David Josephs

Hey there Tom...

Some good questions..

Here is CE477 that Brennan marked... seems Mr. B here is about as positive of the window as he was in identifying Oswald that day....

Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I was more or less observing the crowd and the people in different building windows, including the fire escape across from the Texas Book Store on the east side of the Texas Book Store, and also the Texas Book Store Building windows. I observed quite a few people in different windows. In particular, I saw this one man on the sixth floor which left the window to my knowledge a couple of times.

Mr. BELIN. Now, you say the window on the sixth floor. What building are you referring to there?

Mr. BRENNAN. That is the Texas Book Store.

Mr. BELIN. I am going to ask you to circle on Exhibit 477 the particular window that you said you saw a man leave and come back a couple of times.

Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I am confused here, the way this shows. But I believe this is the sixth floor, the way those windows are built there right at the present. I am confused whether this is the same window.

Mr. BELIN. You mean because some windows are open below it?

Mr. BRENNAN. No. The way the building is built, it seems like this is more or less a long window with a divider in the middle.

and regarding that black man at the back of the TSBD... I'd wager it was the same guy... but there is no real way to tell...

Rowland?

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0488b.htm

Mr. ROWLAND - We were discussing, as I stated, the different security precautions, I mean it was a very important person who was coming and we were aware of the policemen around everywhere, and especially in positions where they would be able to watch crowds. We talked momentarily of the incidents with Mr. Stevenson, and the one before that with Mr. Johnson, and this being in mind we were more or less security conscious. We looked and at that time I noticed on the sixth floor of the building that there was a man back from the window, not hanging out the window.

He was standing and holding a rifle, This appeared to me to be a fairly high-powered rifle because of the scope and the relative proportion of the scope to the rifle, you can tell about what type of rifle it is. You can tell it isn't a .22, you know, and we thought momentarily that maybe we should tell someone but then the thought came to us that it is a security agent.

We had seen in the movies before where they have security men up in windows and places like that with rifles to watch the crowds, and we brushed it aside as that, at that time, and thought nothing else about it until after the event happened.

Mr. SPECTER - Now, by referring to the photograph on this Commission Exhibit No. 356, will you point to the window where you observed this man?

Mr. ROWLAND - This was very odd. There were this picture was not taken immediately after that, I don't think, because there were several windows, there are pairs of windows, and there were several pairs where both windows were open fully and in each pair there was one or more persons hanging out the window.

Yet this was on the west corner of the building, the sixth floor, the first floor--second floor down from the top, the first was the arched, the larger windows, not the arch, but the larger windows, and this was the only pair of windows where both windows were completely open and no one was hanging out the windows, or next to the window.

It was this pair of windows here at that time.

Mr. SPECTER - All right.

Cheers Tom,

DJ

Here's a quick view of the sheet... the pink is 12:30....

The more you guys discuss this the greater my desire to get back to it...

Can include anything you like in a cell as well... links, photos, etc... and it's completely searchable..

Now, if I just had another 24 hours in each day......

Cheers

DJ

My comments in blue

David, ( and Tommy, Bill and anyone else who is interested)

I have put together a rough draft of a timeline of persons of interest in the TSBD just before and after the shots were fired. I am posting it here in the hopes of getting additional info from members who may be able to fill in some of the blanks, or make corrections. Ideally, I would like to be able to list and time-stamp witness sightings of unidentified (or known) persons who may have been involved in the plot.

Rough draft below. (*Note: I am aware of some of the conflicting statements)

Timeline:

12:00: Eddie Piper sees Oswald on the 1^st floor of the TSBD.

12:05 –12:10: Bonnie Ray Williams goes to 6^th floor to eat lunch (sees and hears no one) (?)(2)

12:12: Carolyn Arnold sees Oswald in hallway between front door and double doors a few minutes

before 12:15 (?)

12:15– 12:25: Carolyn Arnold sees Oswald in the 1st floor Lunch Room

12:15: Arnold Rowland sees man with Rifle on 6^th floor (slender, dark hair, light shirt open at neck; other man was dark)

12:15– 12:20: BRW takes elevator from 6^th to 5th floor leaving partially eaten chicken behind (?) (sees and hears no one)

12:18: Howard Brennan sees man on 6^th floor with Rifle. (w/m, early 30's, slender, 165-75,light clothing)

12:25: Carolyn Arnold sees Oswald on 1^st floor near front of TSBD (? conflict w 12:12 sighting)

Was this from Summers'interview... cause I've read where 12:25 was related to Arnold... yet I think that Reid was a much more likelycandidate to have seen Oswald on the 2nd floor when she left to go outside...

12:26- 12:30: Ruby Henderson sees two men on 6^th/ or Top floor. One dark (Mexican or Negro), and was wearing a white shirt. The other man was the taller and lighter of the two

12:28: Richard Carr sees heavy set man, w hat, glasses, tan sport coat in 2^ndwindow from East corner, 7^th floor. (1)

12:29: Carolyn Walther sees two men w/ Rifle in 5^th floor East corner Window. (one man wearing brown suit coat)

Geneva Hine, the only employee in the Depository’s second floor offices, observes the electrical power and telephone system go dead.

"In the motorcade’s Vice Presidential limousine, Lyndon Johnson is later described as having his

ear up against a small walkie-talkie held over the back seat, listening to the device which is turned low.

(This description comes from Sen. Ralph Yarborough who is riding with Johnson.)"

12:29 Fischer and Edwards see w/m in 6^th floor east corner window

12:30: Shots fired at JFK Limo.

12:30 Amos Euins sees Black man with rifle in 6^th floor corner window (later changed to white man)

12:30 Brennan sees white man w Rifle in 6^th floor corner window

12:30: Jack Dougherty is 10 feet from West Elevator on 5^th floor (within sight and sound of NW stairs); hears shot.

12:30: Dillard Picture shows Jarman, Norman and Williams in 5^th floor windows. They say they run to West Window after shots.

12:31: Vicky Adams and Sandra Styles descend the NW Rear stairs from the 4^th floor to the 1^st floor (see & hear no one).

12:31: Otis Williams runs up NW stairway to 4^th floor (sees no one) goes back to his 2^nd floor office (?) (4)

12:31: Officer Baker enters TSBD front Entrance, goes to back w Truly, who shouts twice to release elevator. (no response). They see 2 white men by the elevators. (accomplices? may be Shelley & Lovelady according to Adams)

12:31: Officer Barnett runs to guard back of TSBD (and Fire Escape on East Side).

12:31:30: Officer Baker and Roy Truly on 2^nd floor by NW stairway; claim to see Oswald in Lunch room. (WC testimony)

12:32: HSCA analysis show boxes in 6^th floor window rearranged within 2 minutes of shooting.

