Greg Burnham

So he have the following hits between Z190 and Z255 -- JFK in the throat, JFK in the back,

JBC in the torso, JBC in the wrist, JBC in the thigh, the hole in the windshield.

I think we both agree that JFK's wounds and JBC's wounds were not related.

I see no evidence to conclude that the windshield strike and JFK's throat wound were related. There were

just too many rounds fired into the limo at that point.

I very much appreciate this exchange, Cliff & Jim. A lot of good stuff here, IMO. Cliff, correct me if

I'm wrong, but for clarity--I placed an emphasis on one of the words you used above, namely, the word:

CONCLUDE.

I agree with you... however, with a few minor (yet significant) clarifications. These may or may not jibe with

your position, I don't know. But it is the way I see it.

IMO: "The evidence is insufficient to conclude that the windshield strike is related to the throat wound."

IOW: There is evidence that such a strike to the windshield was related to the throat wound, but the evidence

is insufficient to conclude that the two are definitely related.

Fetzer says:

Tracing the throat wound and the windshield hole leads back to the location half-way between the road and

the top of the Triple Underpass. How do you explain this evidence?

Varnell said: Coincidence. I don't buy the notion that a first/shot kill shot would have been planned

to hit Kennedy through the windshield, especially at that distance.

BURNHAM says:

It may have indeed been coincidence. That's a hard one to "nail down"...and the term "coincidence" is hardly

anything but imprecise. I remember commenting on the JFKresearch Forum that I would reject a shot through

the windshield as a "first choice" when other--more desirable--positions were available. John Ritchson retorted

something that I find very compelling. He said that firing a sniper shot through a windshield is not a problem at

all. The glass is a non-issue. The broader issue is this: If a shot needed to originate from that spot in order to

establish triangulation...then so be it. Done deal.

FETZER said:

Where did that windshield bullet go?

Varnell said: I don't know. I also don't know how many times Connally was hit, or the position of the

Connally shooter(s).

Burnham says: Agreed. We also don't know how many bullets (total) were recovered, nor do we know all of their types.

FETZER said:

The back shot and the throat shot were very closely spaced in time.

Varnell said: Ascertaining the timing of the back shot is a little tricky, since we only have one eye-witness to it

and no photographic evidence of it. According to SSA Glenn Bennett he heard two firecracker sounds, the second one

hit JFK in the back.

FETZER said:

Someone behind hearing the sound of a firecracker caused by the bullet passing through

the windshield but witnessing instead the hit to his back might very well associate them.

But what would have been the cause of such a sound from the shot that hit him in the back?

We know a windshield hit would cause that sound.

Varnell said: Evidently shots that don't go through windshields also cause a similar sound.

It is quite common for gunfire to be described as "sounded like firecrackers."

BURNHAM says: You are entirely correct, Cliff. I was shot at on the freeway while off duty riding a police

motorcycle years ago. The first 2 shots sounded like a backfire or firecracker. I definitely heard the shots, but I

didn't become alarmed as my detail was done and I was on my way home. However, the third shot blew the

windshield off of my motorcycle--wham! I knew they were shots fired because of the obliterated windshield, but

not because of the sound they made. Now, there is a difference between sounds on the freeway and sounds on a

city street, but I had just entered the freeway and wasn't even up to speed yet.

Yeah, Peter. I know what you mean. I generally don't subscribe to such tactics as I described above, but in that particular case...I agreed. Over all, I really didn't care much for Reagan.

"Cowboy methods" don't suit my best judgment these days.

IMO, the best thing Reagan ever did was to order the bombing of the French Embassy in Tripoli after the French government refused to allow us the use of their air space when we were retaliating

for the Libyan terror attacks in which American servicemen were deliberately targeted and killed. The French refusal caused undue risk to our personnel and was arbitrary--even mean spirited.

They received enough advance warning of the "accidental miss hit" to their embassy for all of their personnel to be evacuated...but, they got the message. There are few things about Reagan that

I praise--very few. But, that is one of them.

Glen,

1) The film I saw was shown for training purposes. I do not know "who" possessed [read:owned] the film that I saw, but I am sure it was NOT an individual.

2) The "secrecy" seems to be related, IMO, to the gross negligence (at best) --or the complicity--of the Secret Service Presidential Protection Detail as

demonstrably evident by their inaction and by several breaches of protocol.

3) Although I didn't see it on any TV station, Milicent Cranor saw it as Jack reported and Scott Myers saw it on television.

