in such a manner. But no, I dare think the Federal Government lied about something over 40 years ago...and that makes makes me fair game... P.S. thanks again for setting me straight on the frame rate/film speed issue.

My, Craig, what a typical response! I raise a valid point and you immediately try to derail the discussion. Bravo! You can have that argument somewhere else. As you don't even pretend to believe the bunching in Croft lifts the hole in the jacket to the point pushed by Lattimer/Artwohl etc... what's the point, really? As far as this thread...Mr. Photo Expert...please explain how the Secret Service and FBI--AFTER having accurately established the location of Kennedy at frame 313 within a few feet on 11-27--could POSSIBLY have concluded JFK was 30 feet or more further down the street, unless they were doing so for political purposes. They had the Z-film. They had the Moorman photo. The FBI even had the Nix film. My 72 year-old mom and a troop of girl scouts could do better...

Pat, I'm afraid your initial premise may be incorrect. Life Magazine reported on December 6 that Zapruder's camera ran at 18 fps. Additionally, the CIA NPIC analysis for the Secret Service seems to indicate that they thought the camera should run at 16 fps. Most importantly, the FBI was definitely not sharing its field reports with the Secret Service on a day to day basis, therefore it seems extremely unlikely that the Secret Service would even know of Zapruder's statement to Barrett. It's most likely that the Secret Service just RTFM and assumed 16 fps since it obviously wasn't 48 fps or they called B&H. I don't know why they'd believe Zapruder's camera was running at a frame rate that was impossible for that camera. Jerry Jerry, maybe the Secret Service thought the camera recorded 16 or 18 fps. Maybe. (The question arises how Life could possibly know the film speed without testing the camera).. But then you're stuck trying to explain how the Secret Service re-enactment of 12-5 could possibly have concluded that Kennedy at frame 313 was 34 feet further from the sniper's nest than the re-enactment of 11-27, when BOTH used the Zapruder film...and WHY the FBI also concluded the head shot location was further than previously presumed. Agent Howlett's 11-27 re-enactment performed BEFORE the Barrett memo claiming the camera recorded 24 fps had the first shot at 170 feet and the third at 260 feet. Roughly 90 feet. 24 frames per second means 22 fps. This suggests three shots were fired in barely four seconds. Although the NPIC numbers indicate someone believed the shooter could have fired shots as rapidly as two seconds apart, they most certainly would not have wanted to say the sniper did this twice in a row. It comes as no surprise then that the 12-5 re-enactment performed by Elmer Moore (who would go on to become Chief Justice Warren's "bodyguard" and keep a close eye on the conduct of the WC) had the first shot at 184 feet and the second at 294. This conveniently translates to a 5 second scenario. Now ain't that a coinky-dink. Still, it's possible this was just a coincidence. One wonders, however, why the only record in the Warren Commission's files of Agent Howlett's earlier re-enactment is an FBI report. This suggests the Secret Service destroyed all records of this earlier, more accurate re-enactment....hmmm... (If you know where we can find Agent Howlett's 11-27 report on the re-enactment please let me know...) FBI Agent Gauthier, however, almost certainly knew of both Barrett's memo on Howlett's re-enactment on 11-27, and Barrett's memo on Zapruder's camera speed. His early reports on his reconstruction mention that the limo was moving 15 mph. Where else would he have got this? Even worse, the FBI's re-enactment had the first shot at 167 feet and the third at 307 feet. 140 feet. How on Earth does the distance traveled during the shooting grow "accidentally" from 90 feet to 140 feet, only to shrink back to 90 feet or less during the WC's re-enactment? Either the Secret Service and FBI were INCREDIBLY INCOMPETENT and far worse a threat to national security than the likes of 100 Oswalds, or were LIARS reporting dutifully to a corrupt President. I'm not sure which one is worse. (P.S. I'm well aware that Tom Purvis thinks the SS and FBI's re-enactments were accurate, and that the WC's latter one disguised that there was shot after frame 313, but he deliberately avoids all the FBI and SS memos indicating they thought the third shot was the head shot at frame 313 even while placing it 30 feet or more further down the road.)

Although, as Craig and Jerry have pointed out, the FBI memo on Zapruder stating the film was recorded 24 frames per second was clearly in error, it nevertheless proves there was a cover-up, IMO. It hit me when reading this memo that the date on this memo was 12-4, and the FBI Crime Lab report claiming the camera ran 18.3 frames per second was dated 12-20. This means that the Secret Service and FBI re-enactments of 12-5 were performed under the belief the camera was running 24 frames per second. This is demonstrated in the reports of the FBI's Gauthier, as he repeatedly made reference to the limousine's traveling 15 mph. Now, I could never figure out why he thought this...and then it hit me. If the Zapruder film was filmed at 24 frames per second, the limo would have been moving 15 mph. So why is this significant, you might ask? As demonstrated in chapters 2 and 2b at patspeer.com, the Secret Service and FBI re-enactments of early December, and the final versions of the shooting they presented to the Warren Commission, had the head shot (which they proposed was the third shot) 34 and 47 feet further down the road than the location determined by the Secret Service on 11-27, and 29 and 42 feet further down the road than eventually proposed by the Warren Commission. Now, previously I had thought that maybe they were simply incompetent. But now I realize that 15 mph meant the film was recording at 22 frames per second, and that this made the elapsed time between the first shot (which both the SS and FBI believed hit Kennedy) and third shot at frame 313 TOO SHORT for the shooter to have been lone little Oswald. So...voila...In early December, as a response to agent Barrett's memo on Zapruder, and the assertion the camera recorded 24 frames per second, BOTH the Secret Service and FBI suddenly concluded the limo was much further down the street at the time of the third shot than previously believed, and later proven beyond any doubt. Now why else would they have done this, other than to conceal the likelihood there was a second shooter? The incompetence argument falters when you consider that both agencies, working independently, came to the same completely unsupportable conclusion. The why-would-they-do-such-a-thing argument falters when you consider that at the time of these re-enactments, in early December, the assumption was that the Zapruder and Nix films would never be shown to the public and the Warren Commission was just gonna rubber stamp the conclusions of the Secret Service and FBI. So, yes, Virginia, they lied. It then follows that they would not have done such a thing if they didn't believe the President would approve.