12:32 – 12:33 Mrs. Reid returns to her 2^nd floor office. Oswald calmly walks by her with coke in hand.

12:32– 12:36: Carr sees the same man he previously saw in the window, walk away from the TSBD and get into a Rambler Station Wagon

12:32– 12:33: Officer Baker sees man on 3^rd or 4^th floor, w/m, 30 yrs old, 5'9, 165 lb, dark hair, light brown jacket. Manager vouches for this man and Baker lets him go. (Baker 11/22/63 affidavit)

12:33: Officer Barnett moves from Back to guard Front entrance of TSBD

12:33 James Worrell see a man in a dark sportcoat and light colored pants dash out of the back of the TSBD about 3 minutes after shots fired at motorcade. Man was late 20's /early 30's, 5'8", dark brown hair. Ran South on Houston.

12:33– 12:34: Dougherty takes West Elevator down to 1^st floor. (?) Talks to Givens.

12:33– 12:34: Baker and Truly on 5^thfloor, spot East Elevator, but West elevator is missing

12:33– 12:36: Officers Mooney, Vickery and Webster arrive at 1^st floor rear elevator. Vickery & Webster take stairs up. Mooney takes elevator up to 2^nd floor, where power goes off, he switches to the stairs and encounters "two men he believes to be officers" in plain clothes coming down the stairs. He passes these men and continues up.

12:33– 12:36: In his report of 11/23/63, Det. Harry Weatherford claims that he, Mooney, Boone, Walters, and Webster all went into the rear ofthe TSBD together and ascend the stairs. Weatherford goes out the window to search the roof of the loading dock, then comes back in and searches the first floor [sic] with an "unknown DPD Detective"(?) Then he goes to the top floor and eventually joins Mooney & Co. on the 6^th floor

12:34– 12:35: Lillian Mooneyham sees man standing behind boxes on 6^th floor of TSBD.

12:34– 12:36: Officer Mooney arrives for first quick survey (does not go to "sniper lair") of 6^th floor, sees no one, then goes up to 7^th floor.

12:34: Sawyer enters Front of TSBD, enters Passenger elevator; runs into "this Man"; goes up to 4^thfloor*

Mr. SAWYER. Just took a quick look around and made sure there was nobody hiding on that floor. I doubt if it took over a minute at the most."

he goes up with two officers and comes down alone....

Goes behind TSBD: Mr. HAYGOOD. At that time I talked to the colored male (negro) who was standing at the door and asked him how long he had been there, and he said he had been there some 5 minutes or so. And I asked him if anyone had came out that door, and he said that they had not.

12:35: Baker and Truly are on roof of TSBD

12:35: Harkness arrives at rear (North Loading dock) door of TSBD. Sees "SS Agents".

12:36: Euins tells Officer Harkness shots came from 5^th floor TSBD

12:37: Sawyer returns to 1^st floor, goes out in front to set up Command Post.

Undetermined time: Mooney, Vickery, and Webster leave 7^th floor, go down to 6^th floor; Mooney discovers SE window box configuration, empty shells, chicken bones and soda. Shortly before 1:00 (?), Mooney Leans out window and Signals Fritz.

12:43-12:45: Description of suspect broadcast by DPD: w/m, 30, 5'10, 165, 30-30 Winchester Rifle

12:44: Roger Craig hears whistle. Sees Nash Rambler Station Wagon stop; sees w/m, 140-150, brown hair, in his 20's, white T shirt runs down slope and gets inside. Craig runs over to the Command Post in front of the TSBD entrance and encounters a SS Agent ("40 years old, sandy-haired with a distinct cleft in his chin. He was well-dressed in a gray business suit")

Undetermined time: Fritz arrives at TSBD (sometime before 1:00 ?)

12:51:

"Mr. SORRELS - I don't believe it could have been more than 20 or 25 minutes at the very most.[/b]

Mr. STERN - Then you arrived at the Book Depository Building, and did you see any police officers outside the building?

Mr. SORRELS - Yes; there were officers. I recall seeing officers. I could not say any specific one.

Now, as I came into the back of the building, there was a colored man standing on the rear platform, a loading platform. And he was just standing there looking off into the distance. I don't think he knew what happened.

And I said to him, ""Did you see anyone run out the back?""

He said, ""No, sir.""

""Did you see anyone leave the back way?""

""No, sir.""

Mr. STERN - Did you get his name?

Mr. SORRELS - No, sir; I did not. I did not stop to do that, because I figured he was an employee of the building.

Enters TSBD from rear and is directed to Truly"

Truly's timeline from Lumpkin to Fritz is VERY interesting... check Truly's testimony for WHEN he tells Fritz and what is occurring

btw - I created a spreadsheet - time across the top, people along the side... filling in the boxes as to what happens when so we can trace a person OR time and see all that happens... Need some serious time to fill in the boxes with what's already known... labor of love yet nowhere near complete

This is great stuff... thanks Richard

DJ

1:22: Boone and Weitzman discover Rifle between boxes

and here we go again...

the fold that somehow does not change the fact that the bullet holes, in the jacket, shirt and body.... still line up..

that the shot did not pass thru JFK... the SBT still does not work...

but that FOLD thing sure remains important to CL... don't it?

Question: Is there any unaltered photographic evidence which shows the limo when it was "fifty feet or less" from the TSBD building?

Thanks again my friend,

--Tommy

Towner?

only when the limo is directly in front of the corner curb, where Truly says they almost ran up on the curb...

is the limo within 50-60 feet...

Thanks you Bernice...

I think that is the original composite I was working with...

and the "original" inset makes it obvious that it's his hand...

Maybe since the publishers thought that was too gross - the dying president's hand, that they made it a foot

and for no other reason than that...

DJ

This is one of those perfect examples of people seeing such different things in the same image...

Like those opitcal illusions, Once I noticed that it was JFK's hand... the image of the foot disappears...

Thank you all for your feedback... the bigger and more important question becomes (if you see it as his hand), what the portion that looks like the front of the foot really is...

the colorized version from Gerda makes it plain as day for me...

Peace

DJ

David...

As with the autopsy... what makes you believe the film at the Archives is actually the in camera original

when as of 11:30/12pm on 11/22 there is a very good possibility that the SS already had this original... ?

Do you feel as if ALL the items at the archive are the originals?

Thanks and sincerely interested as you seem to be saying we can TRUST what the Archive gives us as being authenticated in some way

DJ

David makes an excellent point. The "best evidence" is NOT the MPI slide sets at The 6th Floor Museum,

but the film that the government purchased on behalf of the people of the United States, which is stored at

The National Archives. Why don't we ask the Archives to let us all examine that together in their presence?

