David Josephs

1 minute ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

I am not making any accusation.  I made three accurate statements.  I question if Prouty had prior knowledge of the assassination and if he did, he is trying to rewrite his history with the book that he published.  Mind you he makes serious allegations about Lansdale and others, which I believe to be true. 

Again KS, fair enough yet we are all researchers in one form or another...  where has the path you are on trying to confirm these reasons he wrote a book in 1992, leading you?

In the same paragraph you say you don't make accusations, you accuse him of rewriting history.    That is not an accurate statement, that is a conclusion from your interpretation of something you seem to have found or know which disagrees with something we all can see by reading the book and knowing who he was... 

You accuse him of whitewashing his role with the publication of that book... and I'd like to know why, beyond the 2 other statements you call accurate.

Thanks

2 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

David, at this moment I'm having problems with my laptop & scanner, but your request duly noted.  I'll e-mail the Osborne letter to you when things resolved.

Much obliged and appreciated 

Just now, Ron Ecker said:

And if LeMay was really there, how could he help control things by sitting in the gallery? Was he passing notes to the autopsy participants?

As I remember it Ron, the doctors themselves said something about Admirals (which we'd expect to see at a naval facility like Galloway) and Generals (who we would not) yelling from the Gallery - which was only a smallish 3 level grandstand  - to "don't do that", "stop that and move on", etc...

I'd have to find the passage, but yes, one of the staff does talk about the man's cigar and smoking it during the autopsy.

Found it:

Deep Background: The Rift between President Kennedy and General LeMay 
- by Douglas Horne, Chief Analyst for Military Records (ARRB) 

<snip>
The anecdote’s essentials are that Dr. Humes, smelling cigar smoke in the morgue, loudly ordered whoever was smoking a cigar to ‘put the damn thing out,’ and told O’Connor to ‘see to it,’ or words to that effect. According to O’Connor, while Humes had his back turned to the gallery and was busy conducting the autopsy on the President’s body, he (O’Connor) went over to the gallery to enforce Humes’ dictate, only to run into the Air Force Chief of Staff, Curtis LeMay, who arrogantly blew smoke in O’Connor’s face. When O’Conner informed Dr. Humes of the identify of the culprit, so the story goes, Humes turned quite pale, stuck his tail between his legs, and that was the end of the matter. According to O’Connor, when he saw LeMay the General had removed the four-star insignia from his uniform, but O’Connor recognized him nevertheless. 

[This is not at all a farfetched possibility. LeMay was an extremely well-known military man who had a very efficient public relations machine of his own, second only to J. Edgar Hoover’s; for example in 1955, he had been glorified in a Jimmy Stewart and June Allyson Cold War film called “Strategic Air Command,” where he was appropriately portrayed by a character named “General Hawks” by actor Frank Lovejoy. Many Americans knew who the real Curtis LeMay was in 1963, and knew what he looked like. As Brugioni wrote, “his beetle brows, jutting jaw, sagging jowls, shock of slicked down black hair, and ubiquitous brown cigar,” gave him the visage of a bulldog. He was a living icon to many in 1963, especially former and active members of the military. ] 

While O’Connor’s anecdotal evidence certainly does not prove LeMay was present, the behavior described sounds very much like the real Curtis LeMay. The entries in the log book rescued by Chuck Holmes prove that LeMay had more than enough time to get to Bethesda from National Airport before President Kennedy’s body arrived from Andrews AFB; LeMay landed 48 minutes prior to Air Force One, and Washington National Airport is much closer to Bethesda than Andrews Air Force Base. 
 

G. William Miller was chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from March 8, 1978, to August 6, 1979. Before joining the Board of Governors, he was a Class B director at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.

Miller was born in 1925 in Sapulpa, Oklahoma. He graduated from the US Coast Guard Academy with a bachelor’s degree in marine engineering. He later received a law degree from the University of California’s School of Law at Berkeley.

After completing law school, Miller worked as an attorney for Cravath, Swain & Moore from 1952 to 1956. He then left the firm to join Textron Inc. He became vice president of the company in 1957 and president in 1960. He later served as the firm’s chief executive officer (1968) and chairman and CEO (1974).  With his accomplishments, Miller built a reputation for himself as a capable and astute business leader, winning the respect of other members of the business community.

As chairman at the Board of Governors, Miller became known for his expansionary monetary policies. Unlike some of his predecessors, Miller was less focused on combating inflation, but rather was intent on promoting economic growth even if it resulted in inflation. Miller argued that the Federal Reserve should take measures to encourage investment instead of fight rising prices. He believed that inflation was caused by many factors beyond the Board’s control.

