Christopher T. George

Hello all

Ripperologist is looking for new subscribers, and I am willing to send a sample copy to anyone who is interested. The journal after publishing for a decade as a print magazine has switched solely to electronic publishing. Once a month we email a full color copy of the issue to subscribers. Rip 74 came out on Christmas Eve and I would like to send a copy to anyone who would like one. It is a large PDF file of 89 pages of text and pictures so you have to have a mailbox large enough to receive. Most of our issues are about this size. Anyone interested, feel free to PM your email address to me. I will also answer questions about the subscription or about the case.

For more information on our current and past issues go to:

JtRForums or Casebook: Jack the Ripper where there are sample articles.

Chris

__________________

Provided is an animated gif and a quicktime movie (better quality) showing the same thing, frames 312-313 with transparent transisition frames in-between.

Please watch the (ear and nose) movement of JFK in relation to the back of his head moving. Hint! When do his ear and nose move?

Also, notice the shape of his FACE at the beginning of 312.

As the movie proceeds, and we finally end with 313, what happens to just his FACE in terms of colorization and shape?

chris

P.S.

Happy New Year to all.

Hello Chris

Thanks for this. Isn't the changing color of face simply due to the spray of blood in the air between the camera and JFK's head?

Chris

Speculation: Someone working on the body between Parkland and Bethesda opened the eyes to check for any bullet fragment damage that would have to be explained. Didn't close them again in the rush.

Hi Ron

Your scenario is possible and might be more realistic than that there was some conspiracy or manipulation in regard to the apparent reopening of the eyes. I agree that this is an interesting topic though.

Chris

A quick question to my perceptive friends. If the Democratic challenger in 2008, made pulling out of Iraq a main policy plank how would this play in America. In britain the continuing fall out from the invasion could well cost Labour the next election, as trust in Blair continues to be eroded by this issue.

Hi Stephen

To answer your question, despite the naysayers here who believe the United States will hunker down in permanent bases in Iraq and weather out any civil war, if a challenger in 2008 wins on a platform to pull out the troops, I do believe that is exactly what will happen. U.S. politicians value their political lives and their perks, and if the people say get out, that's exactly what will happen.

Chris

Chris,

I disagree. I think the Bush regime may have decided that civil war in Iraq was the best way out of its military predicament, meaning the best way to stay in Iraq. With a civil war, the U.S. can just hunker down in its permanent bases and acknowledge that "there's nothing we can do" while the Iraqis fight it out.

The bombing of that shrine several months ago that started all the sectarian violence had all the earmarks of a false flag operation. Qui bono?

When the civil war is over, the U.S. will still be there, watching that oil. Some accommodation with whatever government emerges, including help to rebuild, will of course have to be reached, e.g. the U.S. telling them, "Okay, mullah for you and moolah for us."

Ron

Hi Ron

The sectarian killings were going on for months before the bombing of the Shiite golden temple in Samarra, in fact from almost the time that the U.S. overthrew Saddam, although I will agree that the bombing ramped up the violence to another level.

Chris

Hi John

You might be right that IP address IP 59.106.128.138 is out of Australia. Although the following Internet search site might suggest it is a Japanese address--

Data on Who Is 59.106.128.138

All my best

Chris

Here is a photo of the tracks showing closest possible train locations.....

See page 350 of "Pictures of the Pain" by Richard Trask. The picture on page 350 was taken the afternoon of the assassination and the RR car is still sitting where it was during the shooting.

Bill Miller

Thanks, Bill and Peter. You chaps have the advantage over me in knowing that the railyard actually does (or at least did then in 1963) extend behind the Pergola. I still have to wonder though if what Jack things is a train actually is -- that is, would it appear that big and that tall, given that the rail tracks are some distance of yards behind the Pergola and the shot of the Pergola is taken somewhat from below the rail tracks and the Pergola not level with them.

Jack, yes technically not a train if it was just three Pullman cars, although your topic title does say "Where is that train in the window?" and if they were, as you say, moving, that would be tantamount to a train, wouldn't it???

Chris

A "train" has a locomotive. It can still be a "train" with the locomotive

disconnected, as these three Pullman cars, but it cannot go anywhere

until reattached to a choo-choo, can it? Splitting hairs over word definitions

is not research, is it? It is like a train without a locomotive. Contribute

something positive, or hop the next freight out of town. But make sure

a locomotive is attached.

