Brad Milch

An admirable & honorable request, Mark. However, when it comes to GM, some view him as a person who wouldn't respond to such a petition. Darnell & Couch, if still alive, could tell us more. They surely shared their assassination experiences with people they knew. They shot the films we are analyzing, they would know what's real, what's not & what's missing. Family, friends & associates might know some of their story. I do respect GM's right to opinions (as I do all EF members). He seems to push 'Oswald did it' in the TV documentaries & YouTube videos. Like me, he wasn't there. BM

I can foresee Darnell's TSBD entrance film being added to the list of suspected visual victims of alteration. It looks like he may have captured something in regards to Officer Baker & PM that was cut out of his film. That possibility, in itself, will add fuel to the fire that the assassination was being directed by 'Conspiracy Central' personnel; why would Dallas local or national TV news directors monkey around with news film footage of a police officer & spectators responding to the shooting immediately after the crime occurred? One answer is Double Jeopardy: one can't broadcast on TV images of a person innocently standing at the TSBD entrance while also broadcasting accusations that the same person is at the same time a Presidential shooter 6 floors above the same building . Not even Scotty or Spock could beam someone that fast. Initial & subsequent TV broadcasts of Darnell's film might tell us more; it might even produce what was spliced out. I also see the seeds being planted as to why Oswald left the TSBD & armed himself. For those who don't see it yet, here's a hint: (for the sake of argument, PM = LHO). LHO either knows something about the ambush or doesn't. After the shots are fired, a motorcycle officer runs towards him at the TSBD entrance with the officer's gun drawn. LHO believes he is about to be shot. LHO ducks inside the TSBD & Baker/Truly pursue him. LHO evades both & gets out of Dodge & arms himself, believing the police want to kill him. I'm open to a lot of possibilities of what actually happened at the TSBD entrance following the ambush, who was there, who did what in regards to Officer Baker & Truly & how each entered the TSBD. The official WC story smells. BM

This subject thread should really start to cook when Robert Mady gets in here with his 4 shot model; the shooters firing from the pergola (behind it, on top of it, inside either or both shelters, in front of it or a combo of those locations are the 5 possibilities of shooter locations at the pergola). Other rear or side attackers analysts will direct the line of fire from a shooter (or shooters) back to the TSBD, Dal-Tex, Records, County Courts, Federal Annex buildings, South pergola, SS follow-up car or the Elm Street sidewalk. Forward & side attackers analysts will go with the 3 street storm drains, South pergola & knoll, corner of the TUP (top to pedestrian sidewalk enclosure) & the North stockade fence or the rail yards behind it that contained several Pullman train cars connected together & a tall railroad signal lights tower. When those analysts join the thread with their viewpoints, what's cooking should reach the boiling stage (lol). I love threads like this one, I take a lot of notes & stay out of the crossfire as best I can. It's a great thread for those absorbing the 'Oswald leaving the TSBD' thread to also absorb. If LHO is Prayerman at the TSBD front entrance in the Darnell film, that means someone else shot JFK & John Connally. This thread will help us understand where the shooter of John Connally was positioned. BM

That's spot on, Randy. I've noticed that the TV media will briefly focus on a wrongly convicted felon whose conviction is overturned & set free but not focus on evidence indicating Lee Oswald was not JFK's killer. 'Doing the right thing' doesn't seem to apply to the media shunning researchers & analysts re-evaluating the allegations made against LHO, does it? One of the frustrating things for me is all those people that were present in Dealey Plaza (seen in photographs & films) not being heard in the 51 years since the crime. Surely some of them were married & had family & friends that they shared their experiences with. Where are those people's voices? Why aren't they using the Internet to get what they know out to the global public? Equally frustrating are certain people acting as 'voices' for people that were personally involved in the JFK murder story in some fashion. In witness interviews, these people usually lead the narrative, don't ask the pertinent questions that could help solve the case & slip in their own factoids that muddy the water when circulated. I do wish Robert Prudhomme well on his witness hunt & will follow his progress here at EF. We all stand to learn from what he uncovers. Unfortunately, if the wrong people get to the witnesses first, we'll learn nothing. Blogs, email & EF are excellent avenues for someone who knows something about this case to communicate with those interested in determining the truth vs. those with agendas to deceive. It's easy to become an EF member & talk to the global public (while maintaining personal privacy) if actual JFK ambush witnesses desire to. There's enough evidence in this thread to counter the public brainwashing that LHO shot & killed JFK solo & justify a reassessment of LHO's role in the ambush that claimed the life of President Kennedy. It's the right thing to do if LHO wasn't JFK's killer. A salute to all the diligent researchers courageous enough to present it here at EF & to EF for getting the story out. At the moment, questions are piling up in my mind. Is it possible that the barrel or scope of a rifle that witnesses claimed they saw in the sniper's nest was the extended lens of a telephoto camera; a 'pipe looking thing'? BM

