David Josephs

Nicely done Bernice.... I had seen the "Mauser" stamp on rifles but never the 7.65 - which again is rare since the 7.62mm was more popular.

Add to these rifles the CIA report from Italy stating it was 7.35 caliber model 91 rifle, and "the description of a 'Mannlicher Carcano' is in error"...

and finally... how did they get another rifle out of the TSBD???

What, pray tell, is Monty gripping that is holding up the bag?

I read of late but..duh gone now..that there was a stick within the bag...here is the CIA report..re rifle you mention....take care b

Thanks again Bernice

According to Monty it was actually a venetian blind, if you can believe that....

Point remains... There is still no understandable reason for Boone and Weitzman to have SPECIFIED 7.65mm and Mauser when "a rifle" written in the AFFIDAVITS would have sufficed.

the overall LACK of descriptive terms in some cases and then the unnecessary minute details in other cases - usually of insignificant items - has always amazed me as one looks thru the inventory listings...

Why state and SIGN an AFFIDAVIT the NEXT DAY, to the 7.65mm fact, when the rifle so plainly says 6.5 & Made in Italy ??

Nicely done Bernice.... I had seen the "Mauser" stamp on rifles but never the 7.65 - which again is rare since the 7.62mm was more popular.

Add to these rifles the CIA report from Italy stating it was 7.35 caliber model 91 rifle, and "the description of a 'Mannlicher Carcano' is in error"...

and finally... how did they get another rifle out of the TSBD???

What, pray tell, is Monty gripping that is holding up the bag?

Everyone is entitled.... yet I am sorry you cannot see the obvious difference between the hands...

Regarding Maclom and Pickard... there is also the mention from the AeroSpace analysis which CLEARLY identified a line crossing the chin. and was summarily explained away using HSCA-ese

(398) The 133-B negative (CE 749) was digitally processed at the

Aerospace Corp. and the University of California Image Processing

Institute using several different image-processing techniques. This

process confirmed that the grain distribution was uniform. (173) (See

g. IV-31, JFK exhibit 197.) Under very carefully adjusted display

conditions, the scanned image of the Oswald backyard negative did

exhibit irregular, very fine lines in the chin area. The lines appeared,

however, only with the Aerospace gradient-enhancement process,

where the technique was applied at a much higher resolution (i.e., the

image area scanned was magnified since only a small portion of the

picture was being subjected to the computations) .

(399) Although the cause of these lines has not been definitely establishedthere is no evidence to indicate that they are the result of an

attempt to fake the photograph . This is because similar, although less

pronounced, lines were found using the same digital enhancement technique

on a known authentic photographic negative. Therefore, those

lines may have been a product of the enhancement process.

So in other words you have no idea why DB tells us the man he saw has a squared off haircut while Oswald's hair tapers off - exactly OPPOSITE of what DB tells us.

He may have "looked like" him, but the physical description does not match...

Be like he said the man had a 3 inch black birthmark on this face... "looked" like Oswald, but obviously was not him.

Nice try though

edit: that witnesses later changed their "first story" is no surprise dude.... most every first story that exonnerates Oswald were eventually changed...

Len,

There were no TS rifle ever delivered for them to PHASE OUT... unless you can show they EVER rec'd 36" M91 TS rilfes from someone.

I do not think you can conclude an ongoing business practice with only ONE example Len.

Don't you suppose if there were other C20-T750 orders in the 6 previous months AND they were shipped a 40" FC rifle in it's place, the FBI would LOVE to have that extra corroboration? "See everyone, Kleins did this all the time"

Don't you find it suspect that only the Hidell order was printed and the rest of the microfilm is now GONE?

And still you do not answer my question Len....

What rifle did Kleins ship customers for C20-T750 orders between August 1962 and Feb 1963?

Produce any single piece of evidence that C20-T750 customers rec'd the same rifle as Hidell was supposedly shipped.

btw - I AM saying the 38 E rifles were the TS 36" model... and that the handwritten "C2766" and VC# we after the fact to connect Hidell to C2766...

(that you did not "get" the tongue in cheek capitalizations of REASONABLE is too bad.... I was being satirical)

DVP... look at the 5th page of Fritz's notes...