Jack

Hi Jack

Fair enough, Jack. I find your photographic queries interesting and I simply wish to question you in a polite manner, I hope, compared to the dismissive posts of your opponents, in an attempt to get to the truth and to see if you may be on to something. Okay?

Chris

The U.S. Bases now under construction and other fortified parts of the Green Zone are being built as permanent bases and even the US Military and other Agencies have so listed their construction style and budgeting as 'permanent' facilities......so wouldn't want to waste all that good tax-payer money and pull out before the end of 'permanent' runs out.....

If all-out civil war breaks out in Iraq, as seems likely, the American presence in Iraq will become untenable, and this discussion will be moot. George W. Bush's vain hope to "complete the mission" is completely at the mercy of events in Iraq and subject to the likely fall of a frail government which most likely will fall before long.

Chris

Jack, yes technically not a train if it was just three Pullman cars, although your topic title does say "Where is that train in the window?" and if they were, as you say, moving, that would be tantamount to a train, wouldn't it???

Chris

Chris, you may need to get use to Jack's way of double talking because one day he will say one thing and then the next time he will unknowingly contradict himself.

The reason for the train looking so large in one camera compared to another is a type of foreshortening effect even though that is probably not the correct term to use. The camera lens magnifies the more distant objects and this is why in the Nix film for instance ... the train looks to be parked right behind the fence despite it actually being across the RR yard.

Bill Miller

Thanks, Bill, sure yes I can accept that there may be somewhat of an optical illusion involved. Also I have questioned Jack's picture ideas before so I am used to his arguments.

Chris

Here is a photo of the tracks showing closest possible train locations.....

See page 350 of "Pictures of the Pain" by Richard Trask. The picture on page 350 was taken the afternoon of the assassination and the RR car is still sitting where it was during the shooting.

Bill Miller

Thanks, Bill and Peter. You chaps have the advantage over me in knowing that the railyard actually does (or at least did then in 1963) extend behind the Pergola. I still have to wonder though if what Jack things is a train actually is -- that is, would it appear that big and that tall, given that the rail tracks are some distance of yards behind the Pergola and the shot of the Pergola is taken somewhat from below the rail tracks and the Pergola not level with them.

Jack, yes technically not a train if it was just three Pullman cars, although your topic title does say "Where is that train in the window?" and if they were, as you say, moving, that would be tantamount to a train, wouldn't it???

Chris

Jack, this has been addressed many times to you. Can't you see the shelter is rotated between photos, thus the fields of view from the two photographers location would be different from one another. Did you never think to check this out during the many times that you have visited the plaza? Remember - you are supposed to be a master at understanding perspective.

Bill Miller

Hi Jack

Bill is right in that the perspective in the two photographs you are trying to compare is different. In the one, we are looking full on at the Pergola. In the other, where you claim to see the train, we are looking sideways at the Pergola. But in fact that can't be a train because the train tracks run perpendicular to Elm Street and the Pergola, so what you think is a train cannot be a train.

Chris

...but there is a train caboose (it seems) in the re-enactment photo...and if not a train then what...a large semi? Also, granted the alcove would have been a good location for a shooter except egress without carefull diversion and some players we have not seen or considered...or have we?....

Hi Peter

Yes I agree that in the re-enactment photo the shape looks caboose-ish although I think it is actually the cab of an old-style truck, as in the example below.

Chris

Jack, this has been addressed many times to you. Can't you see the shelter is rotated between photos, thus the fields of view from the two photographers location would be different from one another. Did you never think to check this out during the many times that you have visited the plaza? Remember - you are supposed to be a master at understanding perspective.

Bill Miller

Hi Jack

Bill is right in that the perspective in the two photographs you are trying to compare is different. In the one, we are looking full on at the Pergola. In the other, where you claim to see the train, we are looking sideways at the Pergola. But in fact that can't be a train because the train tracks run perpendicular to Elm Street and the Pergola, so what you think is a train cannot be a train.

Chris

Hello William

I found your discussion of the different assassins and would-be assassins to be most interesting. One of things that ties Hinkley to Chapman is that they both had a readymade scenario, drawn from entertainment or literature, to explain what they did: Hinkley with "Taxi Driver" and Chapman with The Catcher in the Rye. The strength of both scenarios is that investigators would most probably buy these stories rather than looking further to see if the men could have been the tools of wider conspiracies. They were thus set up to look like obsessed individuals who worked alone and not people working for someone else.