Miller left the Board of Governors after being appointed Secretary of the Treasury, where he served until January 20, 1981. In addition to serving the Board and the Treasury, Miller held other government positions, including chairman of the US Industrial Payroll Savings Committee and chairman of Plans for Progress (President’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity).

He also held officer roles in many professional and charitable organizations, including the Business Council, the United Nations Association of the USA, and the Leukemia Society.

Miller died in 2006.

https://www.federalreservehistory.org/people/g-william-miller

2 minutes ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

1,2, and 3 are accurate statements.  
 

My point is Prouty writes a book in 1992.  He somehow knows all these facts, which I believe, and somehow he had no foreknowledge of the assassination.  Thinking critically, my opinion is he had foreknowledge.  He wrote a book about the assassination after Lansdale died and made money from it.  IMO - To have foreknowledge and to go along with it, in my opinion there has to be a reason.  He hated Kennedy for #3.
I have spoken to various retired Generals of the time. They were upset over #3.   That was America back then.

Fair enough reply, and appreciated.  Yet you still do not even hint at what that role might be. You are making incredibly serious accusations - I expect you've read the book which exposes the Hamlet program for what it was and what it did to Vietnam. 

You may know, or not, that General Cabal (the Dallas mayor's brother) assisted TEXTRON, the world's first conglomerate, in buying a little, unprofitable and in massive LT debt company called BELL HELICOPTER with a loan from Prudential Insurance with a 6 year repayment grace period - not exactly an insurance business-like loan.  Within a few years BELL is banking billions on government contracts and TEXTRON begins it's foray into the tech business*. 

Having been doing this for 30 years or so, his name has NEVER come into the conversation as bring in control of, or an influence on anything that occurred that day.   If he had, how crazy is it to think he'd expose these ruthless individuals or himself to scrutiny... y'know with three kids and all?

==. With heavy bias towards JFK - even attributing the Vietnam war to him - this excerpt is an eye opener.

*The story begins with Arthur D. Little, a professor of chemistry at Harvard, who established in 1886 Arthur D.
Little Associates, an industrial consulting firm that is now one of the City of London's key infiltrators into the American and Arab economies. Little's nephew, Royal Little, the eventual founder of Textron was set up in the rayon business by his uncle's banking connections.  <snip>

Rand madman Robert Strange McNamara became Secretary of Defense while Cravath Swain and Moore partner, Roswell Gilpatrick became the number two man in Defense. This opened a whole new phase in Textron development.
Textron bought Bell Helicopter in July of 1960, four months before the election. Bell's sales were down an even hundred million in 1959 from nearly double that in 1953. Textron bought the company for what was con­sidered one of the worst deals of the year - $32 million or exactly the company’s book value.

Thompson, Jr.; then Textron Chairman (George William Miller was President) , boasted, "We knew we had our objective - 25 percent pre-tax profit on our investment - from day one."
That was a pretty cocky statement by the head of a company that had $98 million in long-term debt, large amounts of warrants and convertible preferred stock outstanding, and was running out of tax credits. Since 1953 the company had not paid a penny in tax, having run up a tax credit as high as $45 million in 1956. Textron faced full tax liability by 1963.

In fact the company was heading for bankruptcy. Yet somehow, the Prudential Life Insurance Company of Newark, a Morgan influenced firm, provided a $25 million unsecured note to Textron, with a six-year grace period on repayments. A most un-insurance company­ like type of loan.

With the loan, Textron bought Bell and remarkably, helicopter orders zoomed up 50 percent between 1961 and 1962. Bell's UH-IB and UH-IB Iroquois were heavily ordered for JFK's Vietnam War. With this kick, Textron began another round of acquisitions, now heavily defense or machine-tool oriented. The pace was dizzying. For example in 1965 (January), Textron bought Le Progres Industriel, a Belgian machine tool manufacturer; in February, it bought Old King Cole to supplement the plastics line of Fanner Industries division; in July, it acquired the South Coast Marine Co.; in September, it obtained substantial interest in the American Screw Company of Chile (nationalized by Chilean Govt. in 1972); in October, it acquired the Patterson-Sargent paint business. In 1966 Textron was even more active, buying, selling or rearranging ten companies.

Not only entering aerospace to limit its development, Textron continues its asset-stripping activities in all acquisitions. As one Textron manager explained in 1964, "Our program is based on an incentive-compensation program. Our people request only the capital equipment which really pays for itself. It made the general foreman try to operate on as low inventory as he can."

In 1974, it appeared that Textron would gobble up the ailing and much "watergated" Lockheed Aircraft. Miller decided not to, but maybe it was already in the family. Lockheed was being run by Felix Rohatyn, of Lazard Freres, part of Rothschild ally Andre Meyer's London­ based Lazard group. Rohatyn was the organizer of the Saratoga Springs Governor's Conference at which he and Miller laid out the Energy Corporation of the Northeast.