Film "speed" refers to the sensitivity of the film to light. The greater the sensitivity, the "faster" the film "speed". This data is used by the light metering system so that the camera or the photographer can set the proper exposure. Film spped was sated using hte ASA nomenclature in years past and is now (if you can still find film) as ISO. Zapruder used Kodachorme film. A common speed for that film was ASA 25. Thanks, Craig, for clearing that up. So 16 on the Film Speed Dial does not correlate to 16 frames per second, and the repeat of the 16 is just a coincidence. To what, then, do the numbers 10, 16, 25, and 40 refer? I don't want to make this same mistake again.

The FBI tests purportedly established that the camera was running approximately 18.3 frames per second, based upon an average of a series of tests with (if I recall correctly) the camera on the 16 frames per second setting. But the December 4 1963 FBI report on Zapruder notes "The camera was set to take normal speed movie film or 24 frames per second." This statement apparently came from Zapruder. If the camera was running 24 frames per second, of course, the shooter would have had much less time to fire three shots. If the camera was running 24 frames per second, the lone gunmen scenario would be even more doubtful, if not impossible. Subsequent to this report, the FBI ran its tests and came back saying the film was running 18.3 frames per second. The lone gunmen scenario had been saved. But there's a problem with this. I have an instruction manual to Zapruder's camera, and a non-functioning camera to compare it to. The instruction manual has a page with a block claiming Exposure Data. Beneath it it says "Run--16 frames per second. Slow Motion--48 frames per second." And "Animation--single frame". This implies these are the only three settings. If so, the FBI's assumption the camera was set to record 16 frames per second would undoubtedly be correct. But elsewhere in the manual, under the heading "Set Film Speed" there is this: "Look in the window above the Film Speed Dial. If you loaded with Daylight (outdoor) film, turn the Film Speed Dial until number "10" appears. If you loaded with Type A (indoor) film, turn the dial until "16" appears. For faster film speeds, use the setting recommended in the manufacturers instructions. The Film Speed Dial on your camera will adjust for film speeds as high as "40"." Well, in fact, there are only 4 settings on the Film Speed Dial, with half settings in between. These 4 settings are 10, 16, 25, and 40. Based upon the 12-4 FBI memo, this leads me to suspect that Zapruder had checked on the proper setting for the film he was using, and determined it to be 24 frames per second. If so, he would most logically have shot the film on the "25" setting, correct? If so, then the shooting was much more rushed than previously believed. So...questions. What was the recommended speed for the film used in the camera? If other than 16, has anyone ran the film at this speed to see if the film looks more natural at this speed? Also, has it been established that the frames in the film are contiguous? I mean, is it possible there were frames between 312 and 313, and then again between 313 and 314, showing more than one hit on Kennedy? (Or anything similarly damaging.) To be clear, I am not a Zapruder film alterationist--in that I don't suspect the film was invented in a studio, or that objects were added in to the film. But I've always been open-minded about certain other kinds of alteration. It's always seemed a bit of a coincidence, for example, that the frames spliced out of the Life version of the film were frames not showing JFK, but showing Jackie clearly staring at JFK (as opposed to merely looking in his general direction) at a time BEFORE the Warren Commission concluded he'd been hit. I apologize in advance if this leads to yet another argument over the veracity of the film. Fake or not fake, I'm trying to determine the speed at which it was shot.

See: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/con...ts_rockcomm.htm I have read all the medical evidence related to the Rockefeller Commission, and it proved no such thing. The Commission spoke to a number of doctors, most with ties to doctors to previously examine the case. One, Dr. Olivier, actually had worked for the Warren Commission. Some of these doctors, in their interviews and reports, dismissed that the head snap proved the shot came from the front. But no tests were conducted to actually "prove" their opinions were valid, or that the head snap suggested the shot came from the rear. The interviews and reports of the Rockefeller Commission were largely secret until a few years ago, when Rex Bradford put them up on the Mary Ferrell site. One of the great and recurrent pieces of misinfo about the assassination is that every doctor since 1968 has confirmed the Clark Panel's conclusion that the bullet entrance on the back of the head was in the parietal bone, roughly 4 inches higher than as measured and described by the autopsists. I believe I was the first one to realize that this was yet another LN myth. Dr. Fred Hodges, the Rockefeller Commission's radiologist, specified that the bullet entrance on the back of the head was in the occipital bone, in the location described in the autopsy report.