James R Gordon

I am not trying to stop you gentleman from discussing this issue but it does not seem to be a very productive debate. I take the view that Jack has done some very important research into the JFK assassination (although I do not always agree with his conclusions). However, I do not think that Larry Peters or Bill Miller are disinformation agents. In fact, like Jack, they have carried out some very important research into the assassination. Surely it would be better if all concerned concentrated on their own research rather than making personal attacks on other researchers.

I agree John, however I would like to make this point. Jack White knows exactly who Bill Miller is and he knows Bill is not a disinformation agent. Jack and Bill have argued over this case for years and whatever else jack may think about Bill, he knows he is not someone whose purpose is to disrupt. The notion that Bill Miller works for some Agency is quite the stupidest idea I have heard. It is also worth pointing out that this is not the first thread that Jack has started that refers to Bill Miller. On the current page 2 is another thread started by Jack and who's object in the thread is Bill Miller.

I like this forum and I believe it has much to offer for JFK research. However threads like this one and the other one on Page 2 appear to me to be disruptive in nature. I don't believe they benefit the forum, and I don't believe they enhance the author of the threads. I have no idea what prompted jack to start either thread, but I would be happy if he would desist from further such threads.

James.

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.