Best regards

Chris George

Hello Chris,

I don't think they were people working for someone else as much as they had "Manchurian Candidate" Operators, in Condon's words.

And Chris, by any chance did you see the Beatles at the Cavern Club or were you too young?

Bill Kelly

Hi Bill

In terms of Hinkley and Chapman being "Manchurian Candidate" gunmen, that does though imply a wider conspiracy, doesn't it, whether the men were knowingly working for their operators or not?

I was ten years younger than the Beatles so I never saw themwhen they played in the Cavern. I only become really interested in rock music in 1965, by which time they had gone on to fame and fortune. I do have a copy of the Beatles signatures, though, obtained by someone when the group played the Cavern. See my poem on "Allen Ginsberg in Liverpool" which references that time in Liverpool (Ginsberg visited the city in 1965).

There's an insane suggestion in the Council in Liverpool to change some of the street names that have any associations with slavery, including Exchange Flags behind the Town Hall where it is thought some slaves among other commodities were bought and sold (not many slaves of course actually came to Liverpool, since they mostly went to the West Indies or the American mainland) and Rodney Street, Liverpool's equivalent of Harley Street, where future Prime Minister William Ewart Gladstone was born. Included might also be Penny Lane which derives its name from a Captain Penny who was a slave trader. Luckily the latest is that council leader Warren Bradley said he was against the idea of changing the street names so the motion may not pass.

All my best

Chris

Hello William

I found your discussion of the different assassins and would-be assassins to be most interesting. One of things that ties Hinkley to Chapman is that they both had a readymade scenario, drawn from entertainment or literature, to explain what they did: Hinkley with "Taxi Driver" and Chapman with The Catcher in the Rye. The strength of both scenarios is that investigators would most probably buy these stories rather than looking further to see if the men could have been the tools of wider conspiracies. They were thus set up to look like obsessed individuals who worked alone and not people working for someone else.

Best regards

Chris George

Other clear examples of 'alteration' I have been told are not really alteration - they are 'enhancing techniques,' which were quite a normal practice in 1963 by the newspapers. I have no idea - however it's amazing how many of them focus on the rifle being held by Day - as in, it almost would appear that they matted in the Mannlicher Carcano over something else.

example.

Hi Lee, Pat, et al.

It's true that newspapers in through the first sixty or so years of the twentieth century at least through the 1960's enhanced photographs to get better contrast once the photograph was reduced to the dot screen with which we are familiar. I went through the photographs archive of the Baltimore News American at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, searching for possible photographs to use in a picture book of Baltimore, and in the end decided not to use any of the newspaper photos because they had been so heavily touched up.

So in other words while it is possible there was government alteration of photographs from the Kennedy assassination, we do also have to take account of the fact that it was the normal practice of newspapers of the day to touch up photographs for publication. Moreover, I should think it is probable that the people in the art department of the newspapers in November 1963 did not think too much about it in regard to the assassination, especially since it seemed at the time to be a done deal that Oswald was the culprit.

Best regards

Chris George

[quote name='J. Raymond Carroll' date='Jun 24 2006, 12:08 PM' post='66346']

[

Besides, the weapon fired from behind the fence on the grassy knoll may have been a handgun.

Probably was. I can't see them being stupid enough to risk using any kind of rifle from a location where it could be seen.

The murder was an in- our- faces- conspiracy, but some minor precautions were taken. And utilization of a

smaller weapon for the frontal shots was one such precaution, I suspect.

DAwn

Hi all

I am not a firearms expert but it occurs to me that you could not be sure to hit a moving target at distance with a handgun. I know the grassy knoll was not as far as the Texas Book Depository, but still it would seem to me that the shooter on the knoll, if there was one, would require a high-velocity rifle not a handgun.

Chris George

Eriksson’s decision to take only two fit strikers (and one of them a boy of 17) is beginning to prove very costly. When Owen showed that he is still far from fit against Paraguay, Eriksson failed to replace him with Walcott, his only other fit striker. In the press conference afterwards Eriksson said that he considered using Walcott: “But for the first game in the World Cup, that needs more time, more training.” If he was not ready to play on Saturday, then surely he should not have been included in the squad in the first place.

Hi everyone

I agree that Eriksson seems to once again be showing he is unfit to be England manager. If the team itself doesn't shoot itself in the foot Eriksson will do it with his odd decisions, his cautiousness, and keeping to players who are either not fit or not in form. I think Ashley Cole looks a bad choice to have on the field -- Wayne Bridge would be better in that position. There's a good article on Soccernet by Richard Jolly, "A Tale of Two Owens" on Sven's reliance on out of form and unfit Michael Owen and unproven Owen Hargreaves.