3rd interview 11/23 6:35pm

ooops.

Could be why they didn't take him in to a line up...

Be a bummer for someone that close and with such a good view to ask the suspects to turn around and find Oswald NOT having the haircut he saw....

Thanks for bringing up Benavidas DVP... if anything he ADDS something about the suspect he saw that proves it was NOT OSWALD... he was very specific about the back of the man's head

Mr. BELIN - Okay, well, I thank you. I was flying from St. Louis to Des Moines, Iowa. at about this time. Is there anything else?

Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.

Domingo himself was a pretty dapper guy... very clean cut.... and seemed pretty sure of what he saw and added to his testimony...

Yes David, but which Oswald did they identify, the one arrested at the Texas Theater or the one who was driving Carl Mather's Plymouth a half hour later?

Or does it matter?

Your opinion on this appreciated.

Are you serious, Bill? Or just playing with the LNer (me)?

Well, I'll bite anyway....

The people I mentioned positively identified the man pictured below (except for Domingo Benavides, who didn't make a "positive" identification of Oswald, AFAIK, until 1967 on CBS-TV; but Benavides did tell the Warren Commission that the man he saw kill Tippit "looked like" Oswald [6 H 452]):

The man in the photo above, by the way, is the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald. And it's a picture of the man who was arrested in the Texas Theater.

Do conspiracy theorists want to pretend that witnesses like Ted Callaway, the two Davis girls, Bill Scoggins, and Sam Guinyard (among others) actually identified a DIFFERENT "Oswald" when those witnesses each picked the man pictured above out of a police line-up shortly after Tippit's murder?

You surely aren't suggesting something so crazy....are you Bill?

BTW, that photo of Oswald above is interesting for another "bushy" reason. There has been much talk about how Tippit murder witness Helen Markham supposedly described Oswald's hair as being "bushy". It's debatable whether Mrs. Markham ever used that word to describe LHO's hair, but let's assume she actually did say "bushy" to a reporter shortly after the Tippit murder.

Perhaps she saw Oswald's hair in much the same condition it was in after his arrest (as seen in the above photo). And while Oswald's hair isn't exactly long, perhaps it could pass for "bushy" in the eyes of some people who only saw his hair for a few fleeting moments on Tenth Street on 11/22/63.

It's possible, of course (and even quite likely, in fact), that Oswald's hair only achieved its mussed-up status after the wild brawl with the police in the theater, but it's also interesting to note this testimony of Helen Markham when she was questioned by Warren Commission counsel about the condition of LHO's hair:

JOE BALL -- "Is it your memory that his hair was bushy?"

MRS. MARKHAM -- "It wasn't so bushy. It was, say, windblown or something. What I mean, he didn't have a lot of hair."

Food for "bushy"-haired thought.

http://jfkassassinationfiles.com/suspect_purchased_rifle

This 11/23 article quotes Curry as saying Oswald will eat, shower, sleep and be transferred "tomorrow morning" (page 4)

DJ

"Advertised"?

5pm on Sunday? Not that I've ever seen or heard....

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/1124.html

A Change in Plans

The original plan had been for the sheriff to assume custody of Oswald at the city jail and handle the transfer. Late last night, for unspecified reasons, it was decided that the city police would move the prisoner.

Police Chief Jesse Curry declined to comment on suggestions that he had scheduled the transfer of Oswald at an unpropitious time because of pressure from news media.

Chief Curry announced about 9 o'clock last night that the investigation had reached a point where Oswald's presence was no longer needed. He said that Oswald would be turned over to the county sheriff today.

Asked when this would take place, the chief said: "If you fellows are here by 10 A.M., you'll be early enough."

When newsmen assembled at the police administrative offices at 10 o'clock, Chief Curry commented: "We could have done this earlier if I hadn't given you fellows that 10 o'clock time."

David; thankyou,certainly a new approach, very interesting, differences seen.......fellas, does anyone have an answer as yet, to the dogs nose artifat within the backyard photo...thanks...b...

Appreciated Bernice... Let me take it one step further...

Putting aside faces, angles, stereoscopes... is the right hand that we see in the BYP the same as ANY of these three other hands we KNOW are Oswald's?