If they refuse (which they will), all we have to do is purchase a 35 mm dupe negative FROM THE ARCHIVES

of what is in the Archives (the extant film), and replicate Sydney's scans. In this way there can be no doubt

of the film's provenance. When there are conflicts--which now appears to be the case--they can be settled.

A third generation item FROM THE ARCHIVES is more trustworthy than any film product that has been in the

hands of parties with obvious bias, which, I am sorry to say, includes The 6th Floor Museum. David Mantik

claims he saw the black patch (and other artifacts) in November 2009, which Tink claims are now not present.

The MPI slides are NOT "best authority." The film in the Archives is the "best authority," and the next-best

is any 35 mm dupe negative or positive that can be purchased from the Archives SINCE ITS PROVENANCE

IS UNQUESTIONED. Which also means that the Hollywood HD scan is superior to anything in the museum.

I think this is a good idea...Does anyone know what the process is for obtaining a dup negative from the National Archives ? As i'm from the UK I'm not sure how this kind of thing would work but until the hollywood 7 cough up something to look at it seems it's the only way to take a proper look ourselves....

Then a question for the photo experts...

by doing what I;ve done to this frame - shouldn't we expect all the balck areas to look the same, if they are all indeed just SHADOW?

Please explain why Jackie's hair... in the same depth of shadow, does not exhibit this same squared off, out of the lines result?

or Greer's hair

JC's jacket

Kellerman's jacket

the dark door panels to the right of Jackie

the blackness of the window frames on the south side of the limo

why is this result ONLY seen on the black area at the back of JFK's head, does not follow the contours of his head,

and actually looks as if it was drawn in?

Craig, can you post a frame, any other frame, in which we can see this effect at any other spot on a frame?

Thanks

DJ

Gerda Dunkel at Duncan's forum, photo sections... did this for me...

Seems pretty obvious it's his hand

DJ

Thanks Pat...

With what you;ve shown me, I am convinced it is his Hand and not a foot and whatever is in front of it

I cannot tell, it does look like a jacket though... why would they want to hide the fact that was his HAND?

Clint Hill's coat over JFK's head?

I believe Hill is still wearing his coat... he only mentions taking it off at the hospital....

but you'd have to agree that is his hand... which dispells whatever strange position JFK would have to be in (or Hill's leg for that matter)

for that to be a shoe...

DJ

I'm assuming you're aware that this has been beaten to death, on this forum. I pointed out that the shape as published in the paper had been re-touched to look more like a foot, and sparks flew. It was one of the most active threads in the forum's history. Things really heated up when Jack White thought maybe it was JFK's hand, and I thought he might be onto something. I just couldn't buy that it was Hill's right foot. One forum member said he'd tried to replicate Hill's position in his own car, but could not. Another said he was gonna have pictures taken of him replicating Hill's positon, and then disappeared for quite awhile.

This popped up again on Duncan's forum recently, and someone offered that the reason it didn't look like Hill's right foot was because it wasn't. It was his left foot. This actually made some sense, and reflects my current thinking. The lower part of the shape appears to droop over the side of the limo, which makes little sense if it was JFK's jacket, IMO.

Here is my slide on this:

Clint Hill's coat over JFK's head?

I believe Hill is still wearing his coat... he only mentions taking it off at the hospital....

but you'd have to agree that is his hand... which dispells whatever strange position JFK would have to be in (or Hill's leg for that matter)

for that to be a shoe...

DJ

That IS is hand there... but what is in front of it closer to the camera?

Hopefully this has not been beaten to death... I was looking to corroborate that it's JFK sitting up in z456+ to see his position later in the ride to Parkland

and found this with an insert of a much better resolution image of the hand/foot....

Looks to me as if JFK has fallen to his left allowing his right hand to be in this position...

Has this been confirmed as his hand?

thanks

DJ

Excellent Richard... thanks... I hadn't noticed that before... yet I am puzzled by something in his report...

First off he IS a Deputy Sheriff... and did NOT recognize other deputy sheriffs...

Based on this report... and the fact that Fritz does not return to the TSBD until 12:58....

How can he be one of the first to the 6th floor and the first one to find the shells almost 30 minutes after the fact??

and if correct... Williams' chicken was actually in the Sniper's next abd not a few windows down... Was Williams the black man Rowland sees at 12:15?

and then who would have been the white jacketed man with glasses, or the man in the SW window....

between Sawyer's man on the elevator at 12:35... and these men coming down the stairs (remember that Sawyer brings uniformed officers with him to the 4th floor)

It's easy to see how ANYONE could have easily slipped in and out of that building

ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY

Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney, Dallas County Sheriff's Department.

Date: November 23 1963

I was standing in front of the Sheriff's office at 505 Main Street, Dallas, When President Kennedy and the motorcade passed by. Within a few seconds after he had passed me and the motorcade had turned the corner I heard a shot and I immediately started running towards the front of the motorcade and within seconds heard a second and a third shot. I started running across Houston Street and down across the lawn to the triple underpass and up the terrace to the railroad yards. I searched along with many other officers, this area, when Sheriff Bill Decker came up and told me and the Officers Sam Webster and Billy Joe Victory to surround the Texas School Book Depository building. As we approached the two big steel wire gates to the building dockat the back of the building on Elm Street side, we saw saw that the loading dock had locks on it and I then pulled the steel gates closed and requested of a citizen standing there to see that no-one came out or went in until I could get a uniformed officer there, which he did. Officers Webster, Victory, and myself took to the building. Officers Webster and Victory took the stairs and I told them I would take the freight elevator. At the time I got on the elevator two women who work in the building got on the elevator, saying they wanted to go to their offive. As the elevator started up, we went up one floor and the power to the elevator was cut off. I got out on the floor with theese women and looked around in their office and I then took to the stairs and went to the 6th floor, and Officers Webster and Victory went up to the 7th floor. I was the only person on the 6th floor when I searched it and was reasonably sure that there was no one else on this floor as I searched it and then criss-crossed it, seeing only stacks of cartons of books. I was at that time also checking for open windows and fire escapes. I found where someone had been using a skill saw in laying some flooring in one corner of this floor and I then went to the 7th floor and was assisting in searching it out and crawled into the attic opening and decided it was too dark and came down to order flash lights. I then went on back to the 6th floor and went direct to the far corner and then discovered a cubby hole which had been constructed out of cartons which protected it from sight and found where someone had been in an area of perhaps 2 feet surrounded by

cardboard cartons of books. Inside this cubby hole affair was three more boxes so arranged as to provide what appeared to be a rest for a rifle. On one of these cartons was a half-eaten piece of chicken. The minute that I saw the expended shells on the floor, I hung my head out of the half opened window and signaled to Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain Will Fritz who were outside the building and advised them to send up the Crime Lab Officers at once that I had located the area from which the shots had been fired. At this time, Officers Webstr, Victory, and McCurley came over to this spot and we guarded this spot until Crime Lab Officers got upstairs within a matter of a few minutes. We then turned this area over to Captain Fritz and his officers for processing.