What is George William Miller's next asset stripping operation? Probably wrecking U. S. commercial banks, the cornerstone of American industry. In the Oct. 5, 1974 issue of Business  Week, Miller called for "selective consumer credit controls, a mandatory interest surchage on loans for low priority purposes and a requirement for large bank reserves for certain types of loans." Together with Senator Reuss's proposal for a full reserve requirement for all foreign branches of American banks, these measures would destroy American banking.

Miller will only have to become head of the Federal Reserve Board to do that.
 

1 minute ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

1. Fletcher Prouty's unique knowledge and connections within the intelligence community might have granted him access to information about the JFK assassination that was not available to others.
2. His absence from the country during the time of the assassination could be interpreted as an attempt to distance himself from any potential involvement or suspicion.
3. The fact that Prouty had three young children during JFK's push for school desegregation might have caused him personal concern or dissatisfaction, given the widespread opposition to integration at the time.

In 1992, Prouty published a book titled "JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy," in which he placed the blame for the JFK assassination on various individuals and organizations, excluding himself. This could be seen as an effort to rewrite history and deflect any potential suspicion away from himself while shaping public perception of the events surrounding the assassination.

 

1. Of course it would - if you read the Secret Team and the book you mention, if is quite obvious he was in a position of knowledge as liaison between the USAF and the CIA
2. Spell it out Keyvan.  Gordon Lansdale is provably in TX on the 21st.  General LeMay of the USAF returns to DC to be in the room at Bethesda.  Describe what Prouty's role "might" have been with the knowledge he knows that he is not "high enough" to strip Dealey plaza of Protection - or order anyone to do anything in the USAS.
3. He did whatever you think he did for his kids.  Ok

Are you the same one who thinks Elsberg wrote the Pentagon Papers to shift blame away from him for the Watergate break ins?

Can you expand on this post and let us in on the secret about Prouty you believe you know?  Sure would go a long way to add some validity to what appears as disgruntled, misinformed and wild accusations about the man.  Considering I knew the man who knew the man, who provided the info for the beginning of this thread - I doubt highly you'd say any of this to his face.  In fact, I'm sure of it.

What's your point for going down this road?

41 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

DJ,

Check your forum mail from March 22.

 

Didn't think so.  

You've chosen to ignore content by Cliff Varnell.

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I've always liked Annie Lennox. Here she is with David Bowie, singing for.... Queen?

Thanks Sandy... had never seen that.

59 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

DJ--

i think John Newman is looking into a non-CIA angle to the JFKA. 

If I had to bet, I would put odds on the CIA Miami station, and related exiles, mercenaries. They had means, motivation and opportunity. I suspect a very small number of witting pre-JFKA participants. The same group may have "stalked" JFK in Chicago and Miami. 

But certainly, the full story has never been told. 

And no government can investigate itself. 

From the presentations I have seen of his, (I was in Dallas in Nov, 2019 doing my Rifle presentation when I saw his talk about this very thing)  I think John is set out to show how Veciana was actually acting within military parameters and not CIA - but I am in no way speaking for him.  Let his words speak for themself:

https://whowhatwhy.org/politics/government-integrity/antonio-veciana-mystery-man-in-jfk-assassination-part-1/.  

I have always felt the Military was the prime mover here with the CIA doing their part.  Will opening released documents for a while I came across this showing that LUCIEN CONEIN was on loan to the CIA from the ACSI within the military structure despite many, including myself, believing he was CIA thru and thru on loan to the military. (I may also be misinterpreting this document - maybe Larry H. or someone with deeper knowledge can chime in and set it straight)

John also uses these 2017-18 releases to make his case.  Again, I do not purport to speak for Mr. Newman and have not yet read the books.  I believe Jim D does a review as well on K&K.

I'd recommend you ignore me as well Cliff... 

Coming here to have you trot out T3 like an OCD parrot and demean the time and work of everyone else to whom you feel morally superior 
has somehow lost its appeal.

Let's see if you can put it down and move on... or has the "compulsive" part taken over?

2 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Nothing like this for sure.  thanks for posting this.

1 hour ago, Paul Bacon said:

I do too DJ.  Thanks for your thought process.  

And I second Ron:  "minds blown..."!!

Yeah...  I remember just sitting and staring at the sky when I was first exposed to this all those years ago.

I hope too that my little foray into the logic behind the images we see in Chris' gif hits home as it did for me as I was doing it.  Like finding the page when Dulles crosses out Cadigan's testimony and writes his own instead - which then gets published as Dulles rewrote it in the final transcription... 

