Dean Hagerman

I thought Kathy was talking about Donald Norton for sure! I thought she meant the guy on the right and made a mistake! Now to find out she thinks James Files is LHO

Who cares who James Files is? The guy is full of it

Some Zapruder frames, including the head shot, also show a little girl on the grass in the background. Who was this girl and was she ever questioned?

Thanks,

BK

Rosemary Willis.

She was questioned.

Jack

No Jack, Rosemary runs along, early on in the film, while this little girl is just standing there in all of the frames she is in - standing back behind Jean Hill and friend.

Here:

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2009/12...provenance.html

That's not Rosemary, is it?

Thanks,

BK

The only person behind Moorman in the frame that you posted is Toni Foster, who is not a little girl at all but an adult who was running in every frame in the Z-film not standing still, she has been questioned and identified

Have you ever heard of the running woman?

Have you ever heard of Toni Foster?

I hope you are talking about someone else but the frame you posted a link to shows only Toni Foster in the background, because if you are talking about Toni Foster and think she was a little girl who was just standing still I have to ask Bill have you ever studied the Z-film or the background witnesses?

No, I have not studied the people in the Z-film, but I'd like to know who this person is.

If you go to that link above and look that that picture frame there is a little girl on the grass in the background about twenty feet behind and to the right of Jean Hill. I went back every frame she is in and she is not running, but just standing there.

Who is she?

Thanks,

BK

Bill

First of all Jean Hill is not in the frame you gave the link to, Mary Moorman is in the frame and to the right and in the background is like I said TONI FOSTER, I hope you are not getting Jean Hill (in bright red dress) confused with Mary Moorman (black dress taking picture)

She is not a child, she is an adult

She is not standing still, she was running/jogging across the infield from Houston just like Altgens did

She has been identifed

She has told her story

It is Toni Foster

I am almost speachless as to you mixing up Hill and Moorman and never having heard of Toni Foster, go back and watch the Z-film, the Nix film, the Bronson film and picture

Check out Jack Whites study of "Toni Foster The Giant Running Woman" in TGZFH

Some Zapruder frames, including the head shot, also show a little girl on the grass in the background. Who was this girl and was she ever questioned?

Thanks,

BK

Rosemary Willis.

She was questioned.

Jack

No Jack, Rosemary runs along, early on in the film, while this little girl is just standing there in all of the frames she is in - standing back behind Jean Hill and friend.

Here:

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2009/12...provenance.html

That's not Rosemary, is it?

Thanks,

BK

The only person behind Moorman in the frame that you posted is Toni Foster, who is not a little girl at all but an adult who was running in every frame in the Z-film not standing still, she has been questioned and identified

Have you ever heard of the running woman?

Have you ever heard of Toni Foster?

I hope you are talking about someone else but the frame you posted a link to shows only Toni Foster in the background, because if you are talking about Toni Foster and think she was a little girl who was just standing still I have to ask Bill have you ever studied the Z-film or the background witnesses?

It would, indeed, be very interesting to see that test film that was

shot with Abraham Zapruder's camera in May of 1964.

I agree, I think that should be the main goal, getting this film and making a transfer

Along with Nix and Muchmore's test films that they shot at the same time

If you can't your intellectual honesty will have taken a huge hit.

Only in your fantasy world Craig

The rest of us hold Lifton in a much higher regard then you and your motley crew of anti-alterationists

Personally, I am sick and tired of the lies and evasions of Josiah Thompson... His conduct is reprehensible.

Many of us disagree with Josiah on specific aspects of the evidence, but nobody agrees with this characterization, and I suggest that Dr. Fetzer be placed on moderation until he conforms his behavior to forum rules on civility.

Give me a break Ray

Im sure Tink can handle it, just as Tink can dish it out

I think you miss the things that Tink says about Fetzer, its funny how when your against alteration you have tunnel vision

Will the poster please explain what movie theater showed the Zapruder film in 1964?

According to the record (as we now know it), the Z film was locked up tight as a drum at the offices of Time Life.

So I would be very interested in knowing the circumstances of its alleged projection at a New York City theater in 1964. Certainly, there was no media coverage of any such event.

Thanks.

DSL

If Six Seconds needs a defense, then someone apart from the author should give it.

