Robert Harris

David, you could not possibly be more wrong. That massive protrusion was very real and it was inflicted well after the explosion at 313 had completely subsided. You can see it in frame 335. and 337 This video addresses Duncan's strange claim that the position of Jackie's hand, somehow has some kind of relevance to any of this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65inNE7dCUE

Duncan, you must know that I posted that montage at your forum months ago, in reply to a video by Rick. Both of us agreed that the large protrusion was clearly visible in the Nix film, just as it is in the Zapruder film. 337 is the sharpest frame in that part of the film, but we can also see that very massive protrusion, quite clearly at 335. You need to come out of denial, Duncan. You're beginning to sound like David VP

Duncan, I'm sorry you have to resort to name-calling and insults. You could not have banned me because of what I said after I had already been banned. You banned me because I linked to an article about the shot at 285. And in my forum you even admitted that you considered it "spam", in spite of the fact that I had just written that article and had never posted it to your forum before. You also admitted in my forum that you have never in your life posted a message that contradicted or attacked the lone nut theory, although you had posted countless messages attacking conspiracy people. I realize that you will appear more credible if you pretend to be a conspiracy buff, but I don't think people are falling for this nearly as much as you hope they are. As for your pretense that we are debating about the position of Jackie's hand, I will be more than happy to agree with you, at least for the sake of argument, that her hand did block a small portion at the bottom-rear of the protrusion. But who cares? The ONLY thing that matters is that the protrusion was was very, very real and that the damage in the back of JFK's head was inflicted after the 313 explosion had completely subsided. You can also confirm that in the Nix film, Duncan. Look at these stills which are numbered by their corresponding Zapruder frames. Prior to 320, the BOH is flat as a proverbial board. But look what happens at 320. We see that same grotesque shape that we see in the Zapruder film. That tells us that the shot was fired at 319-320.

It must have been nearly a decade ago and I don't even remember the name of the guy who said it, but some nutter at McAdams newsgroup tried to refute my argument that the back of JFK's head suffered massive damage by claiming that there was no large protrusion there and that all we see is an illusion caused by Jackie covering a tiny section of the BOH with her white glove. Of course, the argument was ludicrous since all he was really claiming is that the protrusion was even bigger than it appears. Nonethess, other nutters over the years, apparently desperate for a way to combat this inconvenient issue, have combed the usenet archives and seized upon this goofy argument to use against me when the BOH issue is raised. Duncan McCrae, who operates jfkassassinationforum.com was the most recent to do that. Duncan btw, had banned me from his forum, for posting an article about the shot at 285. He still swears to everyone that he is not a lone nutter Anyway, rather than debate with him for the next month I told him I would I make a brief Youtube presentation which will hopefully, lay this question to rest. Some of you may find it interesting because it presents very solid proof that the back of the President's head was severely damaged. Even more importantly, that damage was inflicted AFTER the explosion at 313 had completely subsided. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65inNE7dCUE Robert Harris

This article explains the ghost images in the intersprocket area. Contrary to Marsh's boasting that he figured it all out in 5 seconds, I believe he made a phone call to Bell & Howell http://home.comcast.net/~the-puzzle-palace/zapruder.htm

Throughout the Zapruder film, white or shiny objects often seemed to be much larger than they really were, due to the glare of the sun. For example, look at the grill of the limousine in frame 165. Notice that the glare extends well above the top of the grill. This false enlargement of the object occurs in the camera which was not capable of handling that much light, not in the real world. So, the edges of the distortion can overlap other objects in the photo, even if they are between the camera and the object.