After that post I feel an closeness to understanding how they did it, and how much easier it was than people think.

I remember years ago asking Chris "what if they actually did cut out 120 frames from the Elm turn and specifically chose to start the frame numbers where it made the most sense?"  He then goes on to prove what they did and they they synced it to the other films.

His work and the works he references are so far beyond the pale. I'd come back here from time to time just to check on what progress he's made... and maybe lend a hand in translation. 

13 minutes ago, Paul Bacon said:

My question, though, is where did the two (different) versions (of the extant Z film) Chris used in his gif come from?

I don't know Paul.  I may have seen the vertically squashed frames at some point but did not notice the white thing on the grass at the time.  I've looked thru my files knowing I've had a gif with all the B&W frames, but have yet to find it.

I would love to see the source of the frames, that frame, for myself.  I don't question his integrity, I just cannot give him 100% without knowing more about the provenance of that frame.

That spot on that frame after it appears earlier in the extant film, and has not changed location has to be from somewhere in the alteration process.

Thinking logically now within the assumptions made about alteration...

1. Frames are removed to effectively allow for the revised film to show no stopping of the limo - color
2. Copies were made of the extant film capturing the same frame by frame images as the original, iow the limo stops, the white dot stops, the limo accelerates, the white dot moves across the page. B&W copies of these copies are made.
3. The extant film does still show the slowing of the limo, only due to the removal of frames the amount of slowing time is drastically reduced
4. The white spot does not enter the frame in color until after the B&W one shows it above Greer's head. frame 305 or so versus 315
5. The white spot in the B&W frame remains on screen in the unaltered film all thru the excised frames between 305 and 315 due to the stopping of the limo for less than .5 seconds - frame 305 below
6. white blob is not in the extant film at frame 305 but enters the frame at 313 yet is elongated much more so than anything else in the frame which is not the limo, is the amount of elongation the same as what we see for Foster  - frame 313 below that
7. 315, below that, appears as if everything is in the same focus: limo, foster, white spot
8. 316, below that, is back to the limo and occupants in focus as he pans and the background blurry
   
   For 1/18th of a second, in the midst of Zapruder panning with the limo as it is supposed to be moving at 9-11.2 mph everything in frame is in the same focus.  therefore for that frame the limo must be standing still along with Zapruder's camera, otherwise foreground or background would be out of focus since one is moving and the other isn't.
    
9. This has to mean that that area of the original film, where the white spot has reached that location in the B&W frame 305 and stays at that spot until 315 when we see it in the extant film, must have contained many more frames while the limo was stopped.  When removed, that area of the grass needed "fixing" while the extant color film returned to "normal" as we see the white spot move along the frame and out of picture as the limo accelerated away from the stop.

How he has a frame from the original film, unaltered, is beyond me; but he obviously does.  Maybe he will be so kind as to let us know about it and where he was able to acquire it... or then again it may be best not to at this point.

I take him at his word.  Sorry I couldn't be more help in that area, yet this little exercise which I did spontaneously has helped me understand the possible process employed.

DJ
 

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

What's interesting, though, is that we're reading this headline in Rupert Murdoch's NYPost -- a U.S. mainstream media publication.

I'm here in the Northeast...  other than for it's quality Sports writers, the Post is regarded as quite the rag.  Is it amazing though how the GOP is the spearhead for transparency at this point... 

The CIA was not in the room at Bethesda.  The CIA didn't order the doctors to do what they did and not do what they should have.

It's easy to blame the CIA, they are the doberman gnarling its teeth and barking while its Military Masters remain hidden and safe within their own world of justice and accountability.  If the CIA was involved - which they were - it was at the direction of Military masters.

At least that's the conclusion I'm drawn to after my time digging.

48 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

The problem is: the back wound is an entrance, so where did that bullet go?

All I can do is to use the evidence we are provided and try to determine if it's consistent, reliable, true based on other evidence, the situation and common sense.

there is documentation of many more than 3 bullets from Dealey Plaza in the record.  here are 2 of them.

A manhole was hit and a bullet picked up, the chrome of the limo has a bullet-like dent, there are records of bullets found in the Limo when back in DC and the story of Flyod Boring thanks to Vince P.

This is O'Connor's recollection followed by an FBI memo at the time JFK was at the Bethesda hospital.

Missing bullets are nothing new in this case... only 3 were ever to be allowed.  Doesn't mean they were never there.

3 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

So you object to getting reminded of the rarely discussed root facts?  YP not MP

Thanks Cliff...  its people like you that make life worth living...   

do you spend all day this mad at all us id-jits or do you work yourself into a lather first then come here to post looking for a fight?

