Bernice Moore

MANY THANKS JOE...TAKE CARE...B

Question...why would they only ??""and we also took motion pictures with Mr. Zapruder's camera from Zapruder's position with the car in the fixed locations as they were established with the car just stationary in those locations."" anyone any idea...?? thanks b..

Hi Duncan...Those mentioning the limo taking a wide curve and almost hitting the curb are the messengers ( never shoot them ) it was roy sansom truly lho's boss at the TSBD that reported such as gary mack is more than extremely well aware of...... Mr. TRULY. That is right. And the President's car following close behind came along at an average speed of 10 or 15 miles an hour. It wasn't that much, because they were getting ready to turn. And the driver of the Presidential car swung out too far to the right, and he came almost within an inch of running into this little abutment here, between Elm and the Parkway. And he slowed down perceptibly and pulled back to the left to get over into the middle lane of the parkway. Not being familiar with the street, he came too far out this way when he made his turn. Mr. BELIN. He came too far to the north before he made his curve, and as he curved--as he made his left turn from Houston onto the street leading to the expressway, he almost hit this north curb? Mr. TRULY. That is right. Just before he got to it, he had to almost stop, to pull over to the left. If he had maintained his speed, he would probably have hit this little section here. Mr. BELIN. All right. Now, what is your best estimate of the speed as he started to go down the street here marked Parkway? Mr. TRULY. He picked up a little speed along here, and then seemed to have fallen back into line, and I would say 10 or 12 miles an hour in this area. Mr. BELIN..... All right. Then what did you see happen? mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/truly2.htm - Cached - Similar Sorry I cannot enable links... Testimony Of Roy Sansom Truly Testimony Of Roy Sansom Truly. Mr. BELIN. Next we will call Mr. Truly. Mr. McCLOY. Will you raise your right hand, and stand. ... mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/truly1.htm

for Michael...b..zapruder frame 374

Happy New Years to you as well. I used Newman and Zapruder because they are the only close-by witnesses I could find who demonstrated their impression of the wound location on 11-22. Another close-by witness, James Chaney, told a TV interviewer JFK was hit in the face. It is undoubtedly intriguing that none of these men, who saw Kennedy while he was still upright, thought the large head wound was on the back of JFK's head. As far as the Willis family, none of them were quoted till many months later, and they were some distance away. From their perspective, it would have been incredibly hard--probably impossible--to differentiate between an explosion of blood from the top of JFK's head while he was moving away from an explosion of blood from the back of his head. Even so, the FBI report on Marilyn Willis, the most consistent of the family, reported that she saw a "red halo" erupt from the top of Kennedy's head, not the back of his head. Phil Willis, moreover, not only testified that he did not see the impact of the final shot (which he apparently believed was the head shot) he testified that "The minute the third shot was fired, I screamed, hoping a policeman would hear me, to ring that building because it had to come from there." Pat check these out..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmfqDOnZu_Q FRANK O'NEILL RIGHT REAR Interviews - Phil Willis & Family video'sfrom gil jesus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2-_UhD3Qgk witnesses The back of his head blew off http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVhZdryIs_A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh0-2Sthn9A the large back of the head wound.. the Doctor's JFK's head wound http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhWJowvbtxs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P29j9PFZBM wound was in the back of his head to the right... b.. Exactly my point, Bernice. In light of their original statements, the 25 year removed statements of the Willis family are not exactly credible. If you can find records of them describing the shooting and talking about a wound on the back of the head prior to this time, however, I will add them to my database. hi pat ; well we differ again but as usual not nastily...of course if anything comes up i would be delighted to see that you get a copy...meanwhile we all carry on...i certainly hope that you have never recalled any information somewhat with a difference 25 years back...as if so you would now be called not credible...crap on the witnesses time seems to come around so very often in the these threads on the forum...they are always in error and those that say so were not there...