John, Myers has some control over his words via copyright protection though I think fair use would prevail - in any case he has absolutely no legal power to preclude discussing his ideas. Ironic, since Pat has suggested an idea that extends Myers thoughts - but maybe that's the problem. Myers wouldn't like it if someone showed a simpler and more direct route to his convoluted conclusions. Best to you, Jerry Well, I see John did remove the criticism of Dale Myers work from the forum. I think it should be reposted and discussed further, especially if he doesn't want it. Using the lack of photo evidence to discredit the acoustic evidence doesn't hold water, as not everything was photographed and we just don't know what was happening where the cameras weren't pointed. We do know however, that Dale Myers' book on the Tippit murder is intentionally deceptive, does not give an accurate account of the murder, does not even get into certain aspects that have proved to be important, and that his intention is not to develop the truth as to what really happened but to dismiss any conspiracy thinking. Myers did the same thing to me when I posted a video presentation on Youtube that was critical of his work. He sent me several threatening emails, saying he was going to sue me and complained to Youtube to make them remove the video.

Yes, I don't think it's Braden. I'd also like to get Trask's opinion of the photos of AF1 arrival at Andrews that are attribued to the White House photographer who took the swearing in photos on AF1, but then stayed behind. If that's the case, then who took the photos attributed to him at Andrews? BK Robert, Did you ever get an email or contact number for Trask and ask him this? Thanks, BK Yes, I sent him an email more than a week ago - no reply so far.

I do not believe that Ruth Paine was a conspirator. However, like Don I feel that she was used to set up Oswald. It is not a coincidence that both Oswald and Paine were members of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). My research on Paine suggests that Paine was a genuine political activist. This was based on her Quaker beliefs. Since the assassination she has continued this political activity. For example, over the last couple of years she has been working for a Nicaraguan relief group in St. Petersburg, Florida. Hoover of course hated the ACLU. I doubt very much if the ACLU really represented Oswald’s true beliefs. Nor do I believe he was a genuine member of the Socialist Workers Party, Congress of Racial Equality or the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (all organizations hated by Hoover). It was George De Mohrenschildt who brought the Oswalds into contact with Ruth Paine. I suspect this was all part of the set-up. The original story was to suggest a left-wing conspiracy to kill Kennedy. However, LBJ was not willing to go along with this and insisted on the lone gunman theory. Therefore, the original story had to be changed. I imagine Paine was offered the same deal as Marina Oswald. They were told that the FBI had evidence that the two women was involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK. However, this would not used if they were willing to support the Oswald as lone gunman theory. By this time Oswald was dead and they could not do anything to help him. Therefore they agreed the deal. I suppose it is possible that just before Ruth and Marina die they will reveal what happened. However, I suspect they will prefer to go to their death with their secret. After all, it does not reflect too well on them (although their behaviour is fully understandable). John, I think you are mistaken about Marina. Even today, she adamantly stands behind her WC testimony, with the exception of her realization that the crime was indeed a conspiracy. I have not spoken with her personally but I know people who have and she not only confirms the truth of what she said, but stated unequivocally that no attempt was ever made to threaten her or influence her testimony. If there was a single sentence she uttered that was the result of coercion, there is no reason on Earth why she wouldn't talk about it now. I really don't think she is too concerned that the FBI will be at her door to arrest her if she does. The only reason that some people want to call her a xxxx, is that her testimony contradicts their theories.

Robert I quoted your whole post with all the testimony that you posted within my post How is that sleezy? Dean, it's sleazy because you only talked about him saying that he couldn't be sure. But you omitted him pointing out that what he meant was that he couldn't tell if a random frame here and there was missing. This was the clincher, I couldn't tell if any frames were removed. Seen as a whole it shows what I have seen. Seeing you have 18 frames a second you can take out one or two and I couldn't tell. Why not talk about the infinitely more important fact that there was nothing he could see that was wrong with the film, and that if the entire turning sequence had been removed, he would certainly have seen that? Ok Robert Post Zappys testimony where he said that he stopped filming and then started back up again when he saw the limo after it made the turn onto Elm If you can do that I will back down We both know he was never asked about that. But we also know that he kept a copy of the film and undoubtedly saw it more than once, in addition to the Shaw trial. And he said it was as accurate as he was able to confirm. And it makes sense that he would have stopped the camera because the lead motorcycles were a considerable distance in front of the limo. When he realized he couldn't see JFK, why wouldn't he turn it off? And when he did see the limo, wouldn't you expect him to take a few seconds to be sure JFK was really in the car?