Figures you're site is based on Occams razor... you so fooled by 50 years of propaganda that you've bought into the notion the simplest solution is the most correct?

Hey, forget these are questions.  Think Rhetorical... you know, like all the other questions discussed here

bu-bye now... you can disengage now and wonder why some other portion of the forum is filled with so many id-jits... 

This presentation of yours has become hackneyed. 

Just now, Paul Bacon said:

David, I do understand what you just laid out.  I believe that Dino saw the original film, but Chris doesn't have a copy, I think I can safely say.  As you said, a half a dozen only have seen that version over the years.

 

What am I missing?  Is Chris saying that there are multiple Z films floating around whose frame compositions are different depending on which version you're seeing?  Where did the black and white version come from?  And where did the color version come from?  Does frame 306 show the white patch in the black and white version, but not the color version.  I have Costella's frames--no white patch in 306.

God help me!  :>)

This is most likely new to most of you; to some, like me and Chris, it gnaws quietly within the electricity of the brain reminding us that people "ain't gonna learn what they don't wanna know" and pulling on Superman's cape is foolish.

I've been made aware of a few people who said they saw it and described it online.  One is Greg Burnham referred to in the Prouty thread, the other Rich Dellarosa.

Paul ,they did not "only" see this film.   The people I refer to have seen both films.  This can be taken as definitive proof if you like... as I find these 2 people beyond reproach  for their integrity and dedication to the truth.

Back in '09 (and throughout my time online) I have a habit of copying significant posts and threads and saving them on my computer and printing them out for fear of them disappearing someday.  Of losing them to history for what they suggested.  From my files I have these two presentations of what was written and if I remember correctly, the published pages from Rich are in Fetzer's Assassination Science... first off is Greg

Jim,

The short answer is:

In the film that I saw the limo came into view on Houston Street and the entire turn onto Elm was visible. There was no "splice" or point where the limo suddenly
appeared on Elm out of nowhere. The limo made an extremely wide turn onto Elm and was moving very slowly at the corner. The limo "drifted" to the left of center
(driver's POV) on Elm St. I don't recall if it actually made a complete lane change or if it was simply "pointed" more or less "left of center" -- My best recollection is that it was partially in the left lane and partially in the center lane by the time it reached the steps leading up the Grassy Knoll next to the so-called Zapruder pedestal. Similar to what is seen in the extant film, JFK had been hit at least once by the time the limo emerged from behind the Stemmon's sign, elbows raised up, his torso apparently frozen, his "protection" inexplicably absent...a sitting duck.

There is absolutely no question as to whether or not the limo came to a complete and FULL stop. The car stopped. Completely. No motion whatsoever. The limo remained motionless for approximately 2 seconds. I'm surprised the Queen Mary didn't rear-end it. The head shot most obviously came from the right front. A detail that is missing from the motion of JFK in the extant film has to do with the difference between: "back and to the left" --and--"up, then fall to the left".
My recollection is that he was "lifted up" from his seat to a discernible degree before falling to his left. This "body motion" appeared to be much slower than the jerky, abrupt, "snap" seen in the extant film.

Rich had a few items that I didn't recall and vice versa. For instance, unlike what Rich reported, I don't recall a shot from behind that caused JFK's head to move forward initially just before the fatal head shot from the front. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. I just may not have registered that for whatever reason. I also recall that
several Secret Service Agents climbed out of the Queen Mary with (what appeared to be) automatic weapons drawn apparently looking to return fire. They appeared to be very disoriented. Then they climbed back in and sped off. There was a considerable gap between the time the X-100 sped off and the Queen Mary sped off. Rich
did not recall the agents climbing out of the limo.

==============================

I am not at liberty to discuss the circumstances under which I viewed this film. 
GO_SECURE

monk
 

 Rich Delorossa posted this about that film - and the attachments below provides a bit more background.  I show page 1 just to understand who he was... and how he feels about what he is writing.

Title: The "other" film -- FAQs
Post by: admin on March 15, 2009, 06:51 AM=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
Since I appeared recently on Len Osanic's "Black Op" radio
program, I have been receiving several questions, I'll try and
answer them here:
1. Where can this film be viewed?
I really don't know. I believe that copies exist in various 
places around the world.
However I have no knowledge where it can be viewed. I never at any time possessed
a copy myself. When I saw it, the film was shown by a person 
unknown to me along with some others in a suburb of Washington DC (College Park, MD).

