James R Gordon

Jack, I agree with Brendan, the two men are not the same. I agree they look somewhat alike, but that is all. First. the face of the man on Houston Street is thiner than the images of Milteer. Milteer shows a much fatter face. Second, the man on Houston Street has little hair at the front of his head, whereas Milteer has a full head of hair. It would even appear, though this may be a miss-interpretation of the photo, that the man in Houston Street has a smaller mouth than Milteer. Milteer appears to have quite a wide mouth. If you are convinced these are the same person, can you explain these differences? James.

Jack, Some time ago, John Costella posted a series of six Dave Wiegman frames. For me, the importance of these frames is that there are the clearest copies I have of these important frames. As a colleague of John Costella, I am sure you also have a copy of that post. See Slide 1 below:- On the right hand side I have posted the six frames posted by John Costella. I have labelled them W1 to W6. At the top of that slide I have also labelled your copies of three of the Wiegman slides in two ways. In one way I have equated them to the Costella 6 frames and also have endeavoured to list their original frame number. In post 13 you appear to suggest that this composite, shown at the top of slide 1 is from the same moment in time. It is not exactly the same moment, but it is close enough. However I believe that what you are trying to do is create a complete image of the plaza at this point. You point is also sound, if the Press car is indeed W 93 then in W 89 (the pedestal frame) Zapruder should indeed be seen for he has to be there. Members have pointed out that it is an effect of both the film and the lighting that make it impossible to see Zapruder in this frame. And, because we do not see him, does not mean he is not there. See Slide 2 below:- Slide 2 has a copy of W 109 ( or W 4 of the Costella frames.) I have done no more than lighten the pedestal area and as you can see we can indeed see the two figures of Zapruder and Sitzman. This is 20 W frames after the one that you suggest he is absent. If Zapruder is to be seen in W 109, then he must also be in W 89, even though the light and poor film suggest he is not. I note for your demonstrations you are using screen dumps of the Groden film. I do not know where or how John Costella got his clear copies, but I could never get the detail Costella has from Preview ( that you are using to demonstrate.) To get the image of Zapruder in W4, I used John Costella copies of the frames. I don’t know why you did not use Costella’s frames, for I am sure you have far better copies of them than I have. James.

Duncan, If the position of your gunman is dependant in some way to the trajectory line between the position of your gunman and the position of JFK's head in Moorman#5, then this will not work. Moorman #5 equates with Z 315.6. I.e. its time point is during that eighteenth of second between Z 315 and Z 316. The problem is not the time difference, it is the position of JFK's at Z313 and the position of the head in Moorman #5. There is a massive difference in head position between these two moments in time. Drawing your trajectory line to the head position in Moorman #5 makes no sense. That was not the head position, or anything like the head position, when the shot impacted at Z 313. James.

Reply by Jack White So the unpleasant Mr. Gordon shows up! Here is something which he can study on for a while. Jack End of Reply Jack, I have no wish to be offensive, but I do get somewhat tired of your mistakes or deliberate miss-representations. I do not know which it is. I do not know how many forum members have had the opportunity to study the assassination films as much as you have. But for those who have not, your work can be persuasive: that is until sources are studied more closely. The image you posted, in reply to my earlier post, is one such example. I agree looking at the three images you appear to have made your point. However, as I once pointed out to you in another forum, your pedestal image is so dark it is not possible to see whether anyone is on the pedestal or not. See Slide 1 below:- Some time ago John Costella posted a series of 6 quite clear Wiegman images. You will see that on the right handside of Slide 1. Looking at your composite image, what I have labelled W 3 is your right hand image. Your middle image is what I have labelled W 5. I understand that the images are in chronological order. Which means that W3 was taken after W2. If you look at your image which is on this slide. If we assume that the left hand image, which shows the Press car as well as the limo going under the underpass, is point zero it is possible to time the other two images in relation to it. The middle image, what I have called W5, I count to have been taken 33 frames later than the Press car image and the other image, what I have called W3, I count to have been taken 5 frames before the Press car image. So therefore these three images are not a composite of the same moment in time. See Slide 2 below:- As I once pointed out to you the 3rd Wiegman image is too dark to see whether Zapruder is on the pedestal or not. However the 4th image does allow us to see detail on the pedestal. As you can see, in this image taken later than the third image, Zapruder is still on the pedestal. Therefore, although we cannot see Zapruder, in the third image and the one used on the right hand side of your image, Zapruder must also be on the pedestal in the third image….even though we cannot see him. Therefore, I believe your are just plain wrong. At the point you claim Zapruder is not on the pedestal, it is clear that actually he is on the pedestal. James.