At this time I continued to search this 6th floor along with many other officers and within a few minutes, I heard Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone holler out that he had found the rifle near the staircase between some rows of cartons.

We continued to search the building for a suspect.

When Serg, Harkness - minutes after the shooting - came to the back door of the SBDB, there was a bunch of men in plain clothes there, claiming, they were Secret Service.

I think those false SS men were securing the escape-route for the SBDB shooting team. (The guys Carr saw getting into the Rambler on the east side of the SBDB building...heading north, against THE one way street called HUSTON... a guy named WORELL saw another man leaving the back of the SBDB...

...

Mr. HARKNESS - Several officers at the area, and it was a lot of people around. I don't know whether they were going in or out or not. I couldn't say that.

Mr. BELIN - Then you went around to the back of the building?

Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN - Was anyone around in the back when you got there?

Mr. HARKNESS - There were some Secret Service agents there. I didn't get them identified. They told me they were Secret Service.

Mr. BELIN - Then did you say around the back of the building?

Mr. HARKNESS - Yes; I stayed at the back until the squad got there.

...

DJ

Seems like Luke Mooney's testimony needs to be fitted in here. One of the first members of the Dallas Police to enter the TSBD (after Baker) was Luke Mooney. Mooney tried to use the West Elevator at the back of the building. When it wouldn't work, He went over to the stairs and started to go up. On the way up, he encountered two men in plain clothes, who he assumed were Police. His WC testimony below (excerpt):

...

Mr. MOONEY. I would say it was the west elevator, the one nearest to the

staircase.

Mr. BALL. Did it work with a push button?

Mr. MOONEY. It was a push button affair the best I can remember. I

got hold of the controls and it worked. We started up and got to the

second. I was going to let them off and go on up. And when we got there,

the power undoubtedly cut off, because we had no more power on the elevator.

So I looked around their office there, just a short second or two, and then I

went up the staircase myself. And I met some other officers coming down,

plainclothes, and I believe they were deputy sheriffs. They were coming down

the staircase. But I kept going up. And how come I get off the sixth floor,

I don't know yet. But, anyway, I stopped on six, and didn't even know what

floor I was on.

Mr. BALL. You were alone?

Mr. MOONEY. I was alone at that time.

... [end quote of WC testimony]

Ball never asks Mooney to ID these two men, or why Mooney felt they were deputy sheriffs. The phrase in his testimony " I believe they were deputy sheriffs" falls short of definitively identifying individuals that he knew beyond doubt were deputy sheriffs. Why did Mooney not ask these men for ID? To my knowledge, these men have never given testimony or been identified.

Given the timing of the sightings, it seems plausible that the two men Mooney saw coming down the stairs may have been the same "Secret Service" men that Harkness saw at the back of the Texas School Book Depository Building.

Sorry, David, when I said "four decades" I should have said 4.6+ decades ...

I don't know if there's anything new over what David saw back then, and described in detail at the Zapruder Film Symposium in 2003 (I put the YouTubes of them on my account after the late Rich DellaRosa's account disappeared) and in his fantastic essay "Pig on a Leash" in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003).

However ... I'd like to re-raise something that I mentioned back then (in 2003), first noted by David Mantik back in about 1997, that doesn't per se deal with the President's wounds, but does bear on the interesting question of what might have been retouched on what film stock at what time.

The issue is the "object in the grass" seen around the time of the head shot (quite possibly the backing of a Polaroid, but its exact nature is irrelevant -- it's just some piece of trash sitting in the grass). Let's call it the "piece of trash lying on the grass".

Specifically, what happened to that piece of trash in Frame 323.

Now, my memory isn't great at the best of times, but I think that this is how it traces out:

• LIFE issue of Nov 29, 1963 (printed on Sunday Nov 24, distributed by Tuesday Nov 26): piece of trash is missing in three of those muddy black and white frames, including frame 323 (with a "puddle" visible in 323, which is a larger reproduction than the other two)
• One of the various versions of LIFE (the version with Z323 rather than Z313), September 1964 (Warren Report edition): now in color, the piece of trash is in 323
• MPI digitizations of "camera original" film, late 1990s: the piece of trash is all frames, but there is a remnant of the "puddle" seen in the original LIFE issue in frame 323
• Stewart Galanor, 1997 or 1998: requests a set of color slides from the National Archives, and reproduces them in an appendix of his book Cover-Up: the piece of trash is present in all frames except Frame 323. Galanor insists to me (2003) that that was how he obtained the slides from the National Archives, and he did not retouch them in any way.

As I said, it's a piece of trash, not the President's head, but if you think about it for a while, and try to come up with a plausible scenario, it's absolutely baffling.

I can understand someone at LIFE retouching copies of the film (the 4 x 5's, say) on that first weekend, to remove a "blemish" from the background. (It doesn't really make a lot of sense, given how bad the prints are, but let's go with this.)

And I can understand that Galanor might have been given slides that were made from these copies by the National Archives.

But then why did two of Galanor's slides show the piece of trash, and only one (323) have it retouched out?

And why was it retouched out in color (see Galanor's book), when that first issue of LIFE had only black and white images?

And why was its subsequent publication in LIFE in September 1964, in color, not retouched out? What did they use as the basis of this publication?

And why does the "camera original" have the remnants of the "puddle" of the original (pre-Nov 24 1963) retouching of frame 323 on it?

I'd love to know what everyone's copies of frame 323 have on them.

John

Well, what did Lifton see back there is the sixties?

Didn't he do some kind of covert op with an "interested buyer' angle?

ANd is not this what actually struck him as being odd about the film he saw: the blacked out rear of the head.

Jim,

Please note the following sequence:

(1) I first saw the "blacked out rear of the head" --circa, 1965, 1966--as they appeared in the black and white photographs of LIFE published in the 11/29/63 issue; and then in the color photographs when published in the LIFE Memorial Edition (approx 12/7/63). Of course, since these images were published in a magazine, there was always the possibility that the "blacked out area" was the result of Life's art work, and done for reasons of taste.

<snip>

Seems to me if the film was changed, it would have to be done by the end of the weekend and all these enlargements, and slides and such are made from the already altered version...

That the "camera original" is not and has not been available to anyone since Abe handed it to the SS on the evening of 11/22/63...

and that the missing briefing boards had the "real story" while the subsequent briefing of LBJ was not...

So Jim, while DSL makes a lot of sense, we really do not know if anyone was working with a camera original after that weekend....

John... always a pleasure when you're contributing here... thanks

Here's my take on 323... from your frames.. pretty obvious to me

Indeed Tom... Hope you've seen the 4 dvd Zep set of live stuff... quite amazing...