2. Do you believe it is an unedited version of the Zapruder Film?
Personally, I do not believe the film is in any way a version of 
the Zapruder film. The Z film appears amateurish to me and unrealistic in the 
sense that it seems like an animated "cartoon". The "other" film seemed to be 
professionally done with great color rendition and smooth panning. Additionally, 
I am unsure as to whether Zapruder shot the film attributed to him. A French 
photo journalist who saw the film on several occasions does refer to it as an 
unedited version of the Z film FWIW.

3. What are the major discrepancies in what is seen on both films?

The "other" film shows the limo on Houston Street as it turns onto 
Elm. The Z film does not even though Z testified that he began filming 
when the limo first came into view and did not stop filming until the 
limo left the Plaza,  The 'other" film shows the limo making a wide turn onto Elm, 
nearly going up on the curb and as though it first was headed to the service 
road in front of the TSBD. Greer apparently struggled to navigate into the 
center of Elm. The crowd appeared quite animated as the limo progressed down Elm 
St.  In the Z film, the crowd appears frozen.
In the "other" film, the Umbrella man is seem pumping the umbrella up and down,
not just holding it over his head. I've concluded that he may have been signaling
the various shooters to open fire -- that JFK was still alive. In the Z film the open
umbrella seems stationary except that a slight rotation can be detected.
The dark complected man with the cap alternately nicknamed TA (The Accomplice)
and The Cuban is seen in the "other" film motioning with an upraised arm while
he stepped into the street and was approaching the limo. He formed his up-raised
hand into a fist -- perhaps the infantryman's signal to "stop." I have concluded
that he was trying to attract Greer and Kellerman to stop the limo exactly at
his position -- which they did. the Limo was stopped ~2 to 3 seconds. The Zfilm shows no stop.
The stop was so sudden that it jostled the occupants forward. A portion of this
forward motion can be detected in the extant Z film.
With the limo stopped, Greer turned to face JFK. At that moment JFK received=20
2 shots to the head: one from the rear causing his head to move forward slightly
and one to the right temple, fired from the front, resulting in a violent explosion
out the rear of JFK's head and sending a huge spray of blood and brain matter
toward DPD Officer Hargis hitting his helmet with what William Manchester
termed a "red sheet" and with such force that Hargis later said he thought he
himself was hit. This most gory explosion of matter is not accuratelyportrayed in the extant Z Film.
Apparently once that Greer saw that JFK was hit, he then swung around and accelerated the limo
leaving Dealey Plaza and passing the lead car to entrance the Stemmons freeway.

4. If the Zapruder film is altered, why did "they" leave in the explosive head shot?
The first thing to keep in mind is that "they" never believed the Z film would
be viewed by the public. Members of the WC stated that they believed only
a few college professors would even read their report. With Time, Inc. and
the FBI controlling access to the Z film they could control who could view it
or even selected frames from it. If questioned, they could always say it was
being withheld due to concern over the Kennedy family's right to privacy.
In 1975, the extant Z film was shown on national TV on Geraldo Rivera's
"Goodnight America" program by Robert Groden. That segment
can be found on MPI's DVD Image Of An Assassination." The public
was shocked to see the head shot. To many, the Z film was proof of a
second gunman, one firing from the front. To counter those beliefs a
Nobel winning physicist (Luis Alvarez) concocted a "jet effect" theory to
explain how a shot from the TSBD could cause the violent "back and to the
left" reaction defying Newton's 2nd law of motion. Newton's second law of
motion can be formally stated as follows:
The acceleration of an object as produced by a net force is directly proportional
to the magnitude of the net force, in the same direction as the net force, and=20
inversely proportional to the mass of the object.
=
(http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSC...aws/u2l3a.html).
The alterationists IMO HAD to leave in the fatal head shot. They couldn't
very well claim that JFK was a victim of whiplash. At the necessary time
Dr Alvarez was dragged out to produce a total canard.

5. Why was the Zapruder film fabricated/altered?
IMO, and simply stated, the purposes of altering the Z film, in order of
priority, were:
a.. To remove all evidence of multiple shooters
b.. To remove evidence of shots from any direction but the rear if possible=20
c.. To remove evidence of Secret Service complicity

6. On 11/23, Dan Rather claimed to have viewed the Z film, the first
reporter to do so. He claimed that JFK's head was throw violently
forward not backward. How can that be?
IMO, he may have been shown an early attempt of an altered film in which
the frames were reversed. But it is possible that he saw NO film at all --
and he was instructed what to say. Keep in mind that on 11/22, Rather was
simply a TV reporter for the local Dallas CBS affiliate -- but virtually overnight
he was promoted to CBS's official White House Correspondent. Quid pro quo??