Happy New Years to you as well. I used Newman and Zapruder because they are the only close-by witnesses I could find who demonstrated their impression of the wound location on 11-22. Another close-by witness, James Chaney, told a TV interviewer JFK was hit in the face. It is undoubtedly intriguing that none of these men, who saw Kennedy while he was still upright, thought the large head wound was on the back of JFK's head. As far as the Willis family, none of them were quoted till many months later, and they were some distance away. From their perspective, it would have been incredibly hard--probably impossible--to differentiate between an explosion of blood from the top of JFK's head while he was moving away from an explosion of blood from the back of his head. Even so, the FBI report on Marilyn Willis, the most consistent of the family, reported that she saw a "red halo" erupt from the top of Kennedy's head, not the back of his head. Phil Willis, moreover, not only testified that he did not see the impact of the final shot (which he apparently believed was the head shot) he testified that "The minute the third shot was fired, I screamed, hoping a policeman would hear me, to ring that building because it had to come from there." Pat check these out..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmfqDOnZu_Q FRANK O'NEILL RIGHT REAR Interviews - Phil Willis & Family video'sfrom gil jesus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2-_UhD3Qgk witnesses The back of his head blew off http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVhZdryIs_A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh0-2Sthn9A the large back of the head wound.. the Doctor's JFK's head wound http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhWJowvbtxs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P29j9PFZBM wound was in the back of his head to the right... b..

www.patspeer.com - Chapter 2b: The Secret Service Secrets We find pictures of a Secret Service re-enactment, taken from the location of Abraham Zapruder's camera. These were, apparently, taken during the 11-27 ... www.patspeer.com/chapter2b:thesecretservicesecrets b

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Photos - WCD Photos - Secret Service Reenactment - p1 sorry link link not enable...b 9 Nov 2006 ... The Secret Service photographed a re-enactment of the assassination on December 5, 1963. A pair of cameras was used, one providing a wide ... www.maryferrell.org/.../Photos_-_WCD_Photos_-_Secret_Service_Reenactment_-_p1 - Cached b

Don, in chapter 19 at patspeer.com, I discuss in excruciating detail why I believe the Parkland doctors were wrong about the wound location, even to the extent of publishing and discussing all their earliest statements. The key is that there are flaws in human cognition, whereby we routinely get confused by certain images and events. We are in fact terrible at perceiving relative distances on rotated objects, particularly human faces. This is demonstrated here: So what bearing does this have on the case, you might ask? It's simple. Kennedy was not only laying flat on his back when most everyone at Parkland saw him, he was laying on his back with his feet up in the air. So, in short, I think the rotation of Kennedy on the stretcher caused some of those viewing him to misinterpret the location of his head wound, and their recollections colored those of their colleagues. It is significant, IMO, that none of these witnesses noted an entrance wound on the front of Kennedy's head, even though they were looking at his face. No, they just saw one large wound. The same large wound, one should assume, that was observed by William Newman and Abraham Zapruder in Dealey Plaza, and described on TV before the Parkland doctors had written a word. So where did Newman and Zapruder place the wound? Exactly where it is on the autopsy photos! hi pat..i think you are somewhat cherry picking if you want to compare what the witnesses stated the where. you think or the back of the head blow out just for one check the willis family what each stated the back of the head blew out..also others imo you cannot use some and leave the others out but that is m/o..hope you have a good new year...b

don excellent post thank you..i found this today while searching for another some information on the dealey signs..i noticed the mention of perhaps the secret service may have been looking at another zapruder film.to be off by 45 frames in their re-enactment...i found it interesting ..fwiw...b.. "First Day Evidence and Dealey Plaza" Michael Parks.. "The SecretService performed a reenactment on 12/5/63 of the shooting of President Kennedy at Dealey Plaza. A survey plat was made for this event by Dallas County Surveyor Robert West and his assistant, Chester Breneman. This survey plat later became Commission Exhibit 585.. This was not the first reenactment performed by the Secret Service in Dealey Plaza. On 11/27/63, they hired the local CBS affiliate KRLD-TV...to film a pre-reenactment, the television crew filmed from Zapruder's pedestal. Within this automobile were two other camera-men ,one filming back toward the Texas School Book Depository while the other films ahead toward the Triple Underpass. We do not know why the Secret Service needed a pre-reenactment. At the time of this event, they had the Zapruder film and may even had a survey plat made on 11/25/63 for Time/Life by the same survey team of West and Breneman..The Official story during both the Secret Service reenactments was three shots, three hits.This story did not change until the following year with the advent of the Magic Bullet... Breneman stated that they had a full set of Zaprduer frames from which to work with during the December reenactment. The was furnished by Life Magazine to the Secret Service .These slide were uses to place the shots on CE 585.....As was pointed out by Chuck Marler in his several informative articles on the topic, shots were placed at Zapruder frames 208, 276, and 358.. These locations were marked on the county survey plat and it became an official document.. It is quite obvious by even the casual observer that the Zapruder film does not support this shot placement.." The next year to back up the theory of the Magic Bullet, the FBI and the Warren Commission held a thrid reenactment in the Plaza..on 5/24/64.the actors used the Zapruder film, and West and Breneman made another survey plat..CE 882...they move the Head shot to Z 313 from Z 358...It makes you wonder if they had the same film....??? The three yellow curb painted sections within the area where JFK was killed, the last yellow curb marker, is seen after Z 313 but before Z 358..... " There is no way the Secret Service could have been off 45 frames in their head shot placement unless they viewed a different Zapruder film.." '' Is there more proof the Stemmons sign was moved? Yes ! Surveyor ( Joe) West stated he later measured his plats and found the sign had been moved by more than ten feet.. Even assassination witness and Dealey Plaza groundskeeper ,Emmett Hudson testified the signs in the Plaza had been moved ( shortly ?) after 11/22/63...He also said the head shot was almost in front of where he stood. This would more agree with the Secret Service's Z 358 shot than the FBI's Z 313...It appears the sign was moved to the FBI's position to match the altered sign in the Zapruder film... All the Zapruder frames seen were chosen because of the closeness to the reenactment .."... The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: Shortcut to: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=34 b..