Chris

Hello Ron

I am not sure I can agree that it is obvious that 9/11 was an inside job and I remain unpersuaded by that argument. On the other hand, I do find it interesting as how, in a 1984 type way, Osama Bin Laden is set up as the ogre for him us to hate. That he appears on our screens much like the bad far-off enemy in 1984, guaranteed to raise our ire. See David Benjamin's 'Orwell's Oceania and Bush's America: Coming together.'

So it occurs to me, Ron, as an extension of your theory, does Osama Bin Laden in fact exist, or is he that bad guy conjured up to be our enemy? (The same might be true of Al Zaquawi.) As if some think tank decided that we needed an enemy now that the old Soviet Union and the Communist Block overall has largely crumbled.

My other thought is that if Bin Laden does exist and as you say "Osama Bin Laden was set up for the blame" why should he take the blame? He's anxious to take the credit, is that it? Well, I'm sorry, but if Bin Laden is real I think your idea is a bit facile, Ron.

Chris

Poet's corner May 4 2006

By Emma Gunby, Liverpool Echo

LIVERPOOL poet Roger McGough has written a World Cup poem urging

England to win - for David Beckham's sons Brooklyn, Romeo and Cruz.

He also asks the team to triumph for "the ordinary man in the street".

McGough, who rose to prominence in the 1960s alongside Adrian Henri

and Brian Patten, said he hoped he would get the chance to read

Reasons For Winning to the England team.

He said: "I doubt there is anyone who doesn't want to see the World

Cup come home with the team this summer.

"I wrote Reasons For Winning to express how badly the people of England

want it and hope they might even add their own verses to the poem.

"And if Sven would like me to read it to the team - he only has to ask.."

McGough, who refused to perform at a concert during the controversial

visit of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Liverpool in March,

was commissioned to write the poem by the Sky channel Artsworld.

In 1968, he published The Mersey Sound with Patten and Henri, one of

the best-selling poetry anthologies with more than one million sales.

Reasons For Winning by Roger McGough

Win it for the fans whose happiness will depend on it

Win it for Sven whose career may well end on it

Win it for the nurses and local authorities

Win it for the poor and ethnic minorities

Win it for the girl awaiting the operation

Win it for the firefighters racing back to the station

Win it for the late train and the overcrowded bus

Win it for granny who can't understand the fuss

Win it for prisoners banged up in their cells

Win it for couples in seedy motels

Win it for young mums pushing their buggies

Win it for saddoes, asbos and druggies

Win it for the dads who can't bear to lose

Win it for Brooklyn, Romeo and Cruz

Win it for young Rooneys-in-the-playground, learning new tricks

Win it for old heroes at Wembley, the class of sixty-six

Win it for the ex-pats, all the fans overseas

Win it for the viewers at home. Please.

Win it for the ordinary man in the street.

But above all, win it for yourselves

You've got the world at your feet.

Reasons for Winning (No Pressure)

Hi John

Yes you are correct, David Bellion is back playing in France. Theo Walcott would appear to be a very bizarre choice from a less than stellar England manager. It is as if he is thumbing his nose at the English public and the chances of winning the World Cup. Owen's fitness will be questionable and he will be far from his best even if he plays, judging by his past performances coming back from injury. And as we have discussed, to rely on Rooney is just insane. Harwood and Bent would have been better choices. Is Vassel injured? As you will recall, I did mention that Fowler could have been a reliable goalscorer to bring in, and a guy with international experience behind him.

All my best

Chris

Can we please stop playing a crying game? Liverpool Echo, May 4 2006

Sports View with Echo Sports Editor John Thompson

AND so we near the end of the first week of national mourning for the right foot of Wayne Rooney.

Steel yourself, though, there's at least another seven or eight to get through.

Undoubtedly, his broken foot is a personal disaster for 20-year-old Rooney and a major setback to England's World Cup hopes. He's a rare, world class talent and it's rotten luck he won't be there now.

But six days after it happened this episode is already a saga and one in danger of becoming a drawn out, tedious farce.

What is so puzzling about it all is that many people seem to have written off England's chances in Germany. Many of them are the same people who are the first to raise their beer glasses to the red cross, strain their faces into a passable impression of a barking bulldog and declare the end of 20, or 30 or 40 years of hurt is all but nigh.