Jack White's reply to James Richards Not a stupid question at all. There are three possibilities: 1. Zapruder and Sitzman were atop the pedestal. 2. Somebody else were there and Zapruder and Sitzman were substituted. 3. Nobody was there, and Zapruder and Sitzman were added. I favor the latter because of this Wiegman frame. End Reply You never fail to surprise me, Jack. You know exactly what that Wiegman frame is. After all you have researched this topic for over 40 years and you are very familiar with all the films of the assassination. So you are perfectly aware that the frame that shows the pedestal to be empty is Wiegman 267. And what is that frame? Well you know perfectly well it was taken at a moment AFTER the car has gone through the Tripple Underpass. Maybe you can explain to the members in this forum why you feel Zapruder should still be on the pedestal at this moment? Can you do that Jack??? James

Jack, I accept that it is better to ensure spellings and other such mistakes are removed prior to posting. Because Zapruder is unable to capture the break lights going on does not mean they did not go on? Now one thing I do know about you is that you have spent a large portion of your life studying the photographic evidence of the JFK assassination. You are very familiar with the Muchmore film. You know that M 49 shows the car lights are on. Rather than being side on, as Zapruder is to the car, Muchmore is filming from the rear. So this time we can discount sunlight as an explanation. Therefore how do you explain Muchmore showing the break lights being on at that the same point that John Costella points out John Connally is being thrown forward? What explanation do you have for that. I am sorry you believe that a large portion of my initial posting was a "hodgepodge of personal attacks." That was certainly not my intent nor do I believe I did that. Yes I believe John Costella was in error in much that he writes in that presentation, but in pointing that out, I do not believe I have NOR DO I INTEND to insult the man. May I end on this point. Like me you were in a very privilaged position by being privy to the discussions and thoughts on how TGZFH was put together. Would it not be a more positive contribution to argue where and why you believe I am wrong and thereby show members how you and your group came to the opinions that you did when together you wrote TGZFH. James.

James, What is the source for your assertion that Josiah Thompson no longer holds the view that the forward movement of JFK's head for one Zf frame prior to the back and to the left movement is compatible with a shot from the rear. Further, how would that explanation be incompatible with a two shots to the head, the one from the rear preceding the one from the front by one Zf frame? Tim Tim the main sources for this view by Josiah Thompson is a revision of the mathematics of the head movement which was initially published in Six Seconds in Dallas. I'll try and lay my hands on my copy. I have it somewhere. My second source is that the topic of the these head movements came up in the group ( the group I was involved in that that published a criticism of TGZFH ) and Josiah along with the rest of group discounted a second shot to the head as being the source of this movement. For us a real problem is believeing it was a shot from the rear between Z 312 and Z 313 ( when we first see JFK's head move forward ) is that during the frames Z 313 onwards Jackie, John Connally, Nellie Connally and Roy Kellman also show a forward movement. Now we know none of them were were struck with a bullet at this point. Yes John Connally was struck with a bullet, but not at this point. It was at this point one of the group brought up the notion of the car breaking and that causing all to move forward. Are we right? I don't know. I will say this though, Muchmoore shows the lights were on during this period and the we know Greer was looking towards his rear at Z 312/Z 313 and maybe was applying the breaks even then. What I can say it is a more satisfactory explanation for all four moving at this point in time. You ask:- Further, how would that explanation( Josiah changing his opinion ) be incompatible with a two shots to the head, the one from the rear preceding the one from the front by one Zf frame? It would not. Maybe I was foolish to raise the point. I was simply pointing out that in 1967 Josiah Thompson also believed in the twin head shot. Since then he has come to revise his opinion. Hope that helps. James.