And I just received another present in the mail. A CD audio of Homer McMahon's recorded interview with ARRB (Horne, Gunn, et al). Can anybody tell me if there is a transcript of this available? Thanks, BILL NOT IN THE ARRB FILES..THOUGH I FOUND SO MANY OTHERS NOT HIS...PERHAPS NOW THAT YOU HAVE IT YOU COULD PICK --sorry caps--away at it..till someday it is completed..and then you could post such....best b.. BK

I assume you meant "the FILM in the optical printer would become the new in-camera original," the answer is no it would become a 1st generation copy easily distinguishable from an "in-camera original" Excellent point Bill, I told Tink the same thing in an e-mail, and it pretty much destroys Horne's argument (latter channeled by others) about the supposed discrepancy. It would be unreasonable to expect two different camera to function exactly the same even if they are the same make and model especially 3 decades apart. But that is moot since as Tink demonstrated the frames did go "full flush left".Once again Horne is revealed to be out of his depth. I agree it would have been best to use the original camera but contrary to what Horne claims the test shots using an identical camera were consistent with the z-film, while it isn't proof it is further evidence the alterationists are wrong.

agreed jack i posted the link to this article at the mary ferrell site in i think the doug horne thread the only one who showed any interest was bill kelly thanks for posting the print out....b

Bernice, If there is a clear violation of Forum rules (calling a Forum member a xxxx, saying what they have said is a lie, saying someone lacks research ability, etc) then it is clear and Moderators can act. Insulting someone is not quite so clear. As you might recall, there was discussion about being treated like children or similar when Mods told people to be more civil. What I might think as being insulting, others might consider to be a lively debate. It is especially difficult if more than one party is engaging in what might be considered to be insulting behaviour. It is difficult at best. With respect to bias and Mods, I think Kathy Beckett's tagline sums it up nicely. thanks Evan for your comments i understand what you have said to a point..and i also realize the difficulties that mods have like a narrow wire they walk many times..it simply appears to me when the let's call them smaller insults re name calling are allowed they then if allowed to continue.. appears to encourage worse and they only get more direct and ruder, and then of course they begin to cause similar replies that only makes to harbor ill feelings to the point where all soon become unmanageable and a broo haw suddenly erupts having seen this occur many times,i know it does happen...and soon becomes out of control and no one i believe wants such to happen..thinking of an ounce of prevention..b..