Thanks for the leg up with Roberts... and DSL...

You'd think someone who would want the entire world to be open to HIS conclusions,,, would be a little more open to discussion about OTHER'S conclusions

Peace

DJ

"Achilles Last Stand!!"

David, today is Jimmy Pages 68th birthday; "Ramble On"!

Yer "impeccable" witnesses, and the commission are still a mess.:

testimony of Erlene Roberts

...Mr. BALL. It was after he had come in his room?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Had that police car ever stopped there before ?

Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't know--I don't remember ever seeing it.

Mr. BALL. Have you ever seen it since?

Mrs. ROBERTS. No--I didn't pay that much attention--I just saw it wasn't the police car that I knew and had worked for so, I forgot about it. I seen it at the time, but I don't remember now what it was.

Mr. BALL. Did you report the number of the car to anyone?

Mrs. ROBERTS. I think I did---I'm not sure, because I--at that particular time I remembered it.

Mr. BALL. You remembered the number of the car ?

Mrs. ROBERTS. I think it was--106, it seems to me like it was 106, but I do know what theirs was--it was 170 and it wasn't their car.

Mr. BALL. It was not 170?

Mrs. ROBERTS. The people I worked for was 170.

Mr. BALL. Did you report that number to anyone, did you report this incident to anyone?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes, I told the FBI and the Secret Service both when they was out there.

Mr. BALL. And did you tell them the number of the car?

Mrs. ROBERTS. I'm not sure--I believe I did--I'm not sure. I think I did because there was so much happened then until my brains was in a whirl.

Mr. BALL. On the 29th of November, Special Agents Will Griffin and James Kennedy of the Federal Bureau of Investigation interviewed you and you told them that "after Oswald had entered his room about 1 p.m. on November 22, 1963, you looked out the front window and saw police car No. 207?

Mrs. ROBERTS. No. 107.

Mr. BALL. Is that the number?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes--I remembered it. I don't know where I got that 106---207. Anyway, I knew it wasn't 170.

Mr. BALL. And you say that there were two uniformed policemen in the car?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes, and it was in a black car. It wasn't an accident squad car at all.

Mr. BALL. Were there two uniformed policemen in the car?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Oh, yes.

Mr. BALL. And one of the officers sounded the born ?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Just kind of a "tit-tit"--twice.

Mr. BALL. And then drove on to Beckley toward Zangs Boulevard, is that right?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes. I thought there was a number, but I couldn't remember it but I did know the number of their car--I could tell that. I want you to understand that I have been put through the third degree and it's hard to remember.

Mr. BALL. Are there any other questions?

Dr. GOLDBERG. No, that's all.

Mr. BALL. Now, Mrs. Roberts, this deposition will be written up and you can read it if you want to and you can sign it. or you can waive the signature.

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, you know, I can't see too good how to read. I'm completely blind in my right eye.

Mr. BALL. Do you want to waive your signature? And then you won't have to come back down here.

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, okay....

TESTIMONY OF MRS. ARTHUR CARL (GLADYS J.) JOHNSON

....Mrs. JOHNSON. I have known Mrs. Roberts, oh, I guess it was 6 years, something like that, 6 years.

Mr. BALL. Where did you first meet her?

Mrs. JOHNSON. I hired her as a housekeeper.

Mr. BALL. At 1026 North Beckley?

Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Has she been working for you for that period of time?

Mrs. JOHNSON. No, sir; I let Mrs. Roberts go a time or two, then I would hire her back.

Mr. BALL. there some reason why you let her go?

Mrs. JOHNSON. Well, she would just get to being disagreeable with renters and I don't know, she has a lot of handicaps. She has an overweight problem and she has some habits that some people have to understand to tolerate.

298

Mr. BALL. What are they?

Mrs. JOHNSON. Talking just sitting down and making up tales, you know, have you ever seen people like that? Just have a creative mind, there's nothing to it, and just make up and keep talking until she just makes a lie out of it. Listen, I'm telling you the truth and this isn't to go any further, understand that? You have to know these things because you are going to question this lady. I will tell you, she's just as intelligent--I think she is a person that doesn't mean to do that but she just does it automatically. It seems as though that she, oh, I don't know, wants to be attractive or something at times. I just don't know; I don't understand it myself. I only wish I did. ....

Why do you suppose the document I've lniked just below, is in the Weisberg archive?

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/W%20Disk/Willens%20Howard%20P/

and....

RIVER FOREST HOME PROJECT TO START SOON

‎

Pay-Per-View -

Chicago Tribune - Jul 28, 1946

Jo-Al Enterprises, a partnership of Joseph R. and Helen Wlllens, and Albert and Libbyan Hoffman, has a $1700000 building program of 170 single family ...

RUMOR JOHNSON WITNESS TELLS 'STARTLING TALE'

?

Chicago Tribune - Mar 29, 1946

... Johnson and four associates kept out of prison for more than five years after their conviction on income tax fraud charges. Love, who lives at 1642 WV. 69th st. ..

JOHNSON PROBE PLANS TO HEAR 8 TOMORROW

?

Pay-Per-View - Chicago Tribune - Mar 24, 1946

...The federal grand Jury . Lion into the involved legal bati.le which kept William R. Johnson, for- mei gambling figure, and four - ciates out of prison for-more than five years after conviction on income tax frauds, will he resumed tomor- rOw. Eight witnesses are scheduled to be heard: Eight witnesses are scheduled to be heard: Attorneys Charles R. Bar- rett and Isadore Goldstein, who testified briefly Friday; Atty John Elmer Johnson; Maurice Green, a disbarred lawyer; William Schwefer, a baker; Sylvia R. Hoffman, a notary public, and her brother, Albert. The probe was demanded by Fed- eral Judge John P. Barnes, who pre- sided at the trial and sent Johnson and the others to prison last week.

LONGER INQUIRY ON BILL JOHNSON STALLING ASKED

?

Pay-Per-View -

Chicago Tribune - Mar 27, 1946

... In addition to Rubovits, the grand jury is expected to hear Albert R. Hoffman, notary public, whose seal appears on one of Johlnson's re- quests for a bar group inquiry. Hoffman wNas , along Witil his sister, Sylvia R. Hoffman, also a notary public. Edward J. Hess, lawyer, is to make his second appearance before the grand

Chicago Builders Find Russians 50 Years Behind Times

?

Pay-Per-View -

Chicago Tribune - May 29, 1956

BY FRANK HUG;HES [second / sta(PFx) Gerald and Sinclair Hoffman, who with their father, Albert, and three friends and business associates, spent three weeks behind the iron curtain, said Russian craftsmanship general- ly is slipshod and quality so poer that no one in the United States would accept it. Gerald Hoffman is co-owner of Panoramic Builders, 4632 Church st., Skokie, and Sinclair Hoffman and his father are partners with Jerry Wexler, another of the travelers, in 11 Homes. 3548 Nora av. The other two who made the trip are Joe Willems of Jo-Al Enterprises, 7648 North av., and Ed Schiller of Schiller Plumbing & Heating company,

Primitive Russian Building Methods Amaze Visitors

?