There's a glaring & frustrating absence of witness observations from the Dal-Tex, Records, County Courts, Courthouse & Federal Annex Buildings as well as sidewalk spectators in this case, isn't there, Robert? One can see them in photos & amateur films hanging out windows & lining the sidewalks & ponder who they were, what they saw & how so many reporters on the scene managed to let them slip through their collective fingers (these include Dan Rather, Hugh Aynesworth, Pierce Allman & more). Dave Wiegman ran past a small group of black women & men near the R.L. Thornton freeway sign that have never been heard from so as to focus on the Hestors on the pergola grass that he never asked a single question of. Most, if not all, of the 3rd person statements read pretty much identical (as if the same person wrote them). Some have speculated that they were prepared in advance of the crime or quickly afterwards. In retrospect, it wouldn't have taken that many officers to 'hold everything secure'. The middle section of the plaza would have contained most witnesses if they had been marshaled there & not allowed to wander off. We all saw how many bodies could be crammed in that area during the JFK 50th TV coverage. Good luck, Robert. What you learn & tell us will probably be news to most, if not all of us. BM

Hi, Robert & all others Whether Intel or not, I can understand Lee Oswald ducking inside the TSBD doorway to escape Darnell's camera pointed at him from one of the motorcade news cars (if Prayerman is LHO). The longer he stayed outside, the more film could be taken of him. I'm no Intel, but I do understand camera shyness. I've ducked away from cameras countless times in my life. Darnell's original film may resolve the question of LHO being Prayerman or not. What we are seeing is the product of multi-generation copies & difficult for image enhancers to work with. The original is what is needed to clarify. Other photographers may have captured Prayerman. These would include Tina Towner, her father Jim Towner, Hugh Betzner, Phil Willis, Mark Bell, Robert Hughes & Jay Skaggs. I understand (via her website info) that Tina donated the copywrite to her film to the 6th Floor Museum. The John Martin, Orville Nix, Mary Muchmore, Tina Towner (Pender), Mark Bell & Robert Hughes films have all been accused of being the victims of butcher jobs (scenes cut out or modified with image paint via an optical printer; or both). If Prayerman was LHO & was taking film in the TSBD entranceway , I can't help but wonder if LHO was told to take his camera & film to the Texas theatre & meet a person with a match to the box top he was carrying when arrested. Being the hot potato LHO became after his arrest & murder, I doubt anyone who may have seen him inside the TSBD doorway or been inside when he came in would ever admit it (if they wanted to stay alive). I agree with Greg Parker; I believe Prayerman beat both Baker & Truly inside. Darnell's small amount of post-ambush film footage may turn out to be the most valuable footage taken during the entire event. This is a super great thread. It's packed with info. BM

Hi Greg: Thank you for the info. At the rate I'm going I should have the entire thread digested by the end of next week. From your info it's obvious a lot of serious thought was shared by the participants. Best, BM