Of course SIX SECONDS needs no defense. While I reserve the future right to point out its shortcomings, no one can deny that the act of writing and publication (it is a superbly produced book) was a courageous act, much to be admired.

I would basically agree with you Raymond. My initial reaction to SSID was very positive because it alluded to conspiracy and included sketches of a number of the Z-frames, which were more clear than the photocopies in the WC H&E. However, I did find it muddled and puzzling in many respects; it was difficult to determine whether the leads being presented were opening doors to new research or merely rabbit-trails.

Taking a fresh look at SSID, which I am now doing, it is occurring to me that it might be valuable to ask whether or not this book was intended as some sort of limited hang-out for the CTs, appearing to give new information but concealing more than it revealed.

Anyone can tell by looking at the Z-film, for example, that it was altered. It was spliced in at least two critical places. So then the question becomes not whether it was altered but how maliciously it was altered.

I had a chance to see the Z-film once in a movie theatre in NYC in December 1964. It made an indelible impression. How different would my or any other researcher's perceptions have been if they had had access to it on a daily basis back then. Why, then, are so many now recognized anomalies glossed over in SSID?

By 'the poster' do you mean me? How dismissive.

The Bleeker Street Cinema, and it followed the David Wolper film "1000 Days" which was in black+white. They rolled without comment into the Zapruder. At the time I did not question who was responsible for the showing. I did not realize until later how unusual that was.

There was indeed a small ad in one of the NYC papers, but, there was no press hype over it. I sat in the front row and my obsession with the limo began that evening, watching the limo move into view with the flags flapping in the wind, then watching JFK move from life to death on a large screen.

Pamela

So you are claiming to have viewed the Z-film in 1964 before Groden had a copy from Moe Wietzman in the late 60s early 70s?

What copy could you have possibly seen? Not Lifes for sure, and no way a SS copy

Sorry but thats real hard to believe

I did. I don't know what copy it was. It certainly wasn't the original, but it was quite good. I've been sharing this event with the research community for a very long time.

Ok

I dont see how that was possible

The man on the right is Donald Norton

What opinion is there to have on him?

And im positive you know that the person in that picture is Norton, why would you have it on your computer if you dont know who it is

Email John Armstrong and ask him about Norton

I really admire your loyalty to your tribe. Only if it didn't lead you astray everything would be just peachy keen!

Josiah Thompson

I think you meant lead me to the promise land

I still follow your theory in SSID, no matter if you changed your mind or not

Dean

The key to unraveling this case is to focus on fraud in the evidence. That has been my position for many years--indeed, decades--and it has not changed one bit.

There was demonstrable fraud in Mexico City. In the past you have hinted that your next book would deal with that. Are you still planning to publish Final Charade?

Years ago, when I read that you were working on a new book about President Kennedy's murder, I began anticipating it keenly. I seem to remember that you were going to focus on Lee Oswald.

When I heard about David working on a new book about LHO I was very excited

If anyone could keep my attention on LHO and his life it would be David Lifton, as I have always said Best Evidence is not only my second favorite book because of what Lifton proves, but also because it is a very enjoyable read

I remember reading Pig On A Leash when I bought TGZFH first before anything else

That got me even more pumped up for Liftons new book

Like Michael I ask te same question, will you publish it?

I will buy a copy as soon as it is avalible

.Still, I found something recently that also supports the possibility the fatal shot came from the front. As a result, I remain open, if only slightly, to that possibility

Oh thats great Pat!

In the meantime; nothing you say has any validity.

Nothing that Pat says is valid?

Can you tell me why that is Peter?

While I don't agree with Pat on some things I think his research is solid

It is not a matter of "some things." It is this;

"Still, I found something recently that also supports the possibility the fatal shot came from the front. As a result, I remain open, if only slightly, to that possibility."

I find these comments from someone who “believes in conspiracy” indescribable.

Anyone who denies Secret Service involvement and the frontal shot may just as well root for the other team.

I see Peter, I was sure that Pat believed in a front head shot, I did not read that quote of his closly enough

So Pat you dont believe in a frontal head shot but are open to it? Why are you just open to it? Have you ever believed in a front head shot? If so when did you start to doubt it?

Dean

Will the poster please explain what movie theater showed the Zapruder film in 1964?

According to the record (as we now know it), the Z film was locked up tight as a drum at the offices of Time Life.