Pay-Per-View -

Chicago Tribune - May 28, 1956

"And on top of it," Sinclair Hoffman said, " the Russians don't eren now what a wheel- barrow is. They carry every. thing on a wooden sled, with handles ...

RELEASE LIST OF CORONER'S SPECIAL AIDS

‎

Pay-Per-View -

Chicago Tribune - Mar 6, 1962

previously had refused to release the names on the ground that it might embarrass them. ...Toman said he gave the Kor- ers deputy coroner s badges, with the authority to carry a gun, but insisted that they do not do anv work for his office.

RELEASE LIST OF CORONER'S SPECIAL AIDS

?

Pay-Per-View -

Chicago Tribune - Mar 6, 1962

1434 N. Menard cv.; Jerome Wexler. 1506 Ashland cv.. River Forest. cnd Harold Wexler, 2914 Balmoral DV. Joseph Willens. 935 Franklin cv. .

Could it, be David, because the son of a gun totin' mob soldier, Joseph R. Willens, partnered with mob fixer Albert Hoffman, was assigned the task of drafting the organizational structure of and setting the investigative priorities of the WC?

David... Mr. L.... you, nor anyone else has can say who ran into that house - other than from Roberts' words... none.

No corroboration... no one sees Oswald between this room and the theater... NOONE David - in a residential neighborhood in the 60's with mom's kids and elderly at home... Nothing.

So please... the corroboration of the evidence... the authentication of evidence - which includes FBI reports... is paramount.

Butch Burroughs says he sold popcorn to Oswald at 1:15... his is also an uncorroborated account with the same amount of weight as Roberts... but cause that would mean Oswald did NOT kill Tippit

his story is ripped apart and attacked, like the 1:06 Markham Time...

If Oswald was on the bus then it was NOT Oswald in Whaley's cab... or Click's cab.... unless the man bought a jacket on the walk from one to the other

You want to put your stock in this man's testimony?

[snip]

Murphy Street no longer exists. It is now a two block crosswalk that no longer intersects Elm Street.

McWatters said he didn't remember picking anyone up at St. Paul & Elm. He remembers Roy Milton Jones who boarded the stop before.

[snip]

[snip]

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was after President Kennedy had been shot and I had a friend that said, "Roberts, President Kennedy has been shot," and I said, "Oh, no." She said, "Turn on your television," and I said "What are you trying to do, pull my leg?" And she said, "Well, go turn it on." I went and turned it on and I was trying to clear it up---I could hear them talking but I couldn't get the picture and he come in and I just looked up and I said, "Oh, you are in a hurry." He never said a thing, not nothing. He went on to his room and stayed about 3 or 4 minutes.

Mr. BALL. As he came in, did you say anything else except, "You are in a hurry"?

Mrs. ROBERTS. No.

Mr. BALL. Did you say anything about the President being shot?

Mrs. ROBERTS. No.

I don't think there's any mystery as to who ran into the rooming house at 1026 N. Beckley around 1 p.m. Earlene Roberts' account--that it was Oswald, who ran in, and then ran out, zippering up a jacket he had donned--is in the accounts published in both Dallas newspapers, the New York Times, carried in all the media, and then documented in FBI reports based on interviews that took place promptly.

Why does it matter that, months later, when under oath, there's a minor glitch when, asked a question designed to permit her to tell her story, there's a brief moment of confusion.

I don't believe the passage you've isolated, from the transcript, in any way undercuts the account she provided multiple times, starting on the afternoon of 11/22/63.

DSL

David Josephs:

I only am addressing one point in your post--which seems to me to imply an equivalence between the Earlene Roberts identification of Oswald and the Butch Burroughs observation(s).

I don't believe there is any basis for comparing the validity of these two identifications. One is of Oswald by Earline Roberts-whom obviously knew Oswald quite well, since he boarded there—and the other is a statement made by Butch Burroughs, at the Texas Theater, who saw Oswald (or rather, claims to have seen Oswald) once in his life, and says he sold him some popcorn.

There’s no comparison when it comes to the quality and reliability of these two observations.

Out of the Earlene Roberts identification comes what any court of law would call a "fact"--i.e., that Oswald ran into the rooming house, that Roberts saw him, made the remark she did, and that Oswald then ran out, zipping up a jacket. I don’t see that there is any reasonable basis for doubting this.

Out of the Butch Burroughs statement comes something that is simply inaccurate, is wrong, and leads to a spurious and incorrect reconstruction. And that false reconstruction, of course, fuels "two Oswald" hypothesis that (apparently) appeals to so many.

In evaluating testimony--and juries do this every day of the week--there has to be some degree of common sense exercised as to what is the "confidence level" of the observation.

I would rate Earlene Roberts observation up around 95%, because there's no question she knew who Oswald was; there can be practically no doubt about her knowledge of her own boarder was when he ran into the rooming house, and then back out; whereas I would put the Butch Burroughs statement (that he sold Oswald popcorn) down around 15%. There’s just no comparison between the quality of these two pieces of “data”.

As for William Whaley's statement: he went through this again and again, with reporters, and with the FBI. I don't think there's any question but that it was Oswald.

To recap the situation (as I see it): The "strong" witnesses—those who previously knew Oswald and could make a positive identification--are Bledsoe (on the McWatters bus) and Earlene Roberts at the rooming house.

Only be rejecting the accounts of these two witnesses --both of whom knew Oswald quite well, and who could (and did) make immediate (and positive) identifications--is it possible to overturn the official version (i.e., the official time line) from the time Oswald boarded the McWatters bus, through the cab ride back to the rooming house, and attempt to substitute--in its stead--a flimsy and implausible hypothesis involving a "second Oswald" who ran into the rooming house, while an "innocent" and supposedly unwitting Oswald somehow went from Dealey Plaza to the Texas Theater, where he was watching an Audie Murphy movie, only to be pounced on by the DPD after a patrolman was murdered nearby.

I don't find any of that reasonable or valid. I think it is a totally false and fanciful reconstruction, and is not supported by credible evidence.

DSL

1/6/11 8 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

POSTSCRIPT, 1/8/11:

When I wrote the above post, I was under the mistaken impression that Burroughs had (perhaps) testified that he sold popcorn to LHO, and was explaining why I would not give that much credence. But reviewing the situation, its now clear that Burroughs was deposed by a Warren Commission lawyer back in 1964, and that his testimony makes no mention at all of selling popcorn to Oswald. In fact, the popcorn story--from what I can see--does not come up until some 30 years later, when it appears in a CTKA article by John Armstrong. Burroughs was deposed on April 8, 1964. The transcript is in Volume 7 of the WC's 26 volumes. Here is a snippet:

QUOTE:

Mr. Ball.