Hi Duncan and a very merry season to you and yours...now i realize you have not released your findings in a book up till the present time.that others can pick apart looking for errors instead of information that is of value....but are you not being somewhat too harsh here i take it after what john posted and you replied your meaning may be that a possible error by Doug warrants not reading his valued information set out in 5 books after 12 years of deep study and over 3 years of being involved with the arrb...huh...i hope i have this wrong on your mind set here..i recall some terribly harsh times that you went through particularly for months on end at lancer re your pergolaman studies..as well as others..you set forth..even through all some still stood by you..when the errors were shown their attitude was not yours..to simply throw you and your work aside...i am surprised you seem to have so easily forgotten those times...and lessons learnt..that dragged on and on....as others presented harshly their found errors within..your work .in return and continually..trashing your honest efforts...is it pay back now perhaps on some one who was not involved i hate to even suggest that as that is not the man i knew...as each error was revealed within your work..there were some who felt that the basics of your work had merit in the studies of the alterations and conspiracys that you so fully believed in ..Idid KNOW YOU AND I KNOW YOU DO NOT HAVE A SHORT MEMORY...sorry caps...what you suggest now is throwing the baby out with the bathwater...that as we know never pans out...there is much extremely valuable information within doug's valuable set of books...If one wants to stay up on the most recent information available so they can at least follow along on the forums..and perhaps contribute..and they will not be wearing blinders they will avail themselves of the information, if not.. then it is their sorry loss...do you not think even the .LNRS are not, have not and will not be reading such, not all but so many are and will be..do not be behind any of you peoples out there....read get up to date and join in..this all is a very fascinating study the latest do not leave yourselves in the dark...why now would anyone want to is beyond me and stay out of the latest after 46 years and wear blinders makes absolutely no sense...imo..always remember all that what goes around comes around none are infallible so watch your step your next error that is pointed out may be the harshest coming back..we all make them i have made zillions and i will continue..so do you who are reading this, if not you are not human... all take care and thanks for your time..best b..all chin up...carry on... Hi Bernice, a very merry season to you and yours too. I say this respectfully. I have long since debunked most of my own work, and those who gave me the hard time over much of it were correct to do so. I bear no grudges against them at all, nor against anyone who has a different point of view. I would be foolish to do so, as I assume that the truth is what we are all searching for, if we don't know it already, and an open mind is usually a healthy mind. I have learned that garbage in always equals garbage out, and that facts, undeniable touchable hands on true facts, are all that should count if history is to reveal the truth to later generations. Speculation is fine, without it we may not reach some as yet unknown facts. Speculation can be part of a truth seeking process, but those who flowingly spout speculation, claiming it to be undeniable touchable hands on true facts, with zero proof of such, are wrong to do so. I know who they are, you know who they are, and they know who they are. I'm long removed from those who continually accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being agents, fakes or whatever. That's the land of paranoia, and I wish to be no part of that lame brained nonsense. Duncan thank you duncan for the reply, but doug horne's book is not all what you call speculation, it is documented ...so it is certainly to be read and studied very seriously by those who are interested in staying up to date..imo...take care b..p.s yes i agree there is much and more today seemingly garbage in and garbage out though i really doubt we are thinking of the same people but that's imo...b

Body of Lies: The CIA's involvement with US film-making | Film | The Guardian Sunday, December 27, 2009 6:10 PMTo: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/nov/14...er-ridley-scott thanks frog..b

I have no idea why I am being referenced by Burton. I have not called anyone here a xxxx. I may have called Marina Oswald a xxxx, but she is a historical figure and not a member of this group. I have just read a posting by Lamson in which he calls Dr. Fetzer a village idiot. Is that permissible? Jack Evan a couple of questions for a moderator why is Craig Lamson allowed to call Jack a moron in his latest post 451 i believe it is..or is his nasty bad habit of callling derogatory names to be allowed all through this thread as they have been allowed through many others..also if and for fos it is fair the mods are allowed their opinions also, are they not to be none biased seeing they are moderators..thanks..b

Bill Kelly i think you were wanting these unless you have by now found them best b..the npic board studies what's available at m/fs they are in the Rockefeller studies...NARA Record Number: 178-10002-10376 NPIC ANALYSIS OF ZAPRUDER FILMING OF JFK ASSASSINATION http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=1 b..

Thank you, Ms. Moore. This was much more interesting than reading the usual back-and-forth crapping between the (alleged) two opposition parties here. "(5) Finally, and pehaps most important, seven (7) out of seven (7) Hollywood film professionals who have examined the HD and 6K scans of the individual frames of the Zapruder film 35 mm dupe negative (obtained from the National Archives) have declared the image content to have been altered: they are of the unanimous opinion that the back of JFK's head in the images---from frame 313 through 337---has been blacked out, i.e., obscured by artwork. Their opinions trump those of anyone in the research community who has not been to film school, and who has not worked in the post-production of motion picture films. I published two illustrations of frame 317 to illustrate this point, but due to the limitations of the printing plant I employed, my book only contains black and white illustrations on non-glossy paper; therfore, the resolution of these two illustrations of frame 317 is not all that I would wish. The color HD and 6K scans of the blacked-out back of the head (particularly frames 313, 317, 321, and 323) are truly stunning, when viewed on high-definition monitors; at the appropriate time in 2010, there will be a public rollout of these images by the Hollywood research group, and the world will be stunned. Seeing is believing, and when these images are publicly released, all of those who have minds open to evidence will understand, and believe, that the extant Zapruder film's image content has been tampered with, to obscure the exit wound behind President Kennedy's right ear seen by the Dallas doctors and nurses at Parkland hospital.... "So...everyone interested in this debate should take a deep breath, relax, and await further developments." quote The color HD and 6K scans of the blacked-out back of the head (particularly frames 313, 317, 321, and 323) are truly stunning, when viewed on high-definition monitors; at the appropriate time in 2010, there will be a public rollout of these images by the Hollywood research group, and the world will be stunned. Seeing is believing, and when these images are publicly released, all of those who have minds open to evidence will understand, and believe, that the extant Zapruder film's image content has been tampered with, to obscure the exit wound behind President Kennedy's right ear seen by the Dallas doctors and nurses at Parkland hospital.... "So...everyone interested in this debate should take a deep breath, relax, and await further developments." your very welcome daniel..thank you for your input i have seen the blackouts in some frames myself in the past as presented by others on the web, and i fully agree just wait and see what's coming..those who stay up on all that is will be able to keep up and take part and those who wish not to then after not doing so..they spout off..well who is going to bother reading let alone listen not i .nor many others..it's like they will and are cutting their noses off to spite their faces and or forums..that's the fall back manys a time...take care best b...