So I would be very interested in knowing the circumstances of its alleged projection at a New York City theater in 1964. Certainly, there was no media coverage of any such event.

Thanks.

DSL

If Six Seconds needs a defense, then someone apart from the author should give it.

Of course SIX SECONDS needs no defense. While I reserve the future right to point out its shortcomings, no one can deny that the act of writing and publication (it is a superbly produced book) was a courageous act, much to be admired.

I would basically agree with you Raymond. My initial reaction to SSID was very positive because it alluded to conspiracy and included sketches of a number of the Z-frames, which were more clear than the photocopies in the WC H&E. However, I did find it muddled and puzzling in many respects; it was difficult to determine whether the leads being presented were opening doors to new research or merely rabbit-trails.

Taking a fresh look at SSID, which I am now doing, it is occurring to me that it might be valuable to ask whether or not this book was intended as some sort of limited hang-out for the CTs, appearing to give new information but concealing more than it revealed.

Anyone can tell by looking at the Z-film, for example, that it was altered. It was spliced in at least two critical places. So then the question becomes not whether it was altered but how maliciously it was altered.

I had a chance to see the Z-film once in a movie theatre in NYC in December 1964. It made an indelible impression. How different would my or any other researcher's perceptions have been if they had had access to it on a daily basis back then. Why, then, are so many now recognized anomalies glossed over in SSID?

By 'the poster' do you mean me? How dismissive.

The Bleeker Street Cinema, and it followed the David Wolper film "1000 Days" which was in black+white. They rolled without comment into the Zapruder. At the time I did not question who was responsible for the showing. I did not realize until later how unusual that was.

There was indeed a small ad in one of the NYC papers, but, there was no press hype over it. I sat in the front row and my obsession with the limo began that evening, watching the limo move into view with the flags flapping in the wind, then watching JFK move from life to death on a large screen.

Pamela

So you are claiming to have viewed the Z-film in 1964 before Groden had a copy from Moe Wietzman in the late 60s early 70s?

What copy could you have possibly seen? Not Lifes for sure, and no way a SS copy

Sorry but thats real hard to believe

Still, I found something recently that also supports the possibility the fatal shot came from the front. As a result, I remain open, if only slightly, to that possibility.

Oh thats great Pat!

In the meantime; nothing you say has any validity.

Nothing that Pat says is valid?

Can you tell me why that is Peter?

While I dont agree with Pat on some things I think his research is solid

In order for you to advance the position you have defined here, you must (1)

be unfamiliar with David W. Mantik's studies of the X-rays, which were published

in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), (2) have never read his brilliant synthesis

of the medical evidence published in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and (3)

be unfamiliar with frame 374 of the Zapruder film, which I accented in the color

photo section of THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). That is stunning.

Perfect reply Prof Fetzer

I love Mantik's section on the medical evidence in "Murder In Dealey Plaza" its one of my favorite parts

As of late I have been reading alot of MIDP, and while I still hold TGZFH as your best volume Jim, MIDP is creeping up my top 10 book list very quickly

I find myself reading Doug Hornes Vol 4 and going back to MIDP (I already know all 3 volumes from cover to cover) and putting it all together

This is a very exciting time, I have been doing the same thing with David Liftons "Best Evidence"

I can already see other researchers jumping aboard the alteration wagon, its only a matter of time before that wagon leaves the researchers who for whatever reason fail to see the truth behind Fetzer's and Lifton's work in the dust

Im proud to have been aboard from day one (Bloody Treason and Assassination Science 1997 and 1998, when I became a believer in alteration)

Sorry, but the "alteration view" doesn't belong to David Lifton. It is part

of the historical record researched by David Lifton. I thank David for his

great work on the medical evidence, but this alteration view originated with

Commander Humes. This view is part of a properly prepared FBI autopsy

report by FBI SAs Sibert and O'Neill.

Are you kidding me?