I have a number of concerns with this seminar material on TGZFH. I am sure that is no great surprise to John Costella, since I was a member of the group who initially criticised the book when it was first published. Hopefully he will agree to debate this issue, thereby allowing members to see both why he holds the positions he does as well as the reasons why members like me have concerns with this theory. Can I begin by looking the sections “The Wound Mistake” and “The Fast Forward Mistake”. One of the central issues in “The Wound Mistake” is the problem of the forward movement of JFK and his head after the head shot. As he points out, such a movement would be compatible with a shot from the rear. As researchers like Josiah Thompson have observed, in the past, that could very well explain the forward movement. I would point out that Josiah no longer holds that view. In this chapter [“The Wound Mistake”] my first concern is the statement at the top of page 3. Here John Costella says: “ The Zapruder film is telling us that the whole front-top of JFK’s head gets blasted away. There is a huge crater where his forehead used to be, through which we can see his wife.” I don’t see how he can say that. That part of JFK’s head is not visible to Zapruder at Z 314. JFK is looking at approximately a 40 degree angle to his left. In addition he appears to be looking downwards at approximately a 40 degree slope. Hence given the position of the car and Zapruder’s angle and Zapruder’s position from JFK, Zapruder cannot see his forehead at this point in time. At this point we simply do not see JFK’s forehead. In addition, in Moorman #5, which equates with Z 315.6, we can see this area of the head that he are proposing is actually missing. It is true that we don’t see the complete forehead in Moorman #5, but we do see the upper edge of it. However we do see the front top of the head and Moorman #5 clearly establishes it is intact. So I don’t see how John can argue that this area has now been blasted away. In Zapruder Z 314 we cannot see the area in question and in Moorman #5 the said area is actually shown to be there and intact. In his chapter “The Fast Forward Mistake” there are a number of comments I would like to make. The Zapruder sequence from Z 223 – Z 230 is a very curious one with respect to John Connally. Bill Miller contends that around Z 223/224 John Connaly was hit in the chest. Bill points to the change in Connally’s facial expression and the movement of his shoulder as indicators. I have sympathy for this view because after Z 223 Connally’s arms move all over the place. However I believe the “Hat Trick”, as John Costella refer to it, is actually an optical illusion. If you look at the section from Z 223 to Z 230 what Connally appears to be doing is moving his hat from his left hand to right hand. John Costella is right, there appears to be a “flip” of the hat but actually what is happening is that Z 227 + Z 229 are very blurred frames. So we see the hat moving from Z 223 to Z 226 we see very little clearly again until Z 230 when the hat is now in position and stationary. So looking at the sequence from Z 223 to Z 230 it does appear that his hat does indeed flip. However I would suggest that it does not flip, the hat continues to move from his left hand to his right hand but through Z 227 – Z 229 we cannot see the hat: the frames are too blurred. At frame Z 227, is where I believe you suggest the hat flips. Because it is a very blurred frame it is not possible to see what is happening. However it can be noted that it looks like Connally suddenly moves forward just as JFK does. However when you look at Z 228 he is sitting back on his seat, it is the blurring of the frame Z 227 that has suggested this forward movement as well as the sudden hat movement. However it is clear that Connally has moved his position between Z 226 and Z 228. In Z 226 Connally is sitting looking towards his right at an angle of around 20º. In Z 228 he is facing in a forward direction. Therefore I suggest that what, to John Costella is an anomaly in the film, is a movement by Connally to turn from his right to the forward position while, and at the same time switching his hat from his left hand to his right hand. I suggest what creates the idea of an anomaly is that within this same sequence are two blurred frames that distort the image and allow ambiguity to enter the interpretation of the film. On page 3 of this same chapter John Costella comments on the sudden turn made by Nellie Connally. I would comment on this if he had provided the frame references. John suggests that Nellie’s turn is not as curious as that of Bill Greer. If it is anything like the Bill Greer head turn then there is no suspicious problem here: just a misinterpretation of the photographic evidence. Bill Greer’s was the subject of my contribution to the critique of TGZFH. If members want to read what I wrote they can find it at:- http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zapho...greer-turn.html The clearest example of this misinterpretation is the second turn after the head shot. The theory is that this turn took place between Z 315 and Z 317. Well at the very bottom of that article by me you will find a very clear copy of Z 317 when, according to John Costella and others who support this theory, Bill Greer is facing forward. I can’t see how anyone can suggest that Bill Greer is facing forward at Z 317. It takes another 3 frames before he is facing forward. John did reply to our critique and for members who wish to read what he had to say they can find it at:- http://www.users.bigpond.com/costella/hoax/costella1.html The section that deals with my contribution is about three quarters down the page. True John had some fun at my expense, maybe even a little too much fun, but I would make this point in my defence. Just taking the second head turn, the theory goes that this was completed between Z frames 315 and 317. Well I ask members to look at the copy of Z 317 in my article and decide for themselves. Is Bill Greer facing forward at this point or is he facing towards his right? My interpretation is that he is facing towards his right. I say it is not until Z 320 that he is actually facing forward. I will allow members to judge for themselves. On Page 4 of “The Fast Forward Mistake” John makes the following comment about the why the occupants of the car all move forward after Z 313. He said:- “ You don’t need to know the laws of physics to know this means: the car must have braked suddenly at that time.” The sequence that he highlights appears to be between Z317 and Z 325. John Costella quite correctly points out that the Zapruder film does not appear to show the car breaking. However the car did break. Although Zapruder does not appear to show this, Marie Muchmore does. Frame M 49, which equates with Z 320, clearly show the break lights on. Nor is this similar to Z 372 which also shows the break lights on. In this frame it is clear it is the sunlight shining through the break light glass and is suggesting the light is on, when infact it is not. Where Zapruder was to the right of the car thereby allowing sunlight to shine through the glass and suggest the light is on, Marie Muchmore was behind the car and filming from behind it. This time it is not sunlight playing games: this time the brakes really are on. So the forward movement of the occupants is not the result of frames being removed or editing of the film, it is the result of Bill Greer applying the breaks to allow Clint Hill to be able to catch the car and get onto it. Hopefully John Costella will agree to debate these issues and other issues regarding the Zapruder film. I believe it might well be helpful to members to see why people like me believe the film is authentic as well as allowing members to see why people like John believe the film is a fabricated document. James Gordon.