7. Will the "other" film ever become accessible to the public?
I truly doubt it. It is a dangerous property because that one film proves that
JFK was murdered as a part of a well planned and executed conspiracy. It
lays the WCR bare as an intentionally written pack of lies and proves the
complicity of the Secret Service, the FBI, and the highest levels of the
U.S government.
I have known of ~ a half dozen people who have seen the film in the distant,
past -- yet no two ever saw it in the same place at the same time. I truly
wish that someone would come foreward and report a more recent =
viewing.

I truly do.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
Title: Re: The "other" film -- FAQs
Post by: Walt Rollins on March 15, 2009, 11:52 AM=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
Rich, how did you come to view the film in the first place? Did 
someone invite you? Did a friend of yours know the presenter of the 
film? Was it a secret showing? How did those viewing it get the chance 
to see it? There might be some clues in your answers to find out where 
this film might have come from.......

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
Title: Re: The "other" film -- FAQs
Post by: Dean Hagerman on March 15, 2009, 12:26 PM=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
Rich you have already talked to me about the POV (Inside the 
Pergola)
Just a thought that you might want to add that into your post for 
members who have not heard your opinion on where the "other" films 
camera (i.e. Tri-pod in Betzner) or camera man was standing in Dealey 
Plaza.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
Title: Re: The "other" film -- FAQs
Post by: Rich DellaRosa on March 15, 2009, 01:59 PM=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
Quote from: Walt Rollins on Today at 11:52 AM
Rich, how did you come to view the film in the first place? Did 
someone invite you? Did a friend of yours know the presenter of the 
film? Was it a secret showing? How did those viewing it get the chance 
to see it? There might be some clues in your answers to find out where 
this film might have come from.......

Walt,
I mentioned that on the program.
In 1974-76, I was stationed at Andrews AFB outside DC. I was
working on a B.S. in Political Science part time. I used to 
attend classes at the U of Maryland's main campus in College Park on
weekends. On Saturdays and Sundays classes were 3 hours each.
One each morning and one each afternoon. There was a break for
lunch in between. Some people studied, some went off campus
to eat, some brown-bagged it. Most of us just hung around.
On 2 occasions while I was there, word got around that if anyone
was interested, a film of the JFK assassination would be shown
at lunch in an empty classroom. I went, once before the Z film
was shown on TV, once again after. I had heard of this happening
at other colleges in that time period. So I went and a guy, 
unknown to me, waited until a fair number of people arrived, and used a 
16mm projector to show the film. I recall him running it twice each 
time.
Some of us joined in spontaneous discussions afterward. The first 
time I assumed it was the Z film but no one said it was. The second 
time I knew immediately that it wasn't the Z film. I remained silent 
about these viewings for over 20 years.
I don't know where the film came from but recall that College Park
is only a short drive around the Beltway from both DC and NSA.
The guy with the film didn't identify himself and I don't recall 
anyone asking him.

At that time, I held a Top Secret/Crypto security 
clearance and I was very accustomed to not asking questions.
 

2 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

It’s not my “soft tissue” solution, it’s what the physical evidence and the contemporaneous accounts of witnesses in position of authority prove.

So you offer that 7 people see and entrance wound - fine

That clothes have holes to match the location - agreed

Why must your surety have any bearing on the activities of those on this forum beyond your own self-grandizing?

==

Since you have your convincing evidence, I'm curious why you bother clicking on any SBT thread at all anymore? 
Just so you can fein moral superiority with your patented " y'all are wasting your time" comments?
To Whom are you trying to ingratiate yourself anyway?

We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. 

So take the advice and move on to more important things and maybe stop interrupting others while they have a discussions with people they respect...

Besides getting a congressional investigation reconvened which many here are in the process of doing,
friends and colleagues here have nothing but the micro-analysis of the evidence to derive consensus, establish long term relationships and add more points of connectivity within the enormous spiderweb that is this case.

Who appointed you the forum's SBT top-cop anyway... did you need to fill out an application first?

1 hour ago, Vince Palamara said:

Thanks! Like so much else in the (film) evidence, it is hard to be conclusive. We would have more definitive answers regarding the film and photo evidence if these were iPhone videos and crisp digital images.

So you never came across any of the SS who mentions a shot or sound, or commotion just as they turned the corner resulting in Hickey looking down at the ground as he does? 

On 5/7/2023 at 12:05 PM, Vince Palamara said:

Happens all the time in life. I do not believe that Hickey shot JFK; sorry.

I do need to ask though Vince... your experience with the SS, is Hickey looking at a missed shot here...
Had it ever come up?

Maybe easier to see in the context of the entire film, this all prior to z170

Thanks

16 hours ago, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

We know that Vince is certain that Hickey did not shoot jfk (or at least that Vince said that he was certain). I am certain that Hickey shot jfk. How can 2 clever guys hold opposing beliefs?