The body alteration view belongs 100% to David Lifton and David Lifton alone, so you think Humes would have ever brought it up? Or someone might have found Sibert and O'neils report of surgery to the head, but we all know that someone was David Lifton

I have believed in Liftons theory from the second I finished his book over 20 years ago

Lifton is correct and is now being backed up by Doug Horne's master work

Cliff the things that you say just leave me shaking my head

Not only does Tink in SSID support his double head hit theory but also according to Cutler so did most of assassination researchers/students

Here you go Bill

The image is not very good, but im not about to hold the book open and push it down on the scanner to get a good scane, as I have said before my hardcover copy of SSID is in mint condition and I want to keep it that way

Dean

Jack,

If you have a scanner and a copy of Six Seconds in Dallas, would you scan and post the photo of Greer and Kellerman leaving their Warren Commission testimony?

Bill I can do this for you

Dean

Those of you open-minded about a possible explanation for Kennedy's head movements should watch the video at the link below.

elastic recoil vid

Here is my discussion of the head movement in chapter 16b at patspeer.com

As discussed, the Zapruder film makes it clear that Kennedy's head goes back and to the left after the fatal head shot. Conspiracy theorists have long held that this means the shot came from the front. Single-assassin theorists, on the other hand, have pointed out that Kennedy's head initially goes forward, and have used supposedly scientific explanations, the "jet effect" and the "neuro-muscular response," to try and explain Kennedy's subsequent backwards movement. When I started suspecting that the head shot hit Kennedy at the supposed exit, one of the first things I did was slap myself at this exit location from behind, to see if this impact would re-create Kennedy's movements. To my surprise, it did.

I subsequently learned that there is a certain elastic recoil in muscle tissue. You stretch it out far enough, and it snaps right back on its own. Some runners learn to use this to their advantage. This led me to believe that Kennedy was hit towards the top of his head, his head was driven down, his chin hit his chest and his head sprang back up from the recoil of his neck muscles.

In July 2007, researcher Gil Jesus alerted the Education Forum to a number of videos he found online, depicting head shots. One of these was news footage of a hostage-taker getting killed by a sniper. The shot came in from the man's right. The man's head turned to his left, traveling with the bullet. Then snapped back to his right, facing the sky as he fell to the ground. Not enough fluid was ejected from his head to create the "jet effect." His body failed to stiffen as in a neuro-muscular response. This video can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKTaYzDrnqk

Kennedy contorts in a similar manner, only more vertically. This is consistent with his getting hit more towards the top of his head, at the supposed exit.

Should one continue to doubt such a shot occurred, and insist that the “back-and-to-the-left” movement of Kennedy’s skull could only have come from the front, I suggest a simple test. I’ve done it way too many times. Lean forward 30 degrees…tilt your head 25 degrees to your left… and SLAP the top of your skull above your ear downwards, and see what happens. NO. I'M KIDDING. Don’t do this!!! It hurts a bit. Take my word for it, instead,--your head will bounce right up and throw your body backwards, exactly as Kennedy’s did in the frames after the fatal headshot. (By the way, I'm not just making this up. This unique attribute of tangential hits is mentioned in the online paper Wound Ballistic Simulation by Jorma Jusilla, presented at the University of Helsinki: It states “A tangential hit also causes a torsion motion of the head which can cause serious injuries.” According to Funk and Wagnall’s, the word “torsion” means “The act of twisting.” I say that in case you might need to look it up. I did.)

In retrospect, the mystery over the cause of Kennedy’s back-and-to-the-left movement should have been solved a long time ago. All the debate over the “man behind the picket fence,” the “jet effect” and “neuro-muscular response” would have been unnecessary if someone used some common sense back in 1964. People knew the bullet broke up. People knew that bullets normally pierce a body without imparting enough energy into the body to throw it one way or the other. People knew that, on the other hand, a bullet striking tangentially, creating a gutter wound, and breaking up, could impart enough energy into someone to slap them one way or the other. People knew as well that the Zapruder film showed Kennedy being slapped back into his seat. The problem, one can only guess, is that the people knowing these things were not the same people.

The movements of Kennedy apparent in the Zapruder frames following the head shot, when taken in conjunction with the evidence previously discussed, including the fact that no bloody back spatter emanates from the back of Kennedy's head in the film, can therefore be taken as a clear indication the bullet striking Kennedy at frame 313 struck his skull at the supposed exit, most probably from behind.

Pat

That video was removed by Youtube, do you have it dowloaded?

Also I tried your "slap the head" method (dont worry im 30 years old, even though I feel like im 80 ) and to my suprise my head did just what you said it would do

However a slap to the back of your own head can not simulate the speed of a bullet, and while the bullet is much smaller then your hand I believe the force would have kept driving JFKs head forward, BUT he was then hit with a bullet fired from the front (Badgeman position) that drove him to the left rear.

