David Josephs

[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

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.”

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...

What do you not understand... I AGREE WITH YOU JIM... there are many many things missing from the film that witnesses saw... My point remains... there is nothing shown on the extant film that is contradicted by the witnesses... the CONTENT of the extant film does not ADD events, only remove or cover up and when you actually count the number that said "STOPPED" as opposed to slowed, paused, etc... it is much fewer than 70.. but many said it... and from my calcs regarding Hill it had to... I know the evidence Jim... If you cannot understand my positon from what I've written.. so be it. Your position has become all to clear to me as well... Peace DJ

Greg, Being wrong only means I'm trying... please show me the logical blunders... sincerely. I'm trying to show that what we see in the film's frames is corroborated by the witnesses... that there are no events in the film that are contradicted... only missing or blocked. where am I falling down here...? as I prefer to express this both logically, and directly. thx DJ

No Jim... anything close would suffice... Mr. ZAPRUDER - Leaning--leaning toward the side of Jacqueline. For a moment I thought it was, you know, like you say, "Oh, he got me," when you hear a shot--you've heard these expressions and then I saw---I don't believe the President is going to make jokes like this, but before I had a chance to organize my mind, I heard a second shot and then I saw his head opened up and the blood and everything came out and I started--I can hardly talk about it [ the witness crying]. Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes--after the shots--yes, some of them were motorcycle cops--I guess they left their motorcycles running and they were running right behind me, of course, in the line of the shooting. I guess they thought it came from right behind me. Mr. LIEBELER - Did you have any impression as to the direction from which these shots came? Mr. ZAPRUDER - No, I also thought it came from back of me. Of course, you can't tell when something is in line it could come from anywhere, but being I was here and he was hit on this line and he was hit right in the head--I saw it right around here, so it looked like it came from here and it could come from there. Mr. LIEBELER - All right, as you stood here on the abutment and looked down into Elm Street, you saw the President hit on the right side of the head and you thought perhaps the shots had come from behind you? Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, yes. All I would like is you or the Hollywood 7 to SHOW US... I posted an enhancement of the black square hovering over JFK.. I AGREE... I've had lengthy discussion over why we see no debris dripping off the vehicle at Parkland per Frazier's testimony... Mr. SPECTER - What was the condition with respect to cleanliness? Mr. FRAZIER - There were blood and particles of flesh scattered all over the hood, the windshield, in the front seat and all over the rear floor rugs, the jump seats, and over the rear seat, and down both sides of the side rails or tops of the doors of the car. Mr. SPECTER - Is that condition depicted by Commission Exhibits 352 and 353 to the extent that they show the interior of the automobile? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. and Martin AND Hargis testify to deris all over them and their motorcycles... do you have images of their helmuts covered in gore? The limo hood? Neither do I... So I will ask one last time and then drop it... name something, ANYTHING THAT WE SEE in the Zfilm, that is refuted or contradicted by a witness... DJ

Please post any single statement froma ny single witness who saw the film and said..."That did not happen" Nothing was REPLACED Jim... removing the limo stop is not replacing it with a moving limo... the limo WAS moving... he WAS shot in the head, Does someone say, "i did not see any damage to the right side of his head so what we see in Z is not what I saw" No, Hill says there was a hole in the back right of his head... THAT'S MISSING... and what does remain is BLOCKED... Z374 shows the real damage... JC does get pulled down by NC or was that added after? We are saying the same thing... I'm just not saying it the way you want to hear it... Cheers Jim... If you can't post the statments I ask for... then you can't prove to me that anything was added that didn't actuially happen