The arrest image - slender fingers, pronounced knuckles on the fingers, upturned thumb...

The BYP... short, stubby fingers, no pronounced knuckles, deep groves up to the wrist (btw, this is from the BYP Lamson posted)

and finally... that space between ring finger and pinkie...

Would anyone claim the arrest right hand is the same as the BYP right hand?

yes Robin... thanks...

But in Altgens it appears as if there is no place where that tree's shadow falls... and no one standing in its shade...

Probably just a trick of th elight... similiar to LBJ barely being visible in the same image...

Cheers

DJ

The length of shadows vary based on the height of the object... we can see the shadow from the tree opposite Zapruder at the top of Elm extends quite a distance (z200)

yet it does not appear to me that there is any shade at all cast by that 30' tree in front of the TSBD (seems to reach the 3rd story in Bell).

Not a single person in that photo is in that shade yet many are shielding their eyes from the sun...

Not necessarily ominous... yet it does seem contrary to the natural laws of light and shadow.

Wouldn't we expect to see SOME shade there? just sayin...

DJ

FWIW the math took me a while to understand and visualize... and I majored in math/finance....

when I have more time I will find and help explain what I understand in that area... search first though

Proving a 4th copy I think is more than enough of a task at this point...

The Doorman issue is an insult to the intelligence.... not so much the notion, but the manner inwhich a well respected researcher butchers simple things like probability and corroboration...

(he uses Fritz's notes to claim Oswald said he was out there yet dismisses info on the same page of notes that says Oswald changed clothes when he got home.... how does comparing a shirt Oswald had not yet been wearing to an image taken in DP while claiming that is the shirt we see... ??)

I come to no conclusions about ANYONE until they start posting... in this world you are what you write and what you can authenticate....

I appreciate your interest and questions... Hopefully it will help others see as well...

re: Craig... if he had the littlest bit of class and ability he would simply address the issue, not the messenger.

whenever he comes adhomming into a thread - no matter whose - I know we are on the right track.

"digestion" may be tough with all that grissle, but have at it... his 3 little inches argument is good for a chuckle... given it has little to do with what occurs.... you can choke that one down on your own... the thread is right here on EF somewhere

DJ

Can't tell you how many times I've lost posts... So much so I now copy them into a word doc during the course of composing - especially long ones - so I have something to copy/paste back. Or I simply compose the response in word and do the same....

Zavada claims there is a small % of lightness difference... Problem being the stop/starts on the family side of the film all have this telltale LIGHTENING of the first few frames.

I look forward to your reply.... yet please do not forgo the title of the thread... 0184 or another copy is mentioned in and among those with copies of this thing...

and it seems to have been sent to Rowley by Phillips on 11/22

DJ

yes there is indeed a lot going on.... but I'm going to have to agree with CL here... SEARCH. Include "Chris Davidson", "Tom Purvis", "Survey" "Drommer plat" and "Math" in your searches.

Once the alteration is no longer a question (like conspiracy/cover-up) in your mind, as it has in mine... HOW becomes the next task. I can't give you the Reader's Digest version of years of work on this.

A hint though... distance and time are related to frames per second. If the limo is moving 1 foot per frame, this equates to the limo's speed IF we accept 18.3fps. If the distances covered do not reveal a steady rate of speed - which they dont - and speed up/slow down is included as they are in real world events - the information offered us by the WCR proves what we see is not what occurred. IE the transition to 207-208 jumping from 12 to over 28mph and then back down again or the jump in 171 from 3.74 to over 17mph...

Lamson will stomp and scream and misdirect and whine alot, but will never refute. He does not understand the math or the analysis and his only purpose is to xxxxx....

If he had soemthing to offer... believe me he would, he never shuts up about his 3 little inches... but a simple search will prove time and again he has little to say on this subject other than adhoms.

You recap of what the math shows in question form is interesting... the MATH helps explain how what we see and what has been offered as evidence, was created and/or supported.

On 3/8/2013 at 11:56 AM, Lindsay Anderson said:

David - could you further unpack the following for me please, there is a lot going on here!