I wasn't an EF member when this thread originally made its run & I am way back around page 22 in catching up. Not knowing just yet what is contained within the pages I haven't read yet & here, I'd like to offer some observations (just in case no one else has): Prayerman is either wearing a short sleeve dark shirt or a long sleeve dark shirt with the arm sleeves rolled up to or above both elbows. I haven't seen a watch or rings on the person but I do see what looks like a typical soft drink bottle in his right hand. His stance resembles someone holding a camera & waiting to take photos with it. If Prayerman is Lee Oswald, is it possible that he went to see Marina on Thursday, Nov 21, 1963 to get his camera to snap a photo or 2 of JFK turning the corner at the intersection directly in front of the TSBD? Marina surely would have been impressed with such a close-up view of JFK & Jackie (a lot of married men will attest that an impressed spouse often leads to a trip to Nookieville; trips that often become rarer the longer time passes in some relationships). Wasn't Oswald's camera missing when police searched Ruth Paine's home? If Lee Oswald was taking photos just prior to the ambush, what happened to his camera & the film he took? Was it left at his rooming house? Was a co-worker asked to hang onto it for him? Was it given to a Intel 'handler'?Was it left in the TSBD? Did police find it & confiscate it? Where is it & the film now? For those who view Mr. Oswald as instrument of some government(s) Intel, instructing him to take photos of the President & First Lady as they pass his work building seems a normal assignment. No one has suggested the possibility of a Oswald clone 'look-alike' in the early part of this thread being Prayerman. Purpose of the clone? Perhaps to offer an alibi for LHO (if he had been upstairs shooting at or in position to shoot at JFK). In the Darnell-Couch stabilized & combined footage Gif constructed by Gerda Dunkle (page 16 of this thread) someone is running towards the TSBD from the left side of the red brick road extension towards the TSBD entrance (west to east) at the same time Baker is sprinting towards the front door. It almost looks like the person is chasing after Baker. Someone in a dark suit or uniform is rapidly moving west by the parked cars while the rest ensues. This person may have been the officer that encountered the fake SS man behind the stockade fence. If Prayerman is indeed Oswald and he followed Baker & Truly into the building, what could that reason have been (if possession of a soft drink had been previously obtained)? Could Prayerman have been attempting to tell Baker/Truly that the shooting occurred outside the TSBD & NOT inside? Was a consensus reached in this thread in regards to Prayerman being Lee Oswald or not? Won't it be a kick in the pants if it turns out Lee Oswald really did shoot JFK....not with a rifle, but a camera. BM

That's reasonable explanations, Mr. Mady. Some may feel Hoover's boys were already setting things in motion just prior to Connally's hospital interview when the FBI/SS/Dallas DPD & local media began the film re-enactments. Life magazine was dictating what happened in its Nov 29, 1963 issue (containing select Z-film frames in glorious fuzzy black & white). We will have to see what other commenters bring to your table. I, for one, am not very good at deciphering when a politician, elected official, law enforcement agency or other type person is lying. I was one of those who believed Susan Smith's TV story that someone had hijacked her car & abducted her sons. I watched two highly publicized trials in which the accused were set free when I was certain both were guilty of murder. Sometimes giving someone the benefit of the doubt is mistaken for weakness. Back in the day, a popular way to tell when the public was being lied to was to watch the mouth of the person speaking on TV. If the mouth was moving & words were coming out of it there was a good chance that person was lying to the public (lol). Your thread began with deconstructing the lies. If others are as gullible as me when it comes to de-coding official lies, a little help from your friends might bring things in focus a bit better. I hope that will be their intentions when climbing aboard your train. From what I've learned from you thus far, it appears the lying about this crime began just minutes after the sound of the gunshots faded out & has never really subsided in the 51 years since. As I said before, people globally detest being lied to & almost always seek out a truthful answer. Let us know when your website is operational & where it can be found on the Internet so that those that believe in you can support it by visiting it & informing others about it. Ditto for your book. I predict it will be a blockbuster; it may even motivate a JFK II movie? BM