4) I was in no position to ask such questions at the time even if I had thought to ask them.

5) I have never expected anyone to take my word for it. I understand the reluctance. I would respond in exactly the same way.

I wish I could be more helpful, but that is all I know.

Dean,

Duncan tells the truth. I simply posted an article I read. I did not author it, nor am I influenced by its conclusion. I desired input, nothing more.

Is that why you capitalized the words Child Molesting? And added a couple of exclamation marks for good measure.

This seemed to be your conclusion: Jim Garrison was accused "on to many occasions to be coincedence!"

Or did Lambert write that too?

Michael,

Where there is smoke there is often fire. Do you not understand that simple idea?

I copied and pasted that title and text from elsewhere. Just as Duncan said.

IS there a problem with me copying and pasting?

I think that Mike Hogan makes a good point. Here's my take: Mike Williams' bias clearly appeared (past tense) to be

strongly anti-Garrison at the beginning of this thread. He has since backed off, ever so slightly, from pushing

that original pursuit. As I understand it, he is weighing new evidence and seeking more.

If true, perhaps progress is being made here after all.

And off we go into the woods, down the rabbit hole, and through the looking glass. Fiddle-dee-dee, fiddle-dee-dumb-er-er, what's that you say?

Robert,

Do you really think it's "normal" for humans to have sex with underaged persons? I don't. Perhaps you mis-spoke.

I think you know what I mean. In a country of 300 million people it is *normal* for pedophilia to exist just as it is *normal* for people to murder each other; they have been doing that since the beginning of time. Ever heard of Adam and Eve, the apple and sin? It is also *normal* for a truckload of hypocritical politicians to lie about their sex lives and criminal sex lives.

Ever watch To Catch a Predator on NBC? Some of your politicans are doing the same as those jokers on TV; except they usually have more political pull to get off the charges.

Didn't mean to forget Jeffrey Epstein - who had his own pedophile ring of underage women - he is also CFR member, very rich and got his lawyers to rig the system for him when he should be in jail for a long, long time. http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-25/jeffrey-epstein-how-the-billionaire-pedophile-got-off-easy/# No time in jail for him, just settle a few lawsuits, make the victims sign confidentiality agreements and he is on his way.

While I don't want to digress too far from the topic, I must say that characterizing otherwise heinous crimes as "normal" tends to minimize--even trivialize--their significance, IMO.

So, Robert, since we aren't speaking in "statistical" terminology, the meaning of the term "normal behavior" when taken colloquially, is "regular or standard" behavior. I don't think

the activities you described are, under that definition, "normal" at all.

And off we go into the woods, down the rabbit hole, and through the looking glass. Fiddle-dee-dee, fiddle-dee-dumb-er-er, what's that you say?

Robert,

Did you really mean to say you think it's "normal" for some humans to have sex with underaged persons? Perhaps you mis-spoke?

Mike,

This nonsense was covered thoroughly about 10 years ago on the JFKresearch Assassination Forum. Gary Mack stood as the lone "Garrison basher" back then. He actually used to post his

own messages on our forum instead of asking others to post for him. We had several members who had lived in New Orleans as adults during the time that these claims against Jim were

being made and were quite familiar with all of it. Each and every one of them (I believe there were 5 or 6, if memory serves) reported that it was "common knowledge" among those who

lived there that the allegations were completely unfounded. According to them: "No one really took any of it seriously because it was so ludicrous..."

Mack cited a report of Garrison visiting a community pool of some sort and his having been naked in the presence of a young boy. The locals on our forum stated that "nude bathing" and

walking about in that state, was common at this particular public pool (or mineral spring, I don't remember exactly the nature of the facility) where this occurred and that there was nothing

in the least unusual or even suspect about it because it was common practice. The facility was not a "gay bath house" -- it was a public, community facility. The specific "contact" with this

young boy amounted to Garrison asking him: "How's your dad doing?" -because Garrison and the boy's father were friends. The boy never complained about it nor did he ever claim anything

inappropriate occurred. Moreover, the boy's father apparently thought nothing of it either.

Send it on.

Where did the "crack" (very probably a through and through hole) in the limo windshield come form then? Was it yet another separate round (#4) or was it

a skull fragment that also was "magical" in that it broke off the head, flew over the chrome, and changed directions to strike the windshield from the front?

Mike,

Even though I thoroughly disagree with everything you have written here, let me ask you a question and

"pretend" that there were no shots from the front.