David, You are committing a logical blunder. There are plenty of things that are shown in the film that did not happen as they are shown in the film. So your assumption that you could use the extant film to dismiss other versions that are inconsistent with the extant film is wrong. Suppose, for example, that another film turned up that showed NO back-and-to-the-left motion of the body. Since that IS in the extant film, if you assume there are only omissions--which means that EVERYTHING SHOWN IN THE EXTANT FILM IS ACCURATE, EVEN THOUGH OTHER THINGS HAPPENED THAT ARE NOT SHOWN--then you would be obligated to reject it BECAUSE IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE EXTANT FILM. That was your argument, but you are wrong. I NEVER said what your conclusion above suggests.... my argument is that the extant film is BASED in the reality of the event... that it was filmed THAT DAY and that frames have been removed and altered to fit the needs, THAT WEEKEND at NPIC and Hawkeye... when frames are removed so the timing works yet only results in a faster head turn... YOU seem to be saying the head never turned... or that head turn was "faked" or added... I'll get into your list below in a minute.... You are getting pissed for no good reason, because there are plenty of events in the extant film that did not happen as well as many excluded from it that did. Let's try another approach and see where we agree and disagree about what actually happened. Here are a dozen events that did or did not occur. My responses to all of them would be "Yes", and I can explain how we know that those "Yes" answers are correct (as I have done in relation to most of them in this last post). The truth of any of them, I might observe, implies that the film is faked (and I used the word because it fits). So kindly tell me which of these points are ones on which we agree and which are ones on which you disagree--and tell us why--to provide a basis for discussion: You dont seem to be listening at all Jim.... of the events you list... who, after viewing the film says it did NOT happen that way? Each and every one is MISSING, BLOCKED or ODD... they DID Happen - or not Jim? (1) Greer's head turns are impossibly fast: Y/N Greer and Kellerman both testify to his head turn... too fast? MISSING (2) The "blob" was painted in: Y/N BLOCKED (3) The blood spray was painted in: Y/N SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT no blood SPRAYED FROM JKF'S HEAD? BLOCKED (4) There was no back-and-to-the-left: Y/N I disagree here Jim... back-left is a relative term... you saying he NEVER fell to his left and back toward Jackie? (5) JFK instead slumped forward: Y/N All about POV here Jim... and which frames... he went left, he went back and he went forwarfd after falling over... he alos was pushed back up and hit again... this is in the film (6) Debris blew out to the left/rear: Y/N MISSING & BLOCKED... you saying that never happened? (7) Debris was strewn across the trunk: Y/N MISSING BLOCKED (8) Clint actually pushed Jackie down: Y/N Interpretation of statements... this is uncorroborated, single person testimony... (9) Clint lay across their bodies: Y/N See #8 (10) Clint gave a "thumbs down": Y/N MISSING (11) Chaney motored forward: Y/N MISSING (12) There was a limo stop: Y/N MISSING So I will ask yet again Jim... post a statement about the Zfilm from ANYONE saying "NO, that did NOT happen" - I am excluding "like that" from the statement cause we KNOW frames/events are missing... Please just answer the question Jim... you have all the evidence at your fingertips, YOU are a world renowned expert on Zfilm problems surely you have a list of witness statements that support your conclusion that the Zfilm is FAKED and things occur on the film that did not happen... thanks DJ

Greg... Maybe yours is just a hypothetical statement? My distinction on the Zfilm... as opposed to what you saw, is simply that what we have access to today shows ALOT of what you described and is based in REALITY... the film was not shot on a soundstage, nor does it try to convince anyone that what they are seeing DIDN'T happen.... You can't tell from watching the film that during any 3 frame stretch the limo APPEARS to travel at twice the speed it should be due to the distances and survey info... that suggests something is missing.... and I DO believe that an original is out there with the MISSING STUFF back in... Let me ask you... seeing the Zfilm a zillion times as we all have, is there anything in there that did not happen? One of the only things I initially thought of is in the z450's where JFK is seen sitting up again... yet we have witness testimony to this.... so if you have anything to point to that is shown yet did not occur I'd appreciate it Mr. LIEBELER - Do you think that could have been possible when Mrs. Kennedy pulled him over, do you think he could have got hit in the neck after he had been hit in the head? Mr. HUDSON - Yes sir; I do Mr. LIEBELER - He was still sitting far enough up in the car he could have been hit? Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir. Cheers DJ ps... Can we all refrain from stating what someone else THINKS or KNOWS? If you want to know where I stand on an issue, just ask. As I said, the unaltered version will fill in the blanks MISSING from the film... hopefully as you've described them - yet Zappy will not all of a sudden be somewhere else, there will still be three men on the steps, moorman and jean will still be in their places.. etc.... Will it also show the first headshot 30 feet down the road? Altgens doesn't say the film is showing something that didn't happen... just what he says DID HAPPEN... I will easily stand corrected if he ever said what he saw on the zfilm did not occur that way.... or anyone else for that matter.... I jsut cannot recall anything said along those lines. thanks DJ 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.