Did you see that man come in the theatre?

Mr. Burroughs.

No, sir; I didn't.

Mr. Ball.

Do you have any idea what you were doing when he came in?

Mr. Burroughs.

Well, I was----I had a lot of stock candy to count and put in the candy case for the coming night, and if he had came around in front of the concession out there, I would have seen him, even though I was bent down, I would have seen him, but otherwise I think he sneaked up the stairs real fast. UNQUOTE

So Burroughs, for some reason, was under the impression that Oswald was upstairs. Anyway, there's no mention at all of any sale of popcorn. So I see no reason whatsoever to give that story, which is first told decades later, any credence whatsoever.

DSL; 1/8/12; 5:20 AM PST

Wasn't there also a reverend Davis who sat next to Oswald as the movie started - by 1:20 or so?

So the FACT that Bledsoe has this person without a jacket and Whaley does.. no problem

That others see Oswald leaving via a different means... no problem

That he is described by Scoggins and Tatem as arriving from the EAST...

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/tatum.htm

Although I did not remember the exact time I remember it was early in the afternoon on Friday, November 22, 1963. I was driving XXXX north on Denver and stopped at 10th St. when I first saw the squad car and men walking on the sidewalk near the squad car. Both the squad car and this young white male were coming in my direction(East on 10th Street).

That he runs in and runs out of his rooming house... quickly... in front of his half blind landlady who was busy with the TV repair...

THESE are you witnesses DSL...

SOMEONE resembling Oswald was at the theater well before Brewer talks to Postal... and IMO this person acted suspicious to arouse attention... knowing Oswald was in the theater already...

just my .02...

I simply do not agree witht he weights you place on Roberts, Whaley and Bledsoe...

Add to this the man taken out the back and ultimately seen by White... and you have your Tippit murderer

DJ

I was under the impression that testing the dye structure on the film had already been suggested as one way to authenticate the film, and was turned down.

Add to this we simply do not know where it was from about 11pm friday till saturday morning... and Mrs. Z says something to the e

• Mrs. Zapruder told me in November 1971 that Abe "gave them the film," clearly implying he had parted with the original, and at an early hour. Local newspaper stories state that Abe Zapruder was closeted with "government agents" into the evening. Years later, Life representative Stolley said he couldn't find Zapruder at home until midnight Friday, and that when he expressed his interest in viewing it as soon as possible, Zapruder begged off. He was tired, he had been driving around all night, he said; and would prefer seeing Stolley in the morning. Zapruder's business partner Erwin Swartz said he took two film cans to the Dallas Naval Air Station on Friday night. All this raises the question of whether Zapruder possessed the original on Friday night.

According to the detailed surveys, the distance the limo covered from z207-z208 was 2.3 feet....

2.3 feet over one frame equates to almost 28.7 mph in the midst of data that suggests the limo was traveling about 11-12 mph just before and just after 207/208...

Please remember that at 207 JFK is just going behind the sign...

In any case... I've looked at 302 and 303 and I'm sorry but there are no focusing anomolies there...

in 302 the limo occupants are all blurry while jean and mary are not..

in 303, Jean and Mary are blurry, the limo occupants not nearly as much...

Where exactly is the entirely clear frame?

Have you seen the movie VANTAGE POINT Jim? Not a cinematic marvel but a very good example of how what we see people seeing, without context, is not always what occurred...

Yet each person's account is not less truthful from their POV...

I do not believe I denied anything regarding a limo stop, in fact I posted previously ion this thread in fact that studies I DID to determine how fast Hill would have to run to catch the limo, if traveling at the 8mph offered, would be almost 20mph at even the latest launching point... imo the limo had slowed to less than 3mph for Hill to catch it so fast... IN THE FILM WE SEE...

That Zap states he kept filming... very suspicious, the removal of the turn....

Simple stated... what we see in this film is representative of events that DID OCCUR, yet is not an accurate representation of them or of everything that happened.

Fair?

Jim - so I understand

Was any part of what we see as the Zfilm ever exposed in his camera? yes or no

As to your question about what I've read or not... reading MORE of your POV is not needed

and what I'd suggest for you Dr F... is to allow alternative positions thier due, regardless of how they conflict with your IRONCLAD CONCLUSIONS

I still appreciate your talents, your immense contributions and ongoing attack on the whitewash...

Sure would be nice to see the Hollywood 7 analysis, on the big screen, and put this all to rest....

DJ

David,

I put to you the same question I have posed to Kathy above. Knowing that at least fourteen (14) witnesses reported a limo stop, why do you want to deny that a limo stop occurred? Now we are not talking about a group of lunatics. These witnesses included the motorcycle escort officers, who, of all people, would be in an impeccable position to know. So I really do not understand where you are coming from. Let me ask a few questions.

Do you know ANYONE who would REPORT a limo stop (an automobile accident, whatever) if a limo stop (motorcycle accident, whatever) had not happened? I don't know anyone like that. So what is the probability that 14 witnesses would report a limo stop (many right under their noses) if no limo stop had occurred? And what is the probability that those same witnesses would have reported a limo stop if one actually had occurred?

Do you get my point? By dismissing these witnesses--a list that does not include Toni Foster or Louis Witt, by the way, so there is no telling how many more there may be!--you are suggesting that something wildly improbable has occurred, namely: that 14 witnesses (let's make it 16) have reported a limo stop that actually did not occur! My best guess is that that would have a probability of approximate zero. Would you agree?

On the other hand, it is not difficult to imagine that, when we are talking about a limo stop involving the President of the United States, the probability of reporting a limo stop if a limo stop had actually occurred would be very high, say, around one. In fact, if a limo stop had in fact occurred, I would think ONLY those who had not seen it or who had seen it only in part (slowing but not stopping) would not report A STOP. Wouldn't you agree?

Since the probability of reporting a limo stop if one had not occurred is incredibly low, while reporting a limo stop if one had occurred is incredibly high, do you think we REALLY ARE dealing with loons? Because the improbability of this many witnesses reporting a limo stop at the same place and the same time WHEN IT DID NOT ACTUALLY HAPPEN is vanishing small. That value has to be infinitesimal, where I quantify it as equal to zero.

You appear to be assuming that the FBI conducted a real investigation of this, which is completely false. As I understand it, the ten closest witnesses, including the escort officers, were not even called to testify. We know that many who were questioned were not asked about their most important information. Others who gave testimony at odds with the predetermined conclusion had their testimony changed. Are you unaware of all of this?

