Greg Burnham

I just spoke with Jack on the phone for about 10 minutes or so. He's doing fine. His surgery was a complete success. However, he lost his appetite due to one of the medications he was prescribed and, as a result, he lost a good deal of weight. He's no longer on that drug so his appetite is improving. The temperature in Fort Worth has been 103 to 105 everyday for about 3 weeks, which isn't helping. Overall--a good report. It's just taking longer to get back up to speed than he would have preferred. Once the heat wave breaks he will be able to get outside more often and be more active.

Agreed.

No.

Jean Hill can be seen turning to look at the limo just before the head shot, but only in the image between the sprockets holes of the Z film. Good catch, Barry. Indeed, we can see Jean turn back towards the president before the headshot in the sprocket hole of Z-310 thru 312.

No recollection, David.

David, If you note the approximate rate that each object pans across the frames from right to left, Hill and Moorman appear to "move" across at a consistent rate during each. They appear to be moving out of frame from 300 to 301 to 302 to 303 to 304 at a consistent clip, IMO. If unaltered, why would that one single frame (303) show them to be so crisp? It was a duration of 1/18th of a second.

"...and just as I yelled, 'Hey,' to him, he started to bring his head up to look at me and just as he did the shot rang out. Mary took the picture and fell on the ground and of course there were more shots." This isn't consistent with the film or with the official story either.

There is also another example of a blur issue in Frame # 303. Notice how incredibly sharp Hill and Moorman are in that frame. Actually, they are IMPOSSIBLY sharp for that single frame. Since Zapruder is panning to keep the limo in sight they should be consistently blurred because they are stationary. The only way that both the limo and the stationary objects should all be clear is if and when the limo stopped.

Now who is it that needs the thorough explanation of the rules, Ray?

Although I used this clip to demonstrate a different point on a separate subject, it also works well here. That the film clips of the plane entering the building look contrived could be because they were contrived! The techniques used to create illusions have obviously been improved since this clip was made in 1928, but there is an almost spooky similarity. The section of interest is between the 2:50 -- 3:00 minute marker.

Would someone please explain the forum rules to this distasteful character. And please explain them REAL SLOW & REAL SIMPLE, so he might catch a glimmer of understanding! Carroll is obviously confused. Again. "That Doug is a fine fellow isn't he?"

Ray, I did NOT say that! What you quoted was from Jim DiEugenio's post NOT mine. Please make the correction. Would someone please explain the forum rules to this distasteful character. And please explain them REAL SLOW & REAL SIMPLE, so he might catch a glimmer of understanding!

Fascinating.

I think that's a Thomson M1921, Bill. Since you can't see the stock in the picture you linked, do you remember if it (the stock) looked like this?

Looks very much like an AUTO-ORDNANCE THOMPSON M1A1. The tip of the barrel looks different though. Possibly an M-2. It's definitely Hemming holding it. Thank you very much Greg. That seems very much it. Most grateful. I understand and don't object to the concerns expressed by Tom. I understand the addendum to the title and don't object there either. I'd just like to add a qualifier. Recently I have had some conversations with a person familiar with the pre op phoenix ops. This has led to a scrutiny of persons who may or may not have had anything to do with Hemming. I named the topic generically because I thought a look at weaponry a different theater, which persons in early Vietnam SEAL photos carry, and it struck me that a weapon used looked very similar and a person in one photo bore a resemblance to a young Hemming. I can see now that the weapons are different. Your most welcome, John.

Supposition is sometimes useful and sometimes it is not, Ron. Prouty was not a big fan of Maxwell Taylor. He did write extensively about how much Taylor and Bobby Kennedy had grown close. But, Prouty was not at all convinced that Taylor was without blemish. He told me so on several occasions and he did not speak very highly of him. Moreover, Maxwell Taylor's whereabouts at the time of the assassination are known. He was at the Pentagon. Granted there are inconsistencies regarding how McNamara came to know about the assassination, etc., namely he didn't recall Taylor buzzing him with the news. But, are you suggesting that Taylor was not even at the Pentagon at all--and was instead in Dallas?

"That Doug's a fine fellow, isn't he?"

On second thought, Mike-- I'm not sure why Hemming told Lee it was a Standard Issue M3a2 sub-machine gun. In my view, that is false. If Gerry was still alive I'd call him on the phone right now and ask him why the smoke screen? He'd then proceed to yell at me for a few minutes, I'd yell back for a few more and then he'd finally get down to the story...riddled with expletives all the way. Sure do miss the guy. He was encyclopedic. Perhaps it is what he said it was and I just don't see it in that photo? Maybe, but doubtful. FWIW

That explains the tip of the barrel, Mike. Thanks--

Looks very much like an AUTO-ORDNANCE THOMPSON M1A1. The tip of the barrel looks different though. Possibly an M-2. It's definitely Hemming holding it.