Jim... you are a real piece of work aren't you? I took for granted you were not as big a #$%^ as what I've been reading all these years.... thanks for setting the record straight... Looking at this post in response to my stating that the only things amiss with Z are MISSING, BLOCKED or ODD THINGS... and then you get on a soapbox, admonish me for what I do or do not know... and seemingly smirk as you do it... and post items that are MISSING FROM THE FILM - "were twice as fast as humanly possible" - missing the entire turn "had been painted in" - blocking something else "that the back-and-to-the-left motion did not take place at the time" - I have Greg's write up...it says "up, then fall to the left" either case it's MISSING "he himself had been shot is also missing from the film" - missing "the absence of debris blowing out to the left/rear and missing from the trunk " - missing "blood spray dissipates far too rapidly " - missing (those that were there did say something about a red halo, yet some of it is missing from the film) "where he remains standing on the back step as the limo approaches the Triple Underpass. SO THAT DID NOT HAPPEN" - missing from the film Show me a quote from anyone saying - "no, that did NOT happen that way" And being pissed at you has nothing to do with my knowledge Jim, but your condescending attitude and the fact your posts continue to prove you'd rather argue or preach than have a discussion.... If a blue elephant walked across Elm in one of these films we could have people state that was not the case.... what in the film do we see that DID NOT HAPPEN in any way, shape or form? Chaney not moving up as corroborated by testimony IS MISSING from the film... and when shown the film he says he MUST have stopped... he was mistaken... like Hill and the auto shells, Weitzman/Boone/Craig/Fritz about the Mauser, etc.... Truly saying the limo almost hit the curb and stopped on the left to to Elm, is MISSING from Towner and Z.... So please... can you name anything in the extant film that doesn't belong cause it is showing something that did NOT happen? DJ

Jim... First off - refrain from telling me my own conclusions, dismissals or any other thing... restrict yourself to what YOU believe from what I've presented.... Nothing is a "simple inconcistency" to help me "conclude" anything... Unless you read minds, quote me or ASK... you simply do not know. so enough. You write as if these films live on an island of their own... and throw the term FAKE around without qualification... No one, NO ONE has ever watched the Zfilm and said "that did not happen".... we speak of what is missing ONLY... or blocked, or odd and I agree with you, fundementally, that the Zfilm is missing things that should be there.... as are other films... yet certain things cannot be changed... Moorman... Altgens... McIntyre... they tell a very compelling story... and confirm portions of the Zfilm to sell a BIG lie.... So a word or two from a fan and collaborator... EASE UP... I'm on your side and you're pissing me off All I want to do is figure a few things out... so how about staying helpful 3 simple rules - right? Peace DJ

Jim Fetzer... That you cannot realize what you are doing... or do realize it and continue anyway, is a shame... IF it was real??? so scroll down a little and buy the REAL $500,000 reel to reel tapes of AF-1's discussions with the outside world... 3 simple rules: 1 - dont attack the poster 2 - present the evidence that supports your conclusions 3 - authenticate this evidence and #4 for Mr. F here... stay on topic... posting whatever you;ve discussed over the past 20 years in other areas of the case has no bearing on THIS area... in this thread alone you make repeated mistakes... and conclusions that do not follow from the analysis... and then YOU IGNORE ME when I show you where and how you are wrong Moorman shows the man looking directly at JFK... so does Nix... yet you get completely condescending with me and your insincere THANKS... for your coming to a conclusion that is completely wrong.... I agree with some of the things you offer Jim... and have concluded that there is NO EVIDENCE related to this case that is not tainted in some way.... 3 rules - pretty simple.... Peace DJ

Say it aint so Lee.... Well... Can't blame you... and after the other forums I've tried, this still remains the most "educational" Ebb and flow Lee.... Hope you rethink your position DJ btw When you hit the BUY button we find this GEM is only $100.... "unintended consequences" indeed... Your order summary Descriptions Amount JFK Film DVD JFK Film DVD$100.00 Item number: JFK-2011 Item price: $100.00 Quantity: 1 Item total $100.00 Total $100.00 US This is the straw. The thing that will go down as the reason I couldn't take being a member here any longer. I'm going to find different avenues to express myself away from this insanity. I request that my membership (user name and password) be removed immediately by John Simkin and the moderating team. Goodbye everyone. Thanks

Y'know Jim... up until this post I was giving you the benefit of the doubt... You ARE kidding - right? Here is the Zfilm... Hill is already on the bumper and Jackie hasn't left her seat... unlike what you posted WHICH IF I WERE TO GUESS is a shot from the filming of JFK the movie... I believe we've also seen a movie that ends with a Z vantage point image of a killer on the GK... was a promo film of some sort.... Yes in deed Jim.. I am FAIRLY astonished... at you for not checking it out first...