Suddenly, some jingoistic national sports journalists and in-yer-face England fans ready to take on the world and win are all but reduced to terrified, whimpering wrecks. How can we possibly cope without Wayne? Why did this have to happen to us? We must take him even if he's only 80 per cent fit for the final etc.

Well, for those poor quivering souls who have already lost their bottle and their brittle backbones, let me remind them that all may not be lost.

Many England supporters love their history, particularly the military variety, and in it they may yet find hope.

Back in 1986, England entered the World Cup in Mexico with high hopes and two world class midfield players. One of them, Bryan Robson, was suffering a long term shoulder problem but was played. It dislocated again and off we went in Rooney-style despair. It was doubled when his partner, Ray Wilkins, was sent off and banned from the next game.

Cue Everton's Peter Reid, a diamond of a man and a midfield winner playing better football than either of them at the time - yet someone usually left out because his face didn't fit quite so much as Robson or Wilkins.

When Reid left the bench and took to the pitch, England, who were on the brink of being dumped out at the group stage, were transformed.

They may not have won the World Cup - God had a hand in that - but they were uplifted and vastly improved.

More recently, many people forget that the 2004/5 season for Liverpool was remarkable not just for the fact that they won the European Cup, but that they did it in a season when Anfield suffered its worst injury crisis in living memory.

Okay, they were at full strength for the final in Istanbul, but during the historic campaign they were often denied key players. Goals from stand-ins like Neil Mellor and Florent Sinama Pongolle were as important as any others.

Yes, Rooney's loss is a huge and cruel blow. But England can yet survive without him and do very well if they can adapt and make full use of the talent they do have.

So, can we please stop crying and start believing a bit more? Otherwise, these wimps will spoil the fun.

* * *

P.S. From Chris George--

I agree that Peter Crouch is not strong enough as center forward, his shots and headers often wimpy and lacking power. On the other hand, he is a canny player and contributes a lot with knock-downs and smart passes. Another clever player is Robbie Fowler. While Robbie has previously underwhelmed on the international stage and some will say he is past his prime, Fowler and Crouch could yet prove a winning combination at the World Cup if Robbie were given a chance, and he has had practice playing with both Crouch and Gerrard, who could be the key to England's success. So.... has England's World Cup squad been announced? Is there any chance Fowler could be included?

Chris

At last week ends semi final at Old Trafford Liverpool "fans" sung obscene songs about George Best, and their usual hilarious songs about the Munich air disaster. They also did several thousand £s worth of damage to terracing, and seats, and as a final trick smeared feaces over walls, which were also covered in abusive grafitti, some of which called Harold Shipman a hero..So much for the World famous Scouse wit

It would be childish would it not to label a whole group of people because of the actions of a few? Hard core pillocks can be found in most groups - e.g.the Manchester supporters who sing that charming little song about Bill Shankly, not to mention the disgusting references to Hilsborough chanted regularly at Man U/Liverpool games. I also remember with fondness being physical attacked by a group of West Ham fans in the 1980s calling themselves the Inter City Firm.

I have no doubt however that the majority of the supporters from all three clubs are decent civilised human beings.

Andy, I did not mean to imply that all Liverpdulians, or even a significant minority, would behave in this manner. If thats how my post came across then I apologise. I do however have a friend who works on the groundstaff at Old traford, and he described the damage done as the worst he had seen in 20 years, and that the majority of the Liverpool supporters behaved in an aggresive, and abusive way. BTW, the "Munich" chants (started by Leeds supporters) far predate Hilsborough, or Bill Shankleys untimely demise.

Hi Stephen and Andy

As a long-time Liverpool fan and soccer supporter in general, it makes me sad to read this.

Chris

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Coin Toss

The gentlemanly courtesies at the beginning of the Match:

captains shake hands, exchange pennants, a coin's tossed.

The lucky captain chooses the ends to attack and defend.

Heads I win, tails you lose. If only such courtesy could prevail

over the next ninety of torrid football action, scything tackles,

player goading player, fans taunting players, who provoke fans--

and then, then, the bright fan who throws a coin at a player.

No longer the sedate niceties of the pre-match civilities.

What ever happened to the beautiful game?

Lost in the toss of another coin.

Christopher T. George

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally appeared on Football Poets. © Christopher T. George 2006

My ignorance of photography has nothing to do with witnesses who were liars and unreliable. They made themselves liars and unreliable, I had nothing to do with it.