On 3/7/2013 at 7:47 PM, David Josephs said:

If we accept that z313 is the last shot...

using the math that took me quite a while to grasp shows why z133 is when we see the limo appear, what is so special about 161-166, why z224 is not mentioned as showing a shot,

why Altgens tells us he was 15 feet from JFK at the time of the shot (z345, not z313), why Hudson on the steps tells us a shot was fired while the limo was right in front of him, and why/how these frames and time measurements work with the only other films that can be used to time sync Zapruder.

You say that using the math shows

• why z133 is when we see the limo appear,
• what is so special about 161-166,
• why z224 is not mentioned as showing a shot,
• why Altgens tells us he was 15 feet from JFK at the time of the shot (z345, not z313),
• why Hudson on the steps tells us a shot was fired while the limo was right in front of him,
• why/how these frames and time measurements work with the only other films that can be used to time sync Zapruder.

Am I breaking down that paragraph of your post correctly?

Is the math something that I (with a bit of work) can do and will the results of the math show all of the above?

Are you able expand on each of the above points or are they just self evident once I run the math,

Also

On 3/7/2013 at 7:47 PM, David Josephs said:

He never stopped filming Lindsay... and the attached shows that the restart frame z133 does not have the telltale start-up signatures... it just STARTS

I hadn't ever considered whether the Zapruder images I'm familiar with included any stop starts, I just always thought it was one continuous shot.

Why do you say z133 is a restart frame and what are the 'telltale start-up signatures' that should be there and are missing?

I posted an image that clearly shows the difference between a start-up frame - Z001 - and one that is not - z133. I also include testimony that substantiates Z filming the motorcade without stopping.

I'm at a loss for how that is not clear in my post....

Please take some time and do some diligence. If you grasp the math first time thru... wonderful, let me know. But it will be up to you to connect the dots...

Curious... are you a long time student of the case... just dabbling right now... are you aware of the Altgens/Hudson references made and just addressing the MATH here...

I'm a bit perplexed ??

Mr. LIEBELER - Now, the thing that is troubling me, though, Mr. Altgens, is that you say the car was 30 feet away at the time you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and that is the time at which the first shot was fired?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - And that it was 15 feet away at the time the third shot was fired.

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - But during that period of time the car moved much more than 15 feet down Elm Street going down toward the triple underpass?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - I don't know how many feet it moved, but it moved quite a ways from the time the first shot was fired until the time the third shot was fired. I'm having trouble on this Exhibit No. 203 understanding how you could have been within 30 feet of the President's car when you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and within 15 feet of the car when he was hit with the last shot in the head without having moved yourself. Now, you have previously indicated that you were right beside the President's car when he was hit in the head.

Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I was about 15 feet from it.

Mr. LIEBELER - But it was almost directly in front of you as it went down the street; isn't that right?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes.

Let's take a different approach...

Finding images of Oswald's hands is surprisingly difficult... What I've done is compile what I could find showing Oswald's right hand.

One of the obvious comments has been the fingers on that right hand look very short, fat and stubby on the BYP.... Yet the only image that replicates this is a very suspect image of "Oswald" in Japan....

which I venture to say is quite a stretch to conclude that is the same man as the one killed by Ruby.

In every image of Oswald being arrested... his hands/fingers are slender and large... the image at the right is of Oswald with Marina in Russia... again - slender large hands/fingers.

The 2nd image below the BYP blowup of his hand IS his right hand on the day of arrest and compares in no way to the BYP. Big knuckles... long fingers.... vs those stubby short fingers that do not taper but simply end. No pronounced knuckles... just little sausages....

Finally... the image of Oswald wearing his wedding ring on the right hand on the train.... makes sense, he was just married. If you look at the bottom right arrest photo his Marine Ring is LARGE... it sticks out away from his fingers quite a bit where the BYP and Japan image appear relatively flat... (albeit the image is too grainy to actually make out detail)...

Rings move from hand to hand with ease... ring finger to ring finger? I find that one hand is usually larger than the other and rings on certain fingers fit others when switched....

Is there something special about wearing a wedding ring on the RIGHT hand? A Russian thing?