You write:- [...] Your side believe that at Z 312 to Z 313 JFK suffered two shots to the head. The whole point behind fabricating the film was to disguise what actually did happen. [...] Now James, when have I, David Healy E V E R said JFK suffered two shots to the head? David, You need to read more closely what I said: I said "your side". By that term I meant the group who were responsible for the book TGZFH. You were a member of that group and contributed to both the symposium and the book itself. It may be that you, yourself, have never gone on record regarding the twin head shot but members of the group like John Costella have gone on record. I assume that you support the work and contribution of John Costella to this argument regarding the fabrication of the Zapruder film. Since you all appear to be in agreement on the fundamental issues as stated in the book and symposium I simply used a collective description when referring to this point. If you are in disagreement with John Costella on this issue, fine I can accept that. James.

Jack, You write:- “he sees NO problem USING THE FILM to prove various points, ignoring the consequence that IF THE FILM IS ALTERED EVERYTHING he says IS NONSENSE!” You have not proved that the film is altered. Both the Duluth symposium as well as the book are just a point of view. Professor Fetzer’s team, of which you are a member, are of the opinion that the film has been altered. You have not proved: you have offered your reasons why you believe it to be altered. David Healy, in post 3, made the following point:- “Surely? Be nice if we could get the Z-film authenticated, forensiclly! (sic) Establish a credible panel of film expert's to take a real serious look at the physical properties of the extant Z-film and the 3 opticalprints (sic) from that 1st day!” He is right. Neither our side or yours has authenticated the film in such a manner. We believe the film is authentic your side disagree: and that is all we have two opposing viewpoints. Your side believe that at Z 312 to Z 313 JFK suffered two shots to the head. The whole point behind fabricating the film was to disguise what actually did happen. Clearly, the fact that the other occupants in the car also move forward suggests that something also happened to them at this point. I have offered a reason why I believe you see the other occupants moving forward. You have made no attempt to answer that point? If you look at the name of this forum you will see it is called the Education Forum. Surely that obliges members to discuss and exchange ideas in an effort to come to a truth? This forum has a great advantage in that it has members who belong to both groups who are in argument over this question. Surely that is an ideal opportunity to educate? Simply saying “he sees NO problem USING THE FILM to prove various points, ignoring the consequence that IF THE FILM IS ALTERED EVERYTHING he says IS NONSENSE!” ignores the question raised. As pointed out by David, until the film has been authenticated forensically, neither side can 100% establish they are right. So what is your side’s opinion as to why the other members of the car move at the same time, and in the same direction, as JFK does during this period? I assume the authors of the film did not deliberately inset this movement, I assume this is something they did not notice like the Stemmons sign that John Costella argues about. What happened that caused this movement? I assume you accept the movement is real and was missed by the authors and had they noticed they would have removed the movement. So what was it that happened at this point that caused this movement. What is your side’s view on this? James.