I agree with Ian. I expect others to take Robert Mady's 4 shot model & address associated concerns & questions with it. For instance: There is still a cloud of mystery hanging over Hoover's initial analysis of the shooting & explanation of it to LBJ in their phone calls (visually depicted in WCD 298), the creation of the WC to give its collective ok to Hoover's report (explained by LBJ in LBJ's phone calls to Hoover & Senator Russell) & the dramatic turn the WC took with adopting the SBT & publishing it as their answer to how the shooting went down. Also, since the WC was created to 'rubber stamp' Hoover's FBI Report of the assassination, why is the FBI Report of the assassination NOT in the WC Report? Some questions: (1) Didn't the WC's SBT make Hoover's assassination report look incompetent? It's well established that Hoover & LBJ were personal fiends; why was LBJ not intervening in his WC making Hoover look bad? (2) When John Connally went public with his disagreement with the SBT, was he supporting Hoover's Report or LBJ (or both)? Both were friends with LBJ. Was Connally trying to distance LBJ (or Hoover) from the WC without making LBJ look bad for creating the WC? Was Connally distancing himself from LBJ (he later in life changed parties to being a Republican, remember?) Was this even necessary? If the WC was 'biting the hand that created it' (LBJ) with the SBT, why didn't LBJ (WC creator) put a stop to it? What the heck was going on & why wasn't Hoover defending his initial Report? Some speculations on why JBC was targeted in the ambush: (1) To hide LBJ's involvement in the assassination (LBJ would NEVER shoot his loyalist friend, John Connally, correct?) Did Connally know something that LBJ was afraid would get him caught? (2) The shooters mistook Connally for LBJ (3) Oswald revenge motive for John Connally signing his dishonorable discharge (Nellie Connally suggested this motive in a 2003 Larry King Live interview). That's all I can think of at the moment. There's more. If Robert Mady doesn't explore those topics, I'm sure others will run with Robert's research, expand on it & discuss their conclusions here at EF. That's worth waiting for! BM

That's a relief to hear, Robert. I'd be the last person on earth to purposely anger you in any way. Your tenacity & thought put into your analysis in remarkable & admirable. I expect any week to hear you being interviewed by Len Osanic on his Black Ops Radio show. Len keeps a keen eye out for sharp researchers that offer an explanation to the JFK murder that makes sense. I hope he finds room to feature Robert Prudhomme & Chris Davidson too. Like Jon, I have no faith in the z-film. None. Nada. Not after all the rabbit holes it traveled through from time of filming until the public got to see it in motion. I believe Doug Horne's Hawkeye works alteration analysis has killed off any trust in that film. That makes it difficult to figure out exactly what happened to JBC. I look at the z-film like I look at the original King Kong movie; if someone can figure out how to make a toy giant ape climb the Empire State Building and swat at bi-wing aircraft on film back in the early 1930's, someone can figure how to disguise what happened to JFK & JBC on Elm Street on film in the early 1960's. As Greg Murr pointed out in another thread, things that Nellie said publicly need to be closely scrutinized these days. The wounding of John Connally is going to be a toughie for any researcher that takes that aspect of the ambush on (JBC wasn't really sure of what had happened to him). They must not lose their sense of balance when working out trajectories from the monument to Elm Street because looking at Elm Street from the pergola is like looking at a kid's slide from the side from an elevated position; the street continuously drops down in elevation & the view from the monument is like looking downward into a giant fish bowl. Old timers like me that were exposed to the initial explanations of JFK's murder (& the twists & turns those explanations took when challenged) that sensed something was amiss early in the game are already on the same page with you, Robert. We're getting a reasonable explanation from you much later in life than when we deserved to get it initially. The younger crowd may not completely understand this. Your biggest challenge will come from a younger generation that missed the WC, HSCA & the MSM TV, radio & print coverage that supported it all. The two worked hand in hand (Operation Mockingbird). A lot of catch up can be obtained by 'newbies' in select YouTube videos & visiting select websites that lay it all out in chronological order & explain what deceptions were/are still being fed to the public (Pat Speer has a good one that does this IMHO). A good background understanding of the key players (Alan Dulles, LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover, select military big shots plus others), secret activities active at the time (Bay Of Pigs disaster, CIA-mafia plots to kill Fidel Castro, US involvement in Southeast Asia), hate activities in the USA (KKK & southern police atrocities), the Civil Rights Movement & FBI response to it (Hoover monitoring MLK, FBI agents letter advising MLK to commit suicide), RFK's war against organized crime, the flow of drugs into the USA in the early 1960's, those informing the nation (Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, Time-Life, Newsweek, New York Times, Washington Post, etc.), Cold War paranoia & arms races, educational institutions denouncing criticism of the WC as 'supporting Communist propaganda', will eventually lead newbies just learning of those (mostly sordid) events to you. Why? Because people hate being lied to. People want the truth & will seek it out. They prove this each year with books they buy, speaking engagements they attend & programs they watch on TV, the websites they visit on the Internet. Here in EF, I strongly urge all visitors to look for & read posts by Robert Prudhomme, Chris Davidson & Robert Mady. All are bringing out JFK assassination information that was distorted, overlooked or otherwise misinterpreted through the years. If there are doubts that Robert Mady's efforts are 'getting through' to the people, step back & take a look at his visitor count. It's always high. A lot of people globally are giving Robert their time & interest while at the same time learning from him. BM