Robert I quoted your whole post with all the testimony that you posted within my post How is that sleezy? Dean, it's sleazy because you only talked about him saying that he couldn't be sure. But you omitted him pointing out that what he meant was that he couldn't tell if a random frame here and there was missing. This was the clincher, I couldn't tell if any frames were removed. Seen as a whole it shows what I have seen. Seeing you have 18 frames a second you can take out one or two and I couldn't tell. Why not talk about the infinitely more important fact that there was nothing he could see that was wrong with the film, and that if the entire turning sequence had been removed, he would certainly have seen that?

That's sleezy, my friend. If you intend to cite a witness out of context you need to do it when the rest of his testimony is not in front of our faces. And if the entire turn onto Elm was missing, he would have certainly have said so.

Please prove it with some new work. None of the old stuff has withstood close inspection. According to who? You? If you think thats not true then... ...post, and then prove it's valid, any proof of alteration you think can withstand close technical inspection. I'll be happy to review your work, make the required comment and then you can try to formulate a rebuttal. The limo turn was taken out of the Z-film, Zappy never said he stopped filming Please explain to me in detail how thats not alteration I will not accept the following answer "Zappy just decided to stop filming the start of the motercade then started back up again when he saw the limo" Then you should listen to Zapruder testifying in the Shaw trial in 1967. They brought in a projector and ran the movie several times and asked him whether the film was as it originally was. He said that although he wouldn't know if there was a frame missing here and there, the film appeared to be exactly as it was in 1963. BY MR. DYMOND: Q: You say you were present when the copies of your film were made? A: Yes, sir. Q: Were you actually present in the room in which these copies were being made? A: Yes, sir, I was in the processing room watching them actually process the film. Q: Is the copy you have here today identical to the original or are there any plates missing out of this copy? A: That would be hard for me to tell, sir. THE COURT: I cannot hear the witness. What is it? THE WITNESS: That would be hard for me to say. He asked me if there are any frames missing. THE COURT: What is your answer? THE WITNESS: I couldn't say. BY MR. DYMOND: Q: So you don't know whether it is a complete copy of the film you took on the 22nd of November? A: Not if there are one or two frames missing, I couldn't tell you. Q: Mr. Zapruder, when these copies were made, do I understand you ended up with an original and two copies of the film? A: Yes, sir. Q: You gave one copy to the Dallas Police Intelligence Section, is that correct? A: Yes, sir. Q: One copy to the FBI? A: Correct. Q: And one copy to Life Magazine? A: Yes, sir. Q: Where did you get this copy you have produced here in open court today, if you disposed of all the copies? A: I got them from Mr. Oser's office. Q: In other words, this film has not been in your possession up until now, is that correct? A: No. It was given to me in his office. MR. DYMOND: That is all we have on traverse, Your Honor, and we submit the proper foundation has not been laid for the introduction of this film in evidence. THE COURT: Take the Jury out, Sheriff. (WHEREUPON, the Jury retired from the courtroom.) THE COURT: The objection is well taken for this reason: Mr. Zapruder did not bring this film with him, and I would suggest before I make a final ruling that you roll the film for the benefit of Mr. Zapruder only so that he can see what is depicted on that day. You could then renew your offer and I will rule on it. MR. OSER: All right, Your Honor. THE COURT: Is it necessary for us to black out and cut the lights out in the room? MR. OSER: I think so, Your Honor. THE COURT: Very well. Sheriff, will you throw those switches. Mr. Zapruder, when this equipment is properly rigged up and they play this film, don't say anything while they are playing the film. You will be asked questions after the film is played. (WHEREUPON, the film was shown.) THE COURT: Before we bring the Jury in, I think the State has to ask a question of this witness. MR. DYMOND: There is one question I would like to ask also, Judge. THE COURT: Let Mr. Oser ask his question first. BY MR. OSER: Q: Mr. Zapruder, from having seen the film just projected on the screen, can you tell us whether or not this represents what you saw on November 22, 1963, after your original film was developed in Dallas, Texas? A: I would say they do. THE COURT: I didn't hear you again. THE WITNESS: I would say that they do. Yes, they do. BY MR. DYMOND: Q: Mr. Zapruder, are you able to testify that this film that you have just seen run is a complete copy of the pictures taken by you on that day, no frames being missing? A: By complete, what do you mean? If there are any frames removed or so? Q: Any frames removed or damaged or for any reason not shown in this film? A: I couldn't tell you. Q: So you couldn't tell whether any part has been skipped, is that correct? A: I could not. THE COURT: Bring the Jury back. (WHEREUPON, the Jury returned to the courtroom.) THE COURT: All right, Mr. Oser, you may proceed. BY MR. OSER: Q: Mr. Zapruder, from having seen what was projected on this film, can you tell the Court whether or not it appears to be the same as you viewed your original film on November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas? A: Yes, it does. MR. OSER: I tender the witness on traverse. BY MR. DYMOND: Q: This will sound repetitious, but it is because the Jury has now come in. Having viewed this film, sir, are you in a position to say whether the film you have just seen is a complete copy of what you took without any frames having been deleted or taken out or skipped? A: I couldn't tell if any frames were removed. Seen as a whole it shows what I have seen. Seeing you have 18 frames a second you can take out one or two and I couldn't tell.