In his document “The Wound Mistake” ( to be found at http://www.users.bigpond.com/costella/jfk/intro/index.html )John Costella argues that between Z 312 and Z 313 JFK was hit in the head by a bullet twice: first from behind and then from in front. This is not a new theory, Josiah Thompson had advocated it in 1967 in his book “Six Seconds in Dallas.” Like David Lifton and others, he too had noticed this dramatic movement between frames Z 312 and Z 313. Like John Costella in his document, Josiah Thompson had also initially come to the belief that the only logical argument to describe such a movement was that prior to the head shot from the front, John Kennedy had suffered another shot to the head fired from the rear. In recent years Josiah Thompson has gone on record to state he now believes that he is in error on that point. He still acknowledges there is a movement between these frames, but he no longer believes it was caused by a bullet being fired from the rear. Many researchers had serious problems with the theory in the first place. As they point out, suppose there had been a shot that struck JFK in the rear of the head, where is the damage that ought to be present in the face area. Even John Costella acknowledges this is a problem in the existing autopsy images. All of them demonstrate that there was no damage to the face area and had a bullet entered from the rear of the head we ought to have expected some sort of damage to the face area. All John Costella says about this discrepancy is that “either the Zapruder film or the autopsy photos ( or both ) have to be forgeries.” However, it is equally possible that both are legitimate documents. I am not sure they both are, I also have serious questions about the autopsy photos. There is a further problem with this theory. People need to bear in mind that the head shot was not inflicted at Z 313: it was inflicted between Z 312 and Z 313. We do not see it being inflicted at Z 313, we see the consequence of it then. If this theory ( of the two head shots ) is realistic then between Z 312 and Z 313 JFK was struck twice in the head: first from behind and then from in front. The problem with this is that the shot that came first suspends the reaction of the second shot until Z 314. Realistically if JFK had been struck twice we should not see the forward movement. That should have been overridden by the impact of the second shot that entered from the front. But that is not what happens. The first shot overrides the second shot and its’ impact is delayed by the impact of the first shot. I doubt that would have happened, had JFK been shot as John Costella argues. I was one of the authors of the criticism of the TGZFH. As such I was privy to all the discussions that went on in the group as we put together our web site and our responses to The Great Zapruder Film Hoax. Towards the end of our discussions, just after we had launched the web site, we actually visited this question of the forward movement between Z 312 and Z 313. As we realised, if it was not a bullet that caused this movement, what on earth was it? We all accepted that some external force had been behind this and what, for a while, perplexed us was exactly what this force was. During these discussions we noticed that it was not just JFK that moves forward: Jackie does, Nellie does, John Connally does and Roy Kellerman does. The only one who does not appear move forward is Bill Greer. One thing everyone can agree on is that Jackie, Nellie and Roy were not injured by bullets and John Connaly is not shot during this period. So, if John Costella is right that the forward movement by JFK was caused by a bullet why are all the rest ( who were either NOT shot at all or were not shot during this period ) also moving forward at the same time? We concluded that what was propelling John Kennedy forward was also propelling the others forward. Our conclusion was that during this period Bill Greer was applying the breaks to the car and particularly during the period Z 310/11 to Z 313. At Z 260 the car is moving at around 12 MPH. By Z 300 the car is moving at around 10 MPH and by Z 314 it is moving at around 8 MPH. Add to that, that during this period the car is actually going down a hill and not along a level road. And finally Bill Greer who is facing JFK during this period Z 305 to Z 315, probably sees the bullet that hit JFK in the head. There are images that show the break lights being on and with Bill Greer facing the rear, it is more than likely his foot was on the break, though not necessarily breaking. We wondered if during this period Bill Greer involuntarily applied the breaks. And as I say our conclusion for JFK’s ( and everyone else’s ) forward movement was as a consequence of the breaks being applied. John Costella's gif of this sequence demonstrates that all these people are moving at the same time. The gif is cropped, so you don’t see Roy Kellerman. There is an understandable logic in suggesting that the forward movement by JFK between Z 312 and Z 313 is caused by a bullet. However there are questions that require answering that John Costella does not address. 1. If the movement is the cause of a bullet, then why are the others moving at the same time. If you look at the sequence from Z 300 to Z 315 you will see that when JFK moves forward that is when Nellie and Roy Kellerman move. Jackie has already been moving closer to JFK to see what is wrong. From Z 312 her movement changes to a forward movement. John Connally is already trying to raise himself. However from Z 312 his movement also changes. So effectively everyone moves at this point, but only JFK is argued to have been shot. So what causes the others to move if they have not been shot? 2. If JFK has been shot in the back of the head, why is there no evidence in facial area as there ought to be. 3. If the second shot came from the front, how does the first shot from the rear suspend it’s effect? Why does the second shot not override the first shot: in other words why are we able to see the reaction of the first shot? Surely that should have been obliterated by the effect of the second shot? James.

Jack, On Dave Reizes web site that has most of the assassination films, including the A.B. Smith version, all examples of that film show it to be the Zapruder film. Not one version, as far as I can see, shows the frame that you have posted. The AVI version does have the first frame that is very light, but the people are far clearer than the example you have shown. Further, on your slide you coment that the pedestrians on Houston Street have numbers on them. I can't see any numbers on the people. Where are these numbers that you claim are present on the pedestrains? As Larry Peters points out, this is just a frame from the Zapruder film, albeit with an extraordinay poor first frame. Your suggestion that we are seeing an example of the faking of the Zapruder film is clearly absent from your posted slide. James.