My experience is that not every witness is going to remember everything the same - some may even be incorrect about some things and/or changed their mind - but not every witness is incorrect about everything they saw and when they have a film that supports their observations, then the researcher has the responsibility to investigate the validity of the film right down to the extent as whether it could have been altered in the way that he theorizes.

As I have stated, I have not gotten that far, I'm in the process of researching the JFK assassination, as I have been doing for several years.

Well, I think that before I started claiming the Zfilm a fraud and those witnesses liars on the point concerning the skull flap/bone plate .... I would investigate some things beforehand so to be certain of my allegations. And so we are clear - I am not saying that you need to 'shut-up" as you put it. It is up to each person to set their own standards of research and you have made yours clear to me.

Bill

Hello Ron

While I am a newcomer to analyzing the information on the JFK assassination, one thing that is evident to me is that it is extremely hard to come to hard and fast judgements on the basis of the photographic record, be it moving picture films or still photographs. Thus, people are seeing things, or imagining things that are not there at all. Two cases in point that have come up recently in this forum is Jack White's insistence that Jackie Kennedy is grabbing agent Hill's elbow, which no other evidence appears to verify happened, and the debate about whether that is another shooter on the roof of a building some distance from Dealey Plaza. More than likely these types of things are artifacts of perspective or tricks of the light-- for example, the shapes on the roof looking like a man with a rifle when in fact it is nothing of the kind and there was no shooter there. Thus the same thing might be so about the supposed bone flap. Yes this might be an indication of tampering of evidence in the case ... in this case, despite Jack White's contention, not that the Zapruder film was altered but that the Zapruder film is telling us the truth, while x-rays and other photographs were changed to hide the fact that the shot could have come from the side. I think there may be good reason to think that might be actually the case. However, equally, since trying to come to the truth through photographic evidence is, as I say, difficult and misleading, the "bone flap" might be just some type of trick of the light.

All my best

Chris

This movement does correspond to what is apparent in Zapruder frames 388 and 391 that Bill shows in his post.

You mean I was right about Z388? Where did Bill post this, I missed it. I was told that I had no understanding of this. Now I'm hopelessly confused. But that always seems to happen to me whenever provocateurs and whatever get together.

Hi Ron

Bill posted those two frames in post #10 in this thread, posted by him yesterday at 07:44 PM board time.

Chris

Jack, I am not a photo expert. I offered a possible explanation that ran counter to your premise you stated above. I followed your rules and didn't call you any names. I maintain that the frames are capturing the same information but due to different distances and angles of the cameras, the resultant images are different but that it does not constitute fakery. I have been informed that I am referring to line of sight differences or perspective differences.

You invited the "challenge" and offered 2 replies, one of which was not related to your post. Are we done here?

Jason Vermeer

Jason...I read your initial reply and found nothing that required a reply, especially

when your initial sentence started with a criticism of me instead of addressing the

images.

You offered your opinion. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, right or wrong.

You presented no facts to dispute that Hill and Jackie are very close in one

frame and very far apart in another. The Nix frame shows her HAND grasping

Hill's ELBOW, not his wrist as you erroneously stated. The Z film shows no such

event. My challenge was for anyone to produce a Z frame that shows her

GRASPING HIS ELBOW as seen in Nix. So far nobody has accepted that

challenge. If you can, please do so.

Expressing an opinion may be valuable, but it is not research. Show me the

frame. That is research.

Stick to facts. Mention of persons is unnecessary. Facts exist regardless of

personalities. Show me that my interpretation of facts is wrong and I will

quickly admit if I am wrong.

Thanks for your interest.

Jack

(No, you are not one of the provocateurs. Everyone knows who they are.)

Hello Jack

As a disinterested observer I would have to say that while you say you are talking about "facts" I think you are making a leap of faith judgement that the Nix film in fact shows Jackie grabbing Hill's elbow. I would seem apparent to me, though, that you are reaching that conclusion based on a blurry frame of a film taken at a distance from the event, such that it is hard to say exactly what is happening. In fact if you look at the same Nix frame closely it almost appears that Jackie and Hill are passing each other with Jackie moving to the back of the limousine and Hill moving clambering onto the trunk into the car itself. This movement does correspond to what is apparent in Zapruder frames 388 and 391 that Bill shows in his post. Thus my conclusion would be that the frame of the Nix film only seems to show Jackie is grasping Hills' elbow but she is not in fact doing so.

All my best

Chris