You've got to be kidding me, aren't you Jack? Her face was also "missing" in 315 and 316, not because the perp had too many beers when he was drawing Jackie, but because 315, 316, and 317 were blurry and because Jackie's hair blocked the sunlight on her face, making it dark and indistinct. Now, if you intend to disagree with me, please be very specific about how you think this happened. Are you suggesting that she was drawn in by hand? How do you think the forgers erred, causing Jackie to umm... lose face?

But even that is different from what the alterationists are claiming because the alleged perps didn't have a clean, matte background to work with. They either had to make their own with actors and film crew or they had to try to replace what was there before, which would have been extremely difficult and complicated, especially when the limo was passing in front of people in the background. And the orientation of the limo changed throughout the film, so it would look ridiculous to try to from move the limo from say, 193 to 225. I really wish some of these guys would actually try do do something like that using Photoshop or whatever software they preferred, and then thought a little bit about how they could do it without a computer.

Jack, rather than tell us to go read something by a nutcase like Fetzer, why don't you just tell us here and now, how this was done? Are you suggesting that all of it was alteration or did they bring in extras and a camera crew and shoot it all in Hollywood? Perhaps, you could just start with the alteration part. Which frames do you think were moved and from where to where? Give us some specific details about how this was done. Hi Bob Any chance you could furnish us with the technical details of how the 1928 film was altered. Please tell me you don't think that's real as well! You can see that that has been altered too can't you? Do you need to be an expert in photography to see this? Do tables disappear through walls in real life? The fact has been established. In 1928 the technology existed to manipulate and alter film so as to give a different 'reality'. FACT! But 35 years later we are led to believe that it couldn't be done...even if it was to cover up the crime of the century. The trouble is, many on here have spent years formulating and gestating their own pet theories. Rather than be honest and re-assess those views in the light of further dicoveries, it's just so much easier to dig your heels in and refuse to accept it. And truth becomes the victim! Of course I will be happy to explain the "technical details" again for you. They shot a series of still frames. If you wanted to make a hat disappear from your actor's head for example, you snap a dozen or so stills of him with the hat on and while he stands motionless, someone takes the hat off and then more photos or film is shot. The end result is that when the film is played, the hat seems to instantly disappear. Every "effect" in that movie was done that way. Cutting out an image of the limousine and its occupants and replacing it somewhere else in the film is beyond difficult. It is virtually impossible to do without the result looking ridiculously obvious. Haven't you noticed how enthusiastic Fetzer and White have been to answer my request that they explain how this was done