Because one is "belief" based on very poor science and the other is fact based in reality.

How many one man against the world beliefs about the assassination have ever proven out when a community takes the time to investigate the claims.. as opposed to those beliefs that are proven after a community takes the time to investigate?

It's nice to think you know something that no one else can see MR, until your support for such is easily shown to be the junk science and conclusive speculation it is.

24 minutes ago, Vince Palamara said:

Happens all the time in life. I do not believe that Hickey shot JFK; sorry

Being right, until proven wrong, means never having to say sorry. 

Yours will be the shoulders others stand on related to the SS and many other aspects of the case for the foreseeable future, Vince.  

Life is too short to suffer the self proclaimed f o o l s.

Keep on Truckin'

4 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

The far-fetched Z224 SBT

You can stop right there MG.  

3 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

There are two different versions?!

{good sarcasm or honest question?}. I get the sarcasm... for those who want answers:

Dino B and Homer M

Bill Smith vs 2 men in black

Hawkeyeworks

0184

The missing Rowley film which arrived on Rowley's desk late night Fri / early morning Sat as sent by Max Phillips and whose chain of custody ends there.

The half dozen people who actually saw a different film years after the fact, who describe seeing the turn onto Elm and the limo stop.

the "original" with 6 splices creating 7 pieces totaling over 50 feet of film from a 30 foot side and only 6 feet and change of actual footage

the demonstrable capability in film alteration available at the time

the impossible head movements

the black square over the right rear of his head where you can see his head/hair and other features behind it... stereoscopic viewers of this frame claim the black square appears to hover over the film... if I remember correctly...

yes, it is apparent to me there are different finished versions of the film.

10 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Why do people insist on debunking the SBT otherwise?

Point well taken, yet that remains only the word of Humes as described by the FBI... the "word" of those around him at Bethesda.
again, not saying the word is inaccurate at all... yet,

We have no physical evidence to back that assertion, so what is so wrong with looking at the SBT from other points of view than your own?

Of shutting the door with the reality of the angles involved, along with a number of other strong arguments.

You've been saying this same thing with what appears to be disdain for anybody else who approaches it differently than you...
for as long as I've been posting here it seems... and you do it with such contempt for the thoughts or work of anyone but you.

How about a little live and let live and maybe learn a few things you may have not been aware of before...  

We've all seen the work, all know what was said about the wound...  do you have an xray of that bullet at that spot?
Any physical evidence at all that proves what you assert beyond all reasonable doubt?

How about these for obvious debunking that does not require I know exactly where that bullet was lodged? Or even have to care where?

Or this farce with a bullet existing his chest instead of rising thru the body at 11 degrees?

Maybe if you could step back off of people's necks if they offer the "non-Varnell SBT-was-impossible conclusion" we can have discourse and discussion about these other thoughts without incurring the "wrath of Cliff" for suggesting anything but your soft tissue solution consensus every single time the SBT comes up.

11 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The evidence strongly suggests no shots were fired prior to Z-190.

"The Evidence" being this amalgamation of witnesses. which I support whole heartedly as I've posted many times.

Yet...  Silenced "Mitch Werbel-like" weapons, are not even possible or even considered?.  A probability of 0%?  
or the possibility this shot missed due to hitting  something else first and the # of reactions were minimal.

The De Lisle carbine or De Lisle Commando carbine was a British firearm used during World War II that was designed with an integrated suppressor. That, combined with its use of subsonic ammunition, made it extremely quiet in action, possibly one of the quietest firearms ever made.

You don't find it a bit coincidental that the few films of that turn are all damaged or the turn was cut out entirely?, that only TRULY describes a turn at that point almost hitting the small curb while not a single other "witness" corroborates? That the FBI's Shaneyfelt adds in "POSITION A" not seen on the film and which supports Truly's statement and makes it very hard to see how the limo and follow-up car are somehow back to the center of Elm by extant 133?  Not so much the limo but the position of the follow-up car on its tail and exactly behind it.

This graphic represents what Truly said, where Pos A was and a motorcycle passing thru Pos A compared to the limo at 133-175.  With enlargements below that.

Help us understand what it is you think is happening at extant 157/158, the splice/break... and given the numerous head movement studies done, how he goes from looking a little to the left of straight forward to his head facing 110 degrees to the right.

From my POV there is Evidence of an earlier shot, and anomalies of the "missing" turn and Pos A, and the stop/start at 132/133 actually being a 100 frame removal causing the FBI to offer a terrible explanation of Station C, where the turn "would" have occurred.

15 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

This shot was probably fired between Z145 and Z150.

Given the images posted and the explanation MG offers, this is not too far off.

Position A