In any case... I think the attached collage shows that the man arrested and fingerprinted has hands much larger and slender than what is shown in the BYP. (btw - I used the image Lamson linked to for my BYP) And gives more credibility to the notion the face don't match the body's features.

My pleasure Lindsay...

It is my contention that the "original" - 0183, and 0184, were identical copies and that by 9am Saturday the "original" film was no longer involved in the process. This new "original" was indeed at 18.3fps and created from both 0183/0184 in the possession of the CIA/SS that night.

Zavada and the world only ever got to see the alteration. The meeting with McCone et al on Sat morn at the WH may have included more detail of the assassiantion from these films.

----

Regarding this crown jewel, CIA450 and their puzzlement over how LIFE could know when the first & second shot were....

Only z312/313 is universally accepted as the LAST SHOT. Everything hinges on that being correct... yet the speed legend related to the frames and locations on Elm do not work.

What we see is a smooth running limo down Elm after what many saw as a turn that almost hit people on the north curb of Elm...

Mr. TRULY. That is right.

And the President's car following close behind came along at an average speed of 10 or 15 miles an hour. It wasn't that much, because they were getting ready to turn. And the driver of the Presidential car swung out too far to the right, and he came almost within an inch of running into this little abutment here, between Elm and the Parkway. And he slowed down perceptibly and pulled back to the left to get over into the middle lane of the parkway. Not being familiar with the street, he came too far out this way when he made his turn.

Mr. BELIN. He came too far to the north before he made his curve, and as he curved--as he made his left turn from Houston onto the street leading to the expressway, he almost hit this north curb?

Mr. TRULY. That is right. Just before he got to it, he had to almost stop, to pull over to the left.

If he had maintained his speed, he would probably have hit this little section here.

If we accept that z313 is the last shot...

using the math that took me quite a while to grasp shows why z133 is when we see the limo appear, what is so special about 161-166, why z224 is not mentioned as showing a shot,

why Altgens tells us he was 15 feet from JFK at the time of the shot (z345, not z313), why Hudson on the steps tells us a shot was fired while the limo was right in front of him, and why/how these frames and time measurements work with the only other films that can be used to time sync Zapruder.

As you continue to explore... the frame ratios, the distances and speeds all play a crucial part of the charade.

Mr. LIEBELER - And it proceeded then down Elm Street toward the triple underpass; is that correct?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's correct. I started shooting--when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street.

Sitzman: Yes. Well, he stood up there, and he asked me to come up and stand behind him, 'cause when he takes the pictures looking through the telescopic lens, he might get dizzy, and he wanted me to stand behind him, so in case he got dizzy I could hold onto him. so I got up behind him, and we saw the motorcade turn the corner at Main onto Houston. He hadn't started taking the pictures there then, and we watched them as they came down Houston; and just as the motorcycles that were leading the parade came ... started ... came around the corner and started down the hill, he started taking the pictures then.

He never stopped filming Lindsay... and the attached shows that the restart frame z133 does not have the telltale start-up signatures... it just STARTS

Other than Towner, there is no film or photo of the limo rounding Elm/Houston. Her film speed was also arbitrary, AND we have the 6 frame splice in the midst of the turn.

Nix and Muchmore pick up later on Elm. and if you search, we can also see that it is physically impossible for a man (Hill) to get from one vehicle to the next while both are supposedly traveling in excess of 8mph. He needs to jump down, run and catch the limo while both vehicles are moving... yet if you see what we've posted... he does so in amazingly few steps...

The limo had slowed to a crawl of less than 2mph... maybe not stopped - although many say it did - and the testimony of Kellerman is revealing as to when Hill actually gets to the limo...

Hill is on the limo when the car accelerated... the limo accelerated at the time the flurry of shots arrived.... the acceleration happens between the 2nd and 3rd shots (what happened to the flurry?).

Was Hill already on the vechicle when z313, the "third" shot occurred? only if it happened further down the street, after the limo stopped and Hill had a chance to climb on....

Mr. SPECTER. At that time you looked back and saw Special Agent Hill across the trunk of the car, had your automobile accelerated by that time?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Tremendously so; yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, to the best of your ability to recollect, exactly when did your automobile first accelerate?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Our car accelerated immediately on the time-at the time--this flurry of shots came into it.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you say the acceleration--

Mr. KELLERMAN. Between the second and third shot

1)

First image... a simple overlay of the Altgens "recreation position" and Altgens... using the monolith as the anchor.