That movie isn't even close to the kind of thing you guys are proposing. The special effects were nothing more than photos shot from a still camera and then placed in sequence to create the animations. Strange, after all these years NONE of you can reproduce the alterations you claim were made to the Zapruder film. And you never will. That kind of thing would take months, using a modern computer. It could not have been done at all, using 1963 technology. Robert, If there is one frame altered, removed or added, that would constitute alteration. chris Ok, I am really, really trying to remain civil. The "special effects" in that film are the result of snapping a lot of still photos and then playing them back in a sequence. It has nothing to do with the kind of alteration you are describing. Let me make a very simple suggestion for you. Go download all the open source video and image alteration software you can find and just alter ONE freaking frame for me.Cut out the limo and the occupants at say 225 and put them in say, 190, replacing the limo and occupants. Or if you prefer, reverse the process and put the 190 limo into 225. Then show us your results. After several weeks of trying and after your throw your hands up in frustration, think about how you would do that WITHOUT a computer to simplify your task. And then think about doing that hundreds of times in other frames. Perhaps Jack or Mr. Fetzer would like to give you a hand

Jack, rather than tell us to go read something by a nutcase like Fetzer, why don't you just tell us here and now, how this was done? Are you suggesting that all of it was alteration or did they bring in extras and a camera crew and shoot it all in Hollywood? Perhaps, you could just start with the alteration part. Which frames do you think were moved and from where to where? Give us some specific details about how this was done.

(see below)

I did a number of things, Bob, but, for the moment, I'll refrain from boring you with all of the tedious detail. One avenue of inquiry provided powerful, if indirect, confirmation of my proposition. Without being too cryptic about it - for I made a promise to one respondent which I intend keeping - it's safe to say that sight of the first version of the Z-fake could be almost as injurious to health as witnessing the assassination itself. A second elicited a mildly amusing reply from an eminent collector in the kinescope field, who irately demanded to know why I didn't just google "Zapruder film" and watch it on-line. I had sent him this: I forgave him his impatience for the obvious reason. Ok, I sent off an email to UPI. If they respond I will post their reply, one way or the other. But tell me, if UPI did release a copy of the Zapruder film to a television network or station, how does that support your claim that it was a forgery?

That movie isn't even close to the kind of thing you guys are proposing. The special effects were nothing more than photos shot from a still camera and then placed in sequence to create the animations. Strange, after all these years NONE of you can reproduce the alterations you claim were made to the Zapruder film. And you never will. That kind of thing would take months, using a modern computer. It could not have been done at all, using 1963 technology.

In his book "Pictures of the Pain", Richard Trask states on page 545 that Allan Sweatt of the Sheriff's department confirmed that Jim Braden appeared in a photo taken in Dealey Plaza, appearing as a man wearing dark glasses and a hat, and apparently listening to Charles Brehm. I am looking for either some kind of documentation on what Sweatt said exactly, or an email address for Trask so that I can ask him about it. Any help would be appreciated.

Paul, did you email Lane to see why he said that and on what station the film appeared? Did you ask him if he still believes it? Did you call the station and ask them? Did you contact UPI? I presume you did, since I'm sure you consider this important enough to verify your sources. What did they say? Robert Harris

Back in the pre-SBT days, there is only ONE reason the perps would have wanted to coverup the content of these films, and that was to hide the existence of a shooter or shooters from the front. And if you think about most of the arguments for this theory, you will quickly realize that this was not really about "alteration". Most of the allegations would have required a complete fabrication, replete with actors and extras. Therefore, the perps must have created a film in which they themselves, inserted the infamous "back and to the left" motion. Do you really think that's what happened? Robert Harris

I agree. In fact, it was shown on WNEW-TV on the morning of Tuesday, 26 November. Even worse, I have a moderately well-known assassination researcher who wrote so at the time (a Mr Mark Lane); a journalist who wrote that UPI Newsfilms had distributed it to subscribing stations (in this instance, in Milwaukee); and two other written recollections of the film being broadcast on television during that time frame. I wouldn't mind, but I got this far entirely unassisted by a generous Foundation grant. The question is, who to believe: David and the contemporary orthodoxy, which once held the film had never been near the CIA in the days following the assassination, or the contemporaneous witnesses? It's a tough one, I concede, but who said history was easy? Except in this case, of course. Paul, would you mind posting verifiable citations and sources for Lane's statement(s) and the journalist who wrote that the Zapruder film was distributed by UPI?