Some of your questions betray a lack of familiarity of the depth and extent of our research on the film. John and others have long since address the slo-mo question. I asked before and you have not answered which of the books and articles I have listed you have read. I infer you have never read HOAX (2003) nor watched Costella's tutorial, much less the 66-part serious on the Zapruder film, nor read INSIDE THE ARRB. Am I mistaken?

Go back and reread the list of those fourteen (14) unequivocal limo stop witnesses, expanded to sixteen (16) by Foster and Witt. We know from studied done at Harvard that witnesses are 98% accurate and 98% complete when what they are viewing is salient (significant) to them. What could be more salient than that the president's limousine CAME TO A STOP during an assassination? I hope you can give this matter more serious thought.

Jim

Jim -

You ask why so many state the limo stopped...

We have testimony stating everything from a split second to 2-3 seconds.. again - HUGE difference

If it had stopped for a full 2-3 seconds, one would think there would be better corroboration.....

In terms of the ghost images.... I'd guess that's why we can't see the actual z film's structure (like doug would like) to determine if it was exposed with natural or artificial light... a reworked film would have been entirely filmed to allow for these ghost images to be correct from frame to frame...... but it would be done with artificial light...

I was specific in my post about not knowing HOW... just that frames SEEM to be excised in a number of places... AND the ghost images work.

Again - has anyone done a comparison in the same type of camera (or anycamera) and looked at the frames side by side?

If the Z camera was operating at 48fps - slow motion - wouldn't it be more likely that we'd get full frame clarity?

Thanks

DJ

Brehm puts it very well:

BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight.

This phenomenon is reported all the time during intense memory acquisition... seeing the pres shot would qualify, no?

http://www.livescience.com/2117-time-slow-emergencies.html

Instead, such time warping seems to be a trick played by one's memory. When a person is scared, a brain area called the amygdala becomes more active, laying down an extra set of memories that go along with those normally taken care of by other parts of the brain.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/08/17/why-time-slows-down-in-near-death-experiences/

Eagleman’s theory? The brain records more sensory information in traumatic experiences. Time isn’t slowing down, but the hyper-memory makes it seem like it is by processing and storing all this additional information. Or, as NPR puts it, “you’re getting a peek into all the pictures and smells and thoughts that usually just pass through your brain and float away, forgotten forever.”

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbenavides.htm

(2) David Welsh, Ramparts (November, 1966)

Domingo Benevides, a dark, slim auto mechanic, was a witness to the murder of Officer Tippit who testified that he "really got a good view" of the slayer. He was not asked to see the police lineup in which Oswald appeared. Although he later said the killer resembled newspaper pictures of Oswald, he described the man differently: "I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off...it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look flat in back." Domingo reports that he has been repeatedly threatened by police, and advised not to talk about what he saw.

In mid-February 1964 his brother Eddy, who resembled him, was fatally shot in the back of the head in a beer joint on Second Avenue in Dallas. Police said it was a pistol shot, wrote up a cursory report and marked the case "unsolved."

Domingo's father-in-law, J.W. Jackson, was so unimpressed with the police investigation of Eddy's death that he launched a little inquiry of his own. Two weeks later Jackson was shot at in his home. The assailant secreted himself in the carport, fired once into the house, and when Jackson ran outside, fired one more time, just missing his head. As the gunman clambered into an automobile in a nearby driveway, Jackson saw a police car coming down the block. The officer made no attempt to follow the gunman's speeding car; instead, he stopped at Jackson's home and spent a long time inquiring what had happened. Later a police lieutenant advised Jackson, "You'd better lay off of this business. Don't go around asking question; that's our job." Jackson and Domingo are both convinced that Eddy's murder was a case of mistaken identity and that Domingo, the Tippit witness, was the intended victim.

As opposed to these men who even from the side you can see the back is squared off...

I've had "discussions" on different forums about the Tippit witnesses and how only one mentioned saw the killing and she has an interesting time identifying him...

Benavidas has also been considered a good Tippit scene witness... just noticed this though....

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.

ther is no way to mistake the back of Oswald's head for a squared off cut....

Don't the military and police ALWAYS have squared off haircuts?

Jim -

You ask why so many state the limo stopped...

We have testimony stating everything from a split second to 2-3 seconds.. again - HUGE difference

If it had stopped for a full 2-3 seconds, one would think there would be better corroboration.....

In terms of the ghost images.... I'd guess that's why we can't see the actual z film's structure (like doug would like) to determine if it was exposed with natural or artificial light... a reworked film would have been entirely filmed to allow for these ghost images to be correct from frame to frame...... but it would be done with artificial light...

I was specific in my post about not knowing HOW... just that frames SEEM to be excised in a number of places... AND the ghost images work.

Again - has anyone done a comparison in the same type of camera (or anycamera) and looked at the frames side by side?

If the Z camera was operating at 48fps - slow motion - wouldn't it be more likely that we'd get full frame clarity?

Thanks

DJ

Brehm puts it very well:

BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight.

This phenomenon is reported all the time during intense memory acquisition... seeing the pres shot would qualify, no?

http://www.livescience.com/2117-time-slow-emergencies.html

Instead, such time warping seems to be a trick played by one's memory. When a person is scared, a brain area called the amygdala becomes more active, laying down an extra set of memories that go along with those normally taken care of by other parts of the brain.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/08/17/why-time-slows-down-in-near-death-experiences/

Eagleman’s theory? The brain records more sensory information in traumatic experiences. Time isn’t slowing down, but the hyper-memory makes it seem like it is by processing and storing all this additional information. Or, as NPR puts it, “you’re getting a peek into all the pictures and smells and thoughts that usually just pass through your brain and float away, forgotten forever.”

Jim,

Thanks for posting 302 and 303. They illustrate a most important point. Not only did the limo come to a complete stop, but if it had been traveling at about 11 miles an hour, either Greer was braking extremely hard in order for it to complete the stop in 1/18 of a second OR it had already dramatically reduced speed prior to the kill zone... or both.

Greg,

I've never personally taken a movie at 18.3fps, hand wound, similiar camera and examined each frame.

Are you saying this has been done and in not a single frame does this occur?

LOGICALLY that makes sense of course... but my gut tells me that of all the frames in a panning sequence like that, there are bound to be some frames where everything is in focus... I'm just not exactly sure why.... I'm more than willing to be wrong here.

Much more telling to me are the survey measurements that are offered to try and account for distances over Zframes...which translate to huge swings in speed...

which are impossible... 206/207 is a very key area and may be where a piece of film COULD have been inserted..

yet agan the HOW boggles mind... to a point. and then I rememebr which assassination we're talking about...

Thanks for the wonderful info everyone...

DJ

removal of info I can see... compositing the film? possible at some point along the way...