Robert Mady's 4 shot model makes a lot of sense to me on a personal basis: I mentioned before a couple friends of mine visiting Dealey Plaza for our 1st time in 1974. Back then one could drive up to & park behind the pergola. The 1st comment out of our collective mouths was along the lines of, 'Man, this would be a great spot to shoot from! Park a car, van or truck back here & fire through the slots & drive off'. The more we checked the area out the more the monument made sense as a firing platform to us at the time. Then we got out into the street & immediately discovered an apparent line of sight blockage problem between the TSBD sniper's nest, SS car & occupants & JFK when we tried to do our own amateur re-enactment at the z-313 location (not marked with an X at the time). The monument made even more sense to us then. I left the Plaza with that thought in my head & the memory of seeing small red circles on some of the TSBD windows. No one was hawking souvenir periodicals or tour rides. No museum, just an empty looking old TSBD. When good analysis like Robert's comes along what I've seen time & time again is detractors using the known witnesses against the analyst. For instance, detractors would say the 3 fellows on the pergola steps were in the way of a shooter in the shelter behind Zapruder & Sitzman. Or Zapruder/Sitzman were in the way. Or the Hestors, etc. Often they're brazen enough to tell us what a person would have done under certain circumstances: 'Zapruder would have done this or that' if such & such happened near him. Stuff like that. I'm expecting any day now to learn from them if Zapruder had little fire trucks or stripes on his undies. They seem to know all those tiny details, don't they? (lol) I find Robert's analysis of the Connally's movements particularly intriguing. It appears to me that Nellie was holding her yellow roses up over their heads as she & JBC were crouched in their jump seat. I always thought that was pretty cool, rational thinking under the circumstances. Now I'm looking at it differently. For the longest time the analysis of John T. Orr made sense to me (it can be read at Foxnews.com) Orr has Connally's wrist wound being caused by a varmint round exiting JFK's head from a Records Bldg 1 shot, 1 kill shooter. Orr believes the trail left behind by Oswald (backyard photos, trip to Mexico, etc.) was done by Oswald & not any 'handlers'. A lot of people don't buy that. Some of Doug Horne's analysis mirrors what Robert Mady is depicting. There's a lot on the table put there by a lot of people. I probably made Robert mad by mentioning some of it but I'm sure he's aware of the multitude of theories that are 'out there'. Maybe in time he'll go into picking them apart. I haven't seen any reason in what Robert has put up on EF as justifiable to call him out as wrong on anything. His analysis of the news cars & the reporters reactions focusing on the monument has not been presented before. We're all wiser than we were before Robert started showing us things that had been overlooked before. I find his research intriguing. BM

To both Roberts (Mady & Prudhomme): Mr. Prudhomme's photo with the privacy window visible at Love Field is a significant find for a number of reasons. I expect visual analysts that hadn't noticed it before to begin searching the film record of the motorcade & Dealey Plaza ambush to determine if the window was up the entire trip or lowered before the ambush began. If it was up during the ambush, the question arises did it too take a hit from a bullet or fragments of one? Another significant observation from Mr. Prudhomme is the question of was Connally wounded from a shot thru the windshield (if one occurred)? This question hasn't been addressed in any research concerning a shot from the South Knoll & TUP corner thru the windshield that I am aware of; it's always directed at JFK's throat wound or fatal head wound. Connally has never been considered of being victimized from a shooter firing thru the limo windshield before that I know of. If it turns out that the privacy window was lowed just prior to the ambush, you both know what that fuel will do when added to the fire that those who feel the SS agents were 'in on the kill' have built over the years. FWIW, hats off for the important find. I wanted to get my two cents in before the stampede begins to align with or discredit you both. I hope Len Osanic is keeping an eye on your posts & has you both on his radio show soon (along with Chris Davidson, of course!). Sincerely, BM