Let's take this a little at a time please Jim... I do not agree with your conclusion about Chaney and his position... in fact Looks to me that in Moorman this cop is looking directly at JFK and would not have a problem at all in seeing him get hit in the face... Is this Chaney? I also tried to isolate the cops on the right in Nix... crappy images for sure but you can readily tell they are looking directly at JFK then as I show earlier, they immediately look to the right and the Knoll.... and second I believe you meant my reference to Baker, not Hargis...no?

Not sure if I understand the post... "like the shadows that appear at other places in the frame" suggests that you think the BOH shadow is consistent with the others. What I noticed was the shadow at the back of JFK's head do not change as other similiar shadows do and in fact looks to ME like it floats over the head... I happen to do a z317 analysis just to see how these shadows behaved... as well as a gif at high contrast to see how that area changes... that area stays VERY dark comparitively... yet I of course view it with suspicious eyes... and I agree with you again JT... been hearing about these glorious 35mm Hollywood frames that make it obvious... maybe saving it for the 50th?

At 39 seconds in, Chaney says, "2nd shot came and I looked back just in time to see the president STRUCK IN THE FACE by the second bullet" No wonder they didn't call Ofc Chaney, huh? Chaney does indeed say this.... yet don't they have radios for those types of communications? This seems eerily similiar to the discrepancies between Baker's affidavit and testimony... what started as a man on the stairs becomes Oswald in the lunchroom... just sayin. Chaney would have had to get to the lead car by the time it reaches the overpass.... and I don't believe the LEAD CAR STOPPED - or did it? Dispatcher 12:30 p.m. KKB 364. 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Go to the hospital - Parkland Hospital. Have them stand by. 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there. 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Have Parkland stand by. Dallas 1 (Sheriff J.E. "Bill" Decker) I am sure it's going to take some time to get your man in there. Pull every one of my men in there. Dispatcher Dallas 1, repeat, I didn't get all of it. I didn't quite understand all of it. Dallas 1 (Sheriff J.E. "Bill" Decker) Have my office move all available men out of my office into the railroad yard to try to determine what happened in there and hold everything secure until Homicide and other investigators should get there. Well, that's not what NIX shows.... see below... Chaney basically stops... as he says later... "I MUST have stopped" Mr. BALL. At that time were you with Mr. Hargis? Mr. MARTIN. No, sir; I don't believe that he went to the hospital with us. I believe he stopped there at the scene of the shooting. Not Funny that Martin - who went along with the motorcade to Parkland, did not see the CHANEY episode... Bill Decker says nothing about it either... Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service agent, in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine), November 28, 1963: “I noted that the President’s car had axcelerated [sic] its speed and was closing fast the gap between us. A motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer replied in the affirmative, and Chief Curry immediately broadcast to surround the building. By that time we had gotten just about under the underpass when the President’s car pulled up alongside, and at that time Chief Curry’s car had started to pick up speed, and someone yelled to get to the nearest hospital, and Chief Curry broadcast for the hospital to be ready.” [statement: 21H548] Jim... Curry did NOT say anything about "surrounding the building" - here are all Curry's transmissions and their times... Why would Sorrels make that up ? When he was right there when he directs them to the RR yard? 12:28 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Big crowd, yes. 12:28 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Just crossing Market Street. 12:28 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Approaching Triple Underpass. 12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Go to the hospital - Parkland Hospital. Have them stand by. 12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there. 12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Have Parkland stand by. 12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Looks like the President has been hit. Have Parkland stand by. 12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Headed to Parkland. Something's wrong with Channel 1. 12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Just go on to Parkland Hospital [with me]. 12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Get these trucks out of the way. Hold everything. Get out of the way. 12:34 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Keep everything out of this emergency entrance. 12:51 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) It's very doubtful. 12:51 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Not at this time that I know of. I don't know but I feel reasonably sure that he will not. 1:34 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) With as little attention as possible, get up and break traffic ahead of the cars. 1:37 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Yes, but don't put it on the air. (1:37 p.m.) 1:37 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Don't let anyone follow us into the field. 1:37 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) 10-4. 1:51 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) What are the circumstances of J.D. Tippit? 1:51 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Did they get the suspects? 1:51 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) 10-4. 1:52 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) 10-4. The McIntyre crop is maybe 2 seconds later... that must be MARTIN at the back right... and maybe Chaney at the back left? Now someone not mentioned is Baker... and his account adds even more to the notion that CHANEY did go to the lead car... BUT WHEN THE ENTIRE MOTORCADE HAD STOPPED... AS I keep investingating this there is obviously something amiss with the film around the headshot... with the STOPPING added to the CHANEY accounts... there is something strange here, yet with Nix and McIntyre, and now these revelations about Chaney being mistaken... (you know Jim, like Hill was mistaken about the automatic rounds at the Tippit scene ) This requires more work... imo. Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two shots hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor. Mr. BELIN - Where was he? Mr. BAKER - He was on the right rear of the car or to the side, and then at that time the chief of police, he didn't know anything about this, and he moved up and told him, and then that was during the time that the Secret Service men were trying to get in the car, and at the time, after the shooting, from the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped. Mr. BELIN - The President's car? Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. Now, I have heard several of them say that, Mr. Truly was standing out there, he said it stopped. Several officers said it stopped completely. Mr. DULLES - You saw it stop, did you? Mr. BAKER - No, sir; I didn't see it stop. Mr. DULLES - You just heard from others that it had stopped? Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; that it had completely stopped, and then for a moment there, and then they rushed on out to Parkland.