If there were no shots from the front, then all shots came from the rear according to you. If true, how many

shots did LHO get off? Sounds like 5 to me.

Let's count them, shall we? According to your own count, but in no particular order:

1) One shot hit Kennedy in the head;

2) One shot (the Magic Bullet) wounded both Kennedy and Connally (several times);

3) One shot missed the occupants and struck the curb wounding James Tague;

4) One shot caused a dent in the chrome of the limo;

5) One shot struck the windshield;

So, even if all shots came from the rear how did LHO do THAT?

Don,

There would have never been a critical community if the people who claimed such a thing actually knew what is known today. Several things are needed to even begin to contemplate a shot from the front.

First and foremost is a viable shooting position. I have challenged, several times, for someone to show a viable position that does not lead to left side head damage. This has yet to be accomplished.

Secondly, there is nothing on the Zapruder film that indicates a shot from the front. We see a large mass of ejecta emitted from the front of the head. Clearly indicating a shot from the rear. we never see this same ejecta exit the back of the head.

The slight forward motion of JFK at 312 is a direct and accurate reflection of a bullet passing front to back, while the following backward motion is certainly not. Simply put, transiting bullets do not impact that much force, except in the movies.

There is no significant amount of debris to the rear of the vehicle. While there is a mass of debris forward, all the way up to the hood ornament on the limo, and it was traveling against a 12-15 mph head wind.

The chrome dent could only have happened from a rear shot.

The crack in the limo glass could only have happened from a rear shot.

The debris field in the head xray opens back to front.

One has to weigh these considerations, and to me there is nothing significant in the physical evidence that shows a shot from the front.

Oliver Stone on "JFK" --

Part One:

Part Two:

.

Robert I own every one of those books. They are right here on my book case--along with nearly 130 more. I read all of them.

Seriously? No... surely you jest, Dean! He really said that stuff? I had no idea.

Question: "Why in the world would anyone believe Jim Garrison?"

Answer: "Because they are well informed, intelligent people who bothered to do their homework."

Robert,

Your position is indefensible, IMO. This is a good opportunity for you to admit: "You're right, I will remove the books (not just Fetzer's)--that I have not actually read and/or not

thoroughly studied--from my Best & Worst lists. Until I actually read and thoroughly study the subjects in those books I am not competent to render a well informed opinion

as to their worth. Nobody--handicapped by ignorance of the issues--would be competent to make relevant judgments under conditions similar to mine."

Such an admission might go farther than you think in the rebuilding of your reputation. FWIW

.

Yes, Robert.

But, you did something parallel (not equivalent) to writing a review on the books you placed on the "Worst Of" list. The only problem is that you failed to

study the specific subject adequately enough (by your own admission) to reach a "well informed" opinion.

I didn't say that these experts (Mantik, Costella, et al) are necessarily correct (although I personally believe that to be the case). My point was that I have

formed a well researched, informed opinion on the subject. You, on the other hand, haven't even read what they wrote at all! You are unable to refute

their claims due to lack of familiarity--yet that didn't stop you from categorizing these books as "worst of" on your list.

If you insist on characterizing these important contributions as "worst" -- I would hope you would familiarize yourself with their contents so that in the

future you will be able to make a cogent case for your summary rejection of them. As it stands now your rejection seems arbitrary and adolescent. I was

expecting more from you.

Mr. LIEBELER. Then, you can actually see yourself in this picture, can't you?

Mr. ZAPRUDER. Well, I can't distinguish myself being [there]--I know I was there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recognize that this picture was taken at the time you were there?

Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes; I was there and I would say this couldn't be anybody else, unless---if this is an authentic photograph and it isn't composed now or changed---I would say that's me. That's the first time I have seen that. Were these pictures ever published in a magazine---there were pictures like that I suppose--- actually?

Mr. LIEBELER. This picture here is in fact one of a series of pictures that is being sold down here in Dallas by a fellow named Willis, I believe his name is Phil Willis. He has a series of slides that are available and it's picture No. 5 of those slides in which you can see yourself back there.

Mr. ZAPRUDER. That must be it because there's another couple back there---I took some from there and I was shooting some of the pictures to start my roll from the beginning. I didn't want to have a blank and I shot some, in fact, they have it--the Federal Bureau of Investigation have those pictures.

Mr. LIEBELER. As you stood there on this abutment with your camera, the motorcade came down Houston Street and turned left on Elm Street, did it not?