They are not even close

2)

If the SBT bullet hit at z223/224... how does LIFE and NPIC both tell us that a shot was not fired at z223/224?

Which of the remaining 6 frames designated would the SBT bullet hit have occurred? Otherwise we have at least 2 seperate shots (as we all understand, save a few)

3)

Finally we also know that the shot we understood as z313 was actually at 4+95 on the plat, not 4+65... 30 feet further down Elm.

James... I for one would LOVE to know what you model says about when JC was hit....

DJ

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19073entry268637 (attachments at bottom)

Hey there Lindsay... I actually used the referenced timeline in compiling the following. In addition to some other sources not so entirely skewed toward WCR compliancy. You will notice that 6th floor's does not even mention the name MAX PHILIPS, a man who not only handled a film but tells us who has which film at the time.

CD - 87 Folder 1

CO2 34030 11/22

9:55

To: Chief Rowley

From: Max D. Phillips

Subject: 8mm movie film showing President

Kennedy being shot

Enclosed is an 8mm movie film

taken by Mr. A. Zapruder, 501 Elm St., Dallas

Texas (RI8-6071)

Mr.. Zapruder was photographing

the President at the instant he was shot.

According to Mr. Zapruder, the position of

the assassin was behind Mr. Zapruder.

Note: Disregard personnel scenes

shown on Mr. Zapruder’s film.. Mr. Zapruder

is in custody of the "master" film. Two prints

were given to SAIC Sorrels, this date.

The third print is forwarded.

Max D. Phillips

Special Agent - PRS

It also neglects to mention the two DPD men that take Zap around that afternoon or why they think they are on "special assignment" with Sorrells

http://jfklancer.com...Chronology.html

2:21 pm

DPD officer Osborn tells dispatcher that he and Officer J.B. Jones are on “special assignment” with Sorrels

17H 428, 480; 23H 885

2:45 pm

Osborn & Jones drive Zapruder party to Kodak, arriving before 3 pm.

Trask, 106; Wrone, 21; Zavada Report, Study 1

You would be hard pressed to find much info on these two. O.A. Jones, Capt... yes... yet there is NOTHING in the Dallas Archives Index attributed to these men. If anyone has anything from them describing thier activities with Zapruder... please post.

http://www.jfk-info.com/thomp2.htm This is what I mean... the other timelines do not address 15-18 viewers of the film on 11/22. They have Phil Chamberlain checking it out with "Kodak employees". Has anyone bothered to find out what these 15-18 people saw? or who they were?

3:15 pm (est.)

The processed film is shown to fifteen to eighteen people. To have copies made, Zapruder must take camera original to Jamieson Company.

The graphic below is to be torn apart... if incorrect please say so... if missing someting of importance, the same.

It is my contention that Zap filmed the motorcade scene in slow motion with the click of a switch on the camera thereby creating 4 times the number of frames per inch than standard and giving alterationists more than enough "info" to change without it affecting the "agreed upon" rate of 18.3.

Now the crown jewel. imo. the NPIC analysis of frames that LIFE had already determined as containing shots.... and the question on page 1 of CIA450:

"from the

8 .m film how do

They know exact

frames of 1st and

2nd shot?"

How? they didn't know... and Chris D has helped me understand the math used to work backward to come to these frames... three shots... three frames... end of story.

I hope this puts the subject, and my efforts therein, into perspective

Cheers

DJ

You will please notice that NONE of the shots were seen to take place at z223... in the scenarios listed... WHEN/WHERE would the SBT be placed?

Here is a composite of ALL the frames NPIC suggests may have contained a shot...

Were they watching the same film?

Hey there Lindsay... I actually used the referenced timeline in compiling the following. In addition to some other sources not so entirely skewed toward WCR compliancy. You will notice that 6th floor's does not even mention the name MAX PHILIPS, a man who not only handled a film but tells us who has which film at the time.