Hi Thomas, Yeah, it's true. Hemming was not very "forgiving" of wild theories nor wild speculation. He adamantly rejected the ID of Lansdale offered by Prouty despite my friendship with both he (Hemming) and Prouty. However, he would not easily dismiss same when it came from Krulak. It's funny, but I had never had a conversation with Hemming about this subject (Lansdale in DP) for the entire time we were in contact. It first came up in a thread (I believe) on this forum years ago. I wasn't even a member here back then. Someone (who shall remain anonymous) sent me an email about the thread. I called Gerry and gave him the info over the phone. Then I scanned the document and sent it via email. He, somewhat begrudgingly, conceded the point. However, over the phone he was less vitriolic about it. He expressed his deep respect for Krulak and his belief that if it came from Krulak--as a confirmation--it was as good as gold, in his view.

Jimbo, Do you believe police officer Wes Wise when he explains the "cotton" stuffed into his right ear on 11/22/63 as his way of dealing with an alleged ear ache? --Thomas Yea Tom, you don't mean Wes Wise. He's a former radio and TV reporter and anchor and mayor of Dallas who knew Ruby and ran down the Carl Mather connection. There was a Dallas cop named Wise, motorcycle maybe, but no relation to Wes. BK TOM that would be Marvin Wise..........he was with the tramps...b Thanks BK and Bernice. That's what I get for being too lazy to re-"research" it and get my facts straight before I open my big mouth. I meant the other, younger, blond(?) policeman with something in his right ear which he later claimed was cotton because he had an ear ache. Perhaps Bernice will be kind enough to post a photo of the dude I'm talking about? Sorry for the boo-boo. --Thomas Tom-- The first one is kinda cut-off, the second one is not too good a copy, but it's Wise. He's the first cop (far right).

Maybe their role was to escort the cops(?) out of a particular "situation"? For example, maybe Officer Wise was a spotter? BTW, just what does that Hunt/Holt-lookalike older dude have in that brown paper bag, anyway? A radio perhaps? Hmmm... Regarding Lansdale, I gotta go with "Brute" Krulak. He was a personal friend of my Dad's (in La Jolla, California), and my Dad told me once that he was the most brilliant (and interesting) man he'd ever met, topping Jonas Salk, Jacob Bronowski, etc... --Thomas Hey Thomas, Krulak indeed generated a great deal of respect from everyone who knew him as far as I can tell. Even Hemming rejected the idea that it was Lansdale, although Hemming didn't know Lansdale himself. But, he initially rejected the idea based on its having violated trade-craft if it was true. It was only after I sent Gerry a copy of the actual letter from Krulak to Prouty (that ID'd Lansdale) did Gerry then contact Krulak's family. According to Hemming, the family was not pleased that the letter had been made public, but that was enough for Hemming, too. He respected Krulak perhaps as much as anyone he'd ever known. Hemming was convinced from that day forward that it was indeed Lansdale based soley on Krulak having said it was so. Just as a point of clarification for those who might be wondering: Prouty did not betray a confidence, since Krulak never requested confidentiality from Fletch regarding the content of the letter.

That Lansdale was staying at the same hotel as was JFK the night before the assassination is not in question as per John Newman. As I understand it, the records from the hotel bear this out (if I'm not mistaken). That he was in Dealey Plaza the next day is not in question as he was positively identified by two senior DOD officials who knew him very well. One of the very compelling elements of this identification is that the second ID made by General Victor Krulak came in a PRIVATE letter to Colonel Prouty. Krulak was not intending to be quoted nor was he intending to publically identify Lansdale. However, the fact that Krulak was positive that it was indeed Lansdale, cannot be disputed. Unless you knew Lansdale by sight as well as--and for as long as--these two witnesses did, or unless you believe they are lying or are incompetent, then I believe it is irresponsible to dismiss this evidence as "probably erroneous" or worse. Neither Prouty nor Krulak speculated on the "why" of his presence beyond the obvious questions raised by it. But, there was never any question as to who it was pictured in the photograph. I know we don't necessarily agree on that, Jim. However, I do agree with Prouty that the identification of the tramps was not important. They were just background noise. Moreover, Prouty was very familiar with Hunt. It would have been uncharacteristic of Prouty to fail to make the ID if it was, in fact, Hunt.

It can, indeed. However, the prospect that it may actually have been planted raises other concerns.