Mr. ZAPRUDER. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. And it proceeded then down Elm Street toward the triple underpass; is that correct?

Mr. ZAPRUDER. That's correct. I started shooting--when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street.

Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us what happened as you took these pictures.

Mr. ZAPRUDER. Well, as the car came in line almost--I believe it was almost in line. I was standing up here and I was shooting through a telephoto lens, which is a zoom lens and as it reached about--I imagine it was around here--I heard the first shot and I saw the President lean over and grab himself like this (holding his left chest area).

Mr. LIEBELER. Grab himself on the front of his chest?

Mr. ZAPRUDER. Right---something like that. In other words, he was sitting like this and waving and then after the shot he just went like that.

Mr. LIEBELER. He was sitting upright in the car and you heard the shot and you saw the President slump over?

Mr. ZAPRUDER. Leaning--leaning toward the side of Jacqueline. For a moment I thought it was, you know, like you say, "Oh, he got me," when you hear a shot--you've heard these expressions and then I saw---I don't believe the President is going to make jokes like this, but before I had a chance to organize my mind, I heard a second shot and then I saw his head opened up and the blood and everything came out and I started--I can hardly talk about it.

[emphasis added on parts that of his testimony that are "odd" or are inconsistent with the extant Z-film]

Michael Hogan, witnesses and people don't all tell 100% truth or 100% lies (usually). Usually what witnesses to history tell is a mixture of truth, lies, misremembering, embellishments. So one has to use *critical thinking* and evaluate people's statements one by one and see if anything can corroborate what they are saying. For example, Lyndon Johnson is VERIFIED at being at the Driskill Hotel on the night of 12/31/63- that is one big reason Madeleine has credibility with me on this point.

Ok, Robert--why don't we apply *critical thinking* to a researcher's credibility by evaluating their METHODOLOGY? How did you "evaluate people's statements one by one...etc" if you didn't read those statements thoroughly? How did you come to the conclusion that Zapruder Film alteration was false? Was it based on a "gut feeling"? Was it based ONLY on the work of others (like Groden) or did you conduct your own separate research? If you conducted your own separate research, was it "to the EXCLUSION" of the work conducted by every SCIENTIST with an opposing view to that of your preconceived ideas? If you failed to study the work of David Mantik, MD (Oncological Radiology), PhD (Physics), and the work of John Costella, PhD (Physics, with a specialty in the properties of light and optics), then you dismissed their conclusion without considering their arguments, indeed, without considering the evidence!

It might seem arbitrary to believe or not believe various statements by a witness, but it is not. Use your head and examine them one by one.

Yes, that seems reasonable--except that you didn't do it yourself! Why would you apply a double-standard to evidence evaluation, Robert? Is that really what you consider to be *critical thinking*?

Different people can evaluate differently whether they find a witness credible or not. That is fine. I prefer to evaluate the individual statements of witnesses on a case by case basis. I think that is a much more sophisticated and accurate way to treat eyewitness history. Meaning sometimes these folks are wrong and sometimes they are giving you the golden truth.

Apparently, by you own admission, the method you employed to reach your conclusions about the value of the books regarding Zapruder film fakery, is NOT sophisticated nor accurate. After all, if you fail to study the testimony of witnesses whose evidence opposes your already predetermined mindset, you are holding yourself to a much lower standard than that to which you are holding everyone else.

Robert Morrow Said:

"I do not currently believe that the Zapruder film was significantly altered. I am in the camp of Robert Groden who I highly respect. I have not studied the issue at length."

Question Robert:

How would you regard a "researcher" who claimed the following:

"I do not currently believe that JFK was the victim of a conspiracy. I am in the camp of Bugliosi who I highly respect. I have not studied the issue at length."

What could you determine, if anything, about the value of such a researcher's methodology? Keep in mind, this is NOT about "the researcher's ultimate conclusion" at this stage. Rather, it

is first about the soundness of the means employed to reach said conclusion. Moreover, how would you regard a researcher who further placed a book on the "best or worst of list" even

though, by their own admission, they have not thoroughly studied the issue sufficiently enough to offer any rebuttal to the salient points raised in that book?

What about it, Robert?