Hi Duncan and a very merry season to you and yours...now i realize you have not released your findings in a book up till the present time.that others can pick apart looking for errors instead of information that is of value....but are you not being somewhat too harsh here i take it after what john posted and you replied your meaning may be that a possible error by Doug warrants not reading his valued information set out in 5 books after 12 years of deep study and over 3 years of being involved with the arrb...huh...i hope i have this wrong on your mind set here..i recall some terribly harsh times that you went through particularly for months on end at lancer re your pergolaman studies..as well as others..you set forth..even through all some still stood by you..when the errors were shown their attitude was not yours..to simply throw you and your work aside...i am surprised you seem to have so easily forgotten those times...and lessons learnt..that dragged on and on....as others presented harshly their found errors within..your work .in return and continually..trashing your honest efforts...is it pay back now perhaps on some one who was not involved i hate to even suggest that as that is not the man i knew...as each error was revealed within your work..there were some who felt that the basics of your work had merit in the studies of the alterations and conspiracys that you so fully believed in ..Idid KNOW YOU AND I KNOW YOU DO NOT HAVE A SHORT MEMORY...sorry caps...what you suggest now is throwing the baby out with the bathwater...that as we know never pans out...there is much extremely valuable information within doug's valuable set of books...If one wants to stay up on the most recent information available so they can at least follow along on the forums..and perhaps contribute..and they will not be wearing blinders they will avail themselves of the information, if not.. then it is their sorry loss...do you not think even the .LNRS are not, have not and will not be reading such, not all but so many are and will be..do not be behind any of you peoples out there....read get up to date and join in..this all is a very fascinating study the latest do not leave yourselves in the dark...why now would anyone want to is beyond me and stay out of the latest after 46 years and wear blinders makes absolutely no sense...imo..always remember all that what goes around comes around none are infallible so watch your step your next error that is pointed out may be the harshest coming back..we all make them i have made zillions and i will continue..so do you who are reading this, if not you are not human... all take care and thanks for your time..best b..all chin up...carry on...

http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/ Doug Horne replies to Gary Mack..b

merry christmas Especially for Bill Kelly, sent and with permission to post as well on Bill's site from David Lifton... his ''PIG ON A LEASH'' from TGZFH....His experiences with the Zapruder film... he wished a merry christmas to all...P.S.Bernice, Attached find the latest version of PIG ON A LEASH, which was published in the Fetzer anthology (2nd edition, I believe); 2003 b.. p.s he did not have any further time to spend on it..so he said there may be some spelling editing errors within..fine by moi...nothing serious have i found...so keepthat in mind we can live with them.....thanks again David...much appreciated... b..

Sorry Bill the original copy i was sent run off on a copy machine appears no better if not worse...B

I KNOW OF NO LINK BILL...IS THIS THE ONE YOU NEED. .B Hey, That's It! Tree Frog sent around an old article from a decade ago and I told him I'd update it but I want to post a photo to go with the update, and that's the pix, but can I get a more clear copy? You are the Busy Beaver B, Thanks for all your help, You don't have time to stop to argue, BK I think that's it Bill it is the upper half of two together if i recall neither very good more than likely from the newspaper which you do not have too much luck with not like the printed word but i will have another look...busy time of year and if you stay busy enough i figure you might stay out of trouble, well sometimes...ha.. best b..

I KNOW OF NO LINK BILL...IS THIS THE ONE YOU NEED. .B