Dean

PS I have viewed your videos on your website (I first viewed them a while ago I dont remember when, but just re-watched them yesterday) and enjoyed them alot.

Good job on those!

But there is no reason to assume any "free fire zone" was taking place. Based upon David Mantik's work on the medical evidence and other related research, there appear to have been as many as six shooters who fired a total of eight, nine, or ten shots. We know JFK was hit four times--once in the neck from in front, once in the back from behind, and twice in the head (from behind and from in front), while another shot missed and hit the curb, injuring James Tague, another missed and hit the chrome strip above the windshield, and another was picked up from the grass, while Connally was hit from one to three times. Since the "three shot" scenario had rather obviously been settled upon in advance, it appears far more plausible that the plan was for three salvos of shots, a few seconds apart, each involving multiple shooters.

Under those conditions, that two shots might have hit his head closely together is rather probable. It is also probable that we are viewing in the extant Zapruder film, which has been faked, is an attempt to conflate two shots--the one to the back of the head and the one to the right temple--where JFK actually fell forward and Jackie eased him up and was looking at him when he was hit by the right-temple shot--which were merged to create the impression of one shot but where those who were fabricating the film overlooked the motion from 312 to 313, which you and Feynman detected independently. In effecting the merge, the fabricators were not quite successful in turing two shots into one. I am sorry to say, but your efforts to disavow this finding appears to be a stage in your efforts to dilute the evidence of conspiracy.

Again great reply Jim, your replies to Tink are pretty much on par with what I am thinking

Dean

But there appears to be no basis for the purported "smear". In particular, you appeal to the occurrence of a "startle response" by Abraham Zapruder that caused the alleged "smear", when even Luis Alvarez did not find any instance in which a "startle response" and a bullet hit took place at the same time. Your suggestion that the shooter was closer to Zapruder is unpersuasive. The bullet was traveling much faster than sound, even if that had been the case. The neurological response itself would have taken time. The hit and the response cannot have happened at the same time. Your argument is clearly based upon a false premise.

Perfect statement Prof Fetzer, you took the words right out of my mouth

Dean

It was to show that the best reconstruction that can be made of the event shows that shooters fired from three locations. Does this mean a conspiracy was involved in the assassination? Are you kidding?

Tink this is the reply that I was hoping to hear from you

Thank you for letting us know you still believe in your work back in the 1960s

This might not mean anything to you coming from me but that makes me feel alot better about you and your work

I still dont agree with you going back on the double head hit, but thats ok, I still believe you were right about it and I will still use it in my overall theory

Thanks Tink

Dean

I think this is a really neat idea, Duncan. That film was just sitting there and was shot in 1964. It ought to make a great comparison with the Zapruder film and resolve the remaining "problems." Nice going!

Josiah Thompson

The May 1964 FBI/Secret Service re-enactment in Dallas included a test film shot with the Zapruder camera. The film is at the National Archives waiting for someone to have it transfered to video. Perhaps if the alterationists investigated this further, they could find out information Re: the sprocket hole controversy and other debatable issues. It puzzles me why they have never tried to gain access to this avenue of research to prove their points, or have they?

Test films shot with the Nix and Muchmore cameras are also at the National Archives. This information was provided by Gary Mack.

Duncan MacRae

By all means it is a good idea to compare the SS film with the extant Z film

Note that each shows the FIRST FRAME locating the limo when it appears in the film.

The SS film positions the limo MAKING A WIDE TURN. this is absent in the extant

film.

Jack

Good point Jack! The SS were using a frame that had been removed to take away Greers wide turn

And also good point made by Duncan

I would love to watch and compare, and see if the SS film goes full flush left

I see nobody in the limo sliding forward

In fact Jackie is perfectly still, look at the door handle in front of her, she never moves closer to it before the head shot

JFK does not move either, its harder to tell but the rst of the people in the limo dont seem to move until after the head shot

Again I have to say I think they were all ducking for cover so to say after the massive headshot to JFK

I really would like to see the GIF created by Wimp, maybe his have some close ups of messurments that can prove me wrong

Until that time I will stick with the double head hit

I saw your reply on the other forum