NOTE: No one who has actually read even the Preface and the Prologue to HOAX could possibly make this claim. Just to

cite ONE of its contributions, I point out that frame 374 actually shows the blow-out to the back of the head. I know

that others, like Pat Speer, who want to disregard the multiple and consistent reports from experienced and competent

physicians at Parkland hospital, want to bury their head in the sand and ignore the obvious fakery in the film. But I

had thought that Robert Morrow was above that. It dismays me that, even after I have patiently taken him through the

way in which he can discover for himself that the film has been altered, he puts HOAX on his list of one of the worst

books on JFK. That is his new ad hominem. The contributors include some of the best students of the case to tackle

it, including David Mantik, John Costella, Jack White, David Healy, and David Lifton. Including it is simply absurd.

Robert,

You are far too intelligent to pass through this life and not appreciate the extent to which the government went to

conceal the true causes of the death of JFK. If they would alter the autopsy X-rays, substitute someone else's brain,

post agents at the photo processing plants around Dallas for two weeks to make sure they got all the photos and

films, steal the body and alter the wounds (by surgery to the head and mutilating the throat wound), why would you

think they would be squeamish about reworking the film, when it would have given the game away? You know that

Greer brought the limo to a halt after bullets began to be fired, which is only one of at least fifteen indications of

Secret Service complicity in the assassination, do you not? Leaving that in would have blown the case wide open.

There are five physical properties that distinguish the original (developed in Dallas) from the substitute (developed

in Rochester). I am talking about properties of the strips of celluloid, respectively. So we know there were different

films. The chain of custody of the original was clearly broken, since one was brought to the NPIC on Saturday, the

23rd, where it was studied by one team of specialists, the other on Sunday, the 24th, where it was studied by another

team of specialists. The second film appears to have been a transitional version in relation to what we have today

since Homer McMahon, who worked on it Sunday night to prepare a briefing board of hits to passengers for an

unspecified official, reported observing six to eight impacts, which is certainly not what we see in the film today.

There are many features beyond the blow-out to the left-rear that are not seen in the current version of the film,

including brains and blood strewn across the trunk and JFK's motions under the impact of the two head shots he

received after Greer brought the limo to a halt: he fell forward from the hit to the back of his head, then Jackie

eased him up and was looking him right in the face when he was hit in the right temple by the frangible bullet

that blew his brains out to the left-rear with such force that Officer Hargis, when hit by the debris, though that

he himself had been shot. No witness, by the way, reported the back-and-to-the-left motion of JFK's body that

is such a prominent feature of the extant film. The bulging of brains (called the "blob") to the right-front of his

head as well as the blood spray were painted in, while the massive defect (visible in frame 374) was painted out.

Here are some resources I would invite you to consider if you want to understand how we know that the film is

a fake and why it had to be altered. Dawn is not quite right when she suggests that the term "alteration" is a

better term than "fabrication", because each of its frames had to be reshot (using an optical printer) in order to

create a series of images around the sprocket areas (called "ghost panels") which link successive frames due

to images that are created when a film is exposed because of the properties of light relative to its mechanisms.

If they had not reshot the frames (in a laboratory), the deception would have been immediately apparent, since

the non-consecutive "ghost panels" would have exposed the deception. They had to change the film's content.

"US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication"

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5772.shtml

"Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid"

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Zapruder-JFK-Film-Impeache-by-Jim-Fetzer-090324-48.html

"The JFK 'Head Shot' Paradox:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/fetzer1.1.1.html

Then watch John Costella's "Introduction to the JFK Film Hoax"

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

You might want to start with the last on my list, which is John Costella's video introduction to the faking of the

film. John has a Ph.D. in physics with a specialization in electromagnetism, which means he is an expert on

the properties of light in relation to the physics of moving bodies. I like Robert Groden personally, but he is not

a scientist and cannot compare with John in relation to technical and scientific questions about the film. I do

not know what he told you, but if you simply compare frame 374 with 313-316, it should be obvious where

the blow-out to the back of the head, which is visible in frame 374, has been painted over black in 313-316.

You may also want to take a look at "Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK", which I have linked before.

In the process of recreating the film, they removed multiple impacts of bullets on bodies and shortened the time

line, which means that, for anyone who takes the film to be authentic, it becomes impossible to reconstruct what

actually happened. They did not only remove the limo stop, but also placed Mary Moorman and Jean Hill back on

the grass, when they had both stepped out into the street, where Jean called to JFK and Mary took the picture for

which she is know. Officer Chaney, who was riding to the right-rear, motored forward to inform Chief Curry the

president had been hit, which John discovered when he complied a record of the eyewitness reports about the

shooting, which is archived at http://assassinationresearch.com/v5n1.html When he explained to me what he had

found, I published an article about it, "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery", http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jim_fetz_080205_new_proof_of_jfk_fil.htm

Jim

Keep up the good work, Cliff! I always appreciate your contributions...FWIW

However, I am now curious about your reply to Cliff Varnell's simple question about your views regarding the back wound to JFK. Why would you be getting involved in a "controversy" by stating an opinion about one of the true salient points in this case?