Thanks JT... I did the bottom graphic a while back and to ME it says that the head did not move forward - the ears line up as I used the farthest point to the rear of JFK yet still touching him... and then he starts his fall backward.... Yet I also believe that multiple shots do hit him at this point, and the back of his head's "blackness" is helped out a little I messed with this frame a bit... what strikes me is that there is the same darkness caused by the sunlight for the others in the limo Jackies hair is also in the shadows but does not become what we see on the back of JFK's head... Now to tackle Jim's post and offered quotes... stay tuned DJ

dup

DSL - Yes Oswald was picked out of line-ups as having fled the Tippit scene... I mis-typed... should read... "From his room to the Tippit murder scene" and I believe you understood that... and my point remains the same... almost a mile where few if anyone is walking (save Mrs Markham) and not a soul sees Oswald taking this BRISK WALK... Can you offer ANY EXPLANATION why Oswald would turn EAST ON 10th, to only wind up WEST of that location at the theater? He could not have seen Tippit come up from behind him... Could NOT have know Tippit would be on THAT street... So what was EAST on/of 10th that Oswald would have been going to? Didn't Ruby have an apartment EAST of the Tippit murder? Regarding the Tippit scene itself... Since the murder is basically time stamped by Markham, Bowley, Wright and the others who were watching TV and saw the time there as the shots were heard... as happening a between 1:06 and 1:10... and Scoggins lets up know that Oswald approached from the EAST... Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this now. When you first saw this man, had the police car stopped or not? Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; he stopped. When I saw he stopped, then I looked to see why he was stopping, you see, and I saw this man with a light-colored jacket on. Mr. BELIN. Now, you saw a man with a light-colored jacket. With relation to the police car, was the man east of the police car, west of the police car, or kind of. Mr. SCOGGINS. Just a little east is the best I can remember. Mr. BELIN. He was a little bit east of the police car? Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; he was just a little bit forward. The police car headed east and he was a little bit, maybe not more than the front end of the car. So as Tippit is DRIVING EAST he comes up on a man FACING HIM... yet to be fair, Helen has this man walking EAST across Patton and Tippit catches up with him... Scoggins also says he only sees the man after Tippit stops... so he could have easily just turned around... Mr. BELIN. You thought the man was at the front end of the car? Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; approximately. Mr. BELIN. But by that you mean the front wheel or front bumper area? Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes. Mr. BELIN. Was he on the sidewalk? Mr. SCOGGINS. At the time I saw him; yes. Mr. BELIN. When you first saw him, I believe you said you saw the man's face, or did you not say that? Mr. SCOGGINS. I couldn't see the man's face from there. I saw the face when he passed the cab. Mr. BELIN. What led you to believe that he was walking west? Mr. SCOGGINS. Well, he was facing west. Mrs. MARKHAM. He was walking up 10th, away from me. Mr. BALL. To your left? Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, he was on the opposite side of the street to me like that. Mr. BALL. Had he reached the curb yet? Mrs. MARKHAM. Almost ready to get up on the curb. Mr. BALL. What did you notice then? Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, I noticed a police car coming. Mr. BALL. Where was the police car when you first saw it? Mrs. MARKHAM. He was driving real slow, almost up to this man, well, say this man, and he kept, this man kept walking, you know, and the police car going real slow now, real slow, and they just kept coming into the curb, and finally they got way up there a little ways up, well, it stopped. Mr. BALL. The police car stopped? Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. What about the man? Was he still walking? Mrs. MARKHAM. The man stopped. Mr. BALL. Then what did you see the man do? Mrs. MARKHAM. I saw the man come over to the car very slow, leaned and put his arms just like this, he leaned over in this window and looked in this window.