CD - 87 Folder 1

CO2 34030 11/22

9:55

To: Chief Rowley

From: Max D. Phillips

Subject: 8mm movie film showing President

Kennedy being shot

Enclosed is an 8mm movie film

taken by Mr. A. Zapruder, 501 Elm St., Dallas

Texas (RI8-6071)

Mr.. Zapruder was photographing

the President at the instant he was shot.

According to Mr. Zapruder, the position of

the assassin was behind Mr. Zapruder.

Note: Disregard personnel scenes

shown on Mr. Zapruder’s film.. Mr. Zapruder

is in custody of the "master" film. Two prints

were given to SAIC Sorrels, this date.

The third print is forwarded.

Max D. Phillips

Special Agent - PRS

It also neglects to mention the two DPD men that take Zap around that afternoon or why they think they are on "special assignment" with Sorrells

http://jfklancer.com...Chronology.html

2:21 pm

DPD officer Osborn tells dispatcher that he and Officer J.B. Jones are on “special assignment” with Sorrels

17H 428, 480; 23H 885

2:45 pm

Osborn & Jones drive Zapruder party to Kodak, arriving before 3 pm.

Trask, 106; Wrone, 21; Zavada Report, Study 1

You would be hard pressed to find much info on these two. O.A. Jones, Capt... yes... yet there is NOTHING in the Dallas Archives Index attributed to these men. If anyone has anything from them describing thier activities with Zapruder... please post.

http://www.jfk-info.com/thomp2.htm This is what I mean... the other timelines do not address 15-18 viewers of the film on 11/22. They have Phil Chamberlain checking it out with "Kodak employees". Has anyone bothered to find out what these 15-18 people saw? or who they were?

3:15 pm (est.)

The processed film is shown to fifteen to eighteen people. To have copies made, Zapruder must take camera original to Jamieson Company.

The graphic below is to be torn apart... if incorrect please say so... if missing someting of importance, the same.

It is my contention that Zap filmed the motorcade scene in slow motion with the click of a switch on the camera thereby creating 4 times the number of frames per inch than standard and giving alterationists more than enough "info" to change without it affecting the "agreed upon" rate of 18.3.

Now the crown jewel. imo. the NPIC analysis of frames that LIFE had already determined as containing shots.... and the question on page 1 of CIA450:

"from the

8 .m film how do

They know exact

frames of 1st and

2nd shot?"

How? they didn't know... and Chris D has helped me understand the math used to work backward to come to these frames... three shots... three frames... end of story.

I hope this puts the subject, and my efforts therein, into perspective

Cheers

DJ

let me guess... "Since the SS copies have 0183 and they were a first gen copy of the z film original... the original 0183 on the motorcade portion not being there is simply a mystery that cannot be addressed with the evidence available"

from his report:

Films studied - Zapruder "out of the Camera" Original

"an 8mm movie that HAD.... number 0183 in 1963" (see Section 3)

Section 3 - "the records at NARA provide REASONABLE ASSURANCES of the treaceablility of copies SS 1 & 2"

"Further, because we have not been able to view and compare the first gen Life Mag copy with the SS copies or Zap the original, our analysis is constrained and limited."

Part 1a:

PROCESSED BY KODAK: "No processing labratory edge print was seen on the motorcade section of the film we examined".... "did appear on the family scenes half"

but are on the selected frames of CE885 taken from the original...

Why is there even a question of authenticity at this point? the only section of the film in the archives that does not have the processing characteristics is the motorcade assassination sequence.

What argument is there in FAVOR of this still being "original"? Am I once agian missing something here boys and girls? Zavada's analysis is of the altered film.

End of story

I must be missing something Robin... what do 3-16mm B&W copies have to do with replacing the color original with an altered 0184?

The SS copies are of the altered film... they HAVE to be - correct? and they replace the Jamison copies of what should be the complete 0183.

There are a few mentions in the Z timeline where A FILM was shown both on 11/22 and 11/23... yet do you know if there has ever been anything said about what was SEEN during thiese showings other that Rather's?

Like CE399, the zfilm in existance SEEMS to have come into being via the film Philips sends to Rowley Friday night.

Those in the room with Zap Saturday morn to see the Zfilm... any of them be counted upon to tell the truth about what they saw?

DJ