Thank you, Don. When the evidence is so lop-sided as the case with JFK's T3 back wound there

is no actual controversy, the noisy non sequiturs of "bunch" fallacies aside.

A tucked-in custom-made dress shirt only has a fraction of an inch of slack. This is an

unchallenged fact. Normal body movements such as JFK's in the motorcade cause clothes to

move in fractions of an inch, invariably. These are iron-clad facts of clothing design and fit.

While a handful of major researchers have pressed this point in the past -- Salandria, Marrs,

Fonzi, Twyman, Groden all come to mind -- these unchallenged facts are quite unpopular in the

JFK Assassination Research Community.

The bullet hole in JFK's shirt is prima facie evidence of 4 plus shots. Period. That fact

renders lots of discussions and research of secondary import. Much of the 2003 Wecht Conference

was utterly moot in light of the clothing evidence, which is why it was never mentioned there

(to the best of my knowledge).

Why should we give a fig about the acoustics evidence, the NAA, or CE399 when there is unchallenged,

prima facie evidence of 4+ shots?

Or the head wounds? I mean, there is an entry in the FBI report on the autopsy concerning pre-autopsy

surgery to the head.

That's the end of the head wounds as a topic worthy of speculation, imo. All we have is a pile of highly conflicted evidence upon which even allies cannot agree.

For instance, James Fetzer says JFK was hit the head twice -- doesn't Doug Horne

say it was three?

Who knows? We'll never know. The topic is ridiculous!

But don't let me be a bummer, let the Parlor Game play on...

David (and Greg),

I listened to the description Blaine gave on the Video interview and jotted down his words about Hill:

" ... I've got to comment on Clint's ability that day. The vehicle was going 11 miles an hour. There were 85 feet for Clint to catch up with. He ran basically about 15 miles an hour to reach the Presidential car and he got there after thethird shot hit. …"

Seems like there are two ways you can take this: 1. The Limo and the QM were separated by 85' when Hill jumped off. This is in severe contrast with what is shown in the Z film. 2. The total distance that Hill had to run to catch the limo was 85'. If this is what Blaine meant, we can calculate distance using the information furnished. Hill running at 15 mph (22 feet per second) Limo traveling at 11 mph (16.1 fps) Doing the math (and assuming the Limo does not slow down) Hill would have been 23 feet from the rear of the Limo when he jumped off the QM; and it would take Hill 3.84 seconds to reach the Limo. At 18.3 frames per second, that equals 70 frames on the Z film

This still places the QM further behind the Limo than what we see in the Z film, but probably closer to 17 feet or so separating rear of limo to front of QM.

Have not looked yet but if we knew which Z frames Hill Jumped off the QM, and reached the limo, we could check that out with the 70 frame estimate from Blaine's figures. Greg, which scenario comes closer to your recollection of the film you saw?

Hi Richard,

I don't recall exactly the distance between the two vehicles--except to say that they were much farther apart than what we see in the extant Z-film. My best estimate is that the distance between the two appeared to be

more than twice as far as what we see depicted in the Z-film. Keep in mind, however, that such a "measurement" is completely relative to camera position and visual frames of reference. Under those conditions, I don't

think that it would be prudent to conclude that the REAL distance between the two was, in fact, more than twice the distance seen in the extant film based solely on my memory of a visual. I don't think we can determine

that from here. While it is true that a major visual discrepancy such as this is enough to impeach one or both of these films, it is not enough to determine the exact (or perhaps not even ball park) measurements. Suffice to

say, if the "other film" and my memory of it are true and accurate, respectively, then there is no question the Z-film has problems.

deleted

As Hitler proved, if the lie is big enough, it boggles the mind, and boggled minds refuse to believe the obvious.

Jack,

I know what you're saying, but it came out a bit awkwardly. I think your point is this: The legitimate refutation of the Big Lie is seldom

recognized for what it is as a result of the power of the Big Lie. When people consider that the OFFICIAL ACCOUNT might be the BIG LIE

it is, indeed, mind boggling. It is much easier, more comforting, and safer (in the short term) to simply accept the less disturbing than

it is to challenge the status quo.