I can't speak for others, but to me, you & your hard work come across as a realist trying to explain a complex historical crime that has confused people for 51 years. Dishonest spinmasters have created an atmosphere of mistrust. JFK's murder flies in the face of what people hold precious in their beliefs; namely, the good guys triumph over the bad ones & those governing, protecting & informing us have hearts of gold. Realizing that those ideals are fairy tales strengthens the desire for the simple truth; what happened & who was responsible for it? The search for answers that make sense to those basic questions will lead people to realists like yourself, Robert. Your work, perceptions, conclusions & publication of it are all important to someone. Your visitor count tells you that. BM

David Lifton & David Healey have always been a great source for background on the Z-film but, unfortunately, both rarely appear on the Internet much these days. From what I've heard them say in Youtube videos: Bootlegs of the Z-film began popping up on college campuses after Jim Garrison got hold of it during the Clay Shaw trial. Researchers Greg Burnham & Pamela Brown each have stated in the past that they saw a different version of the z-film in separate instances & places. I'm not sure if that qualifies what they saw as bootlegs or not. Groden's version is said to have originated from someone associated with Life magazine having access to the original & blowing it up to 35mm. Robert Groden may have helped in that format conversion (I'm not sure). Someone who knows a lot about Groden's background can fill you in on the details of how he came into possession of a copy of the Z-film & how he hooked up with Geraldo Rivera to broadcast it on TV in 1975. For those who don't know, that broadcast was a big deal. Beta video recorders were just coming out on the market & were very expensive (so were the blank tapes). I was friends with a fella that blew some serious big bucks to buy a recorder just so he could record the Rivera/Groden z-film broadcast. If I'm not mistaken, the National Archives kept the WC's copy of the Z-film & allowed the public to view it at the NA after the WC published its Report & Hearings volumes & disbanded. I recall David Lifton describing visiting the NA to view the z-film copy in either 'Best Evidence' or one of his YouTube videos. From what I've read, the FBI & SS hung onto their copies of the z-film that Mr. Zapruder lent them & did not turn them over to Life magazine. Pat Speer's website should have info on what happened to those copies & when. I believe one ended up with the 6th Floor Museum. Hope that info helps. For those in the know, please make corrections where appropriate. Afterthought: Zapruder's film brings out interesting observations in JFK debate forums. Some have questioned if Zapruder shared the big bucks he received with Marilyn Sitzman or not. She steadied him as he filmed (we've been told). Some believe Zapruder knew the ambush was going down in advance & Sitzman was his body shield to keep him from being another gunshot victim. One analyst on YouTube believes Marilyn was covering Zapruder's ears with her hands (Nix film) & I ran across another visual analysis on the Tube that Marilyn took the footage & not Abraham. Some are suspicious of Zapruder's background & connections with others connected to the assassination in some manner. I've read comments to the effect that Mr. Z could have tripled his bucks by having his lawyer contact the Cuban & Soviet embassies & offering each a copy for sale. It's sad he didn't think of that at the time; both governments (hostile to the USA & vice versa at the time) surely wouldn't have hesitated to expose alterations on the US side of the fence. BM

Wow! Jackie sure doesn't appear to be alone in the back seat, does she? I saw an interview with Geraldo Rivera during the JFK 50th onslaught of 'Oswald did it' MSM TV specials in which Mr. Rivera claims Time-Life threatened to sue him if he broadcast Robert Groden's version of the z-film but didn't carry out the threat after the broadcast aired. Instead, Time-Life dropped the film like a hot potato & sold it back to Zapruder's heirs for one US dollar. I'm with you, Robert, on Hoover having the opportunity to state wherever he pleased the shots had occurred with the z-film locked away with Time-Life. Not that many would travel all the way to the National Archives to view the WC's beat up, fuzzy versionof the z-film back in the day when the public thought Hoover drove a white chariot. A simple matter of marking off at least 40 z-frames to allow time to work the MC bolt, place the traffic cone to mark the spot on Elm Street & 'whamo-zamo', Hoover's boys are done with their analysis. 'Put the strings here, here & here on the 3D model, boys'. Sheez.... BM

Hi Robert Mady: Robert Prudhomme & Chris Davison have some good info & photos of WCD 298 & the surveying that was done when the initial analysis was performed in Dealey Plaza by elements of the FBI/SS/DPD & local media post-assassination here on the EF: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21636 What they both have to say is important because both researchers demonstrate quite clearly that Hoover & Life magazine were both conning the public from the get go. Both had exclusive access to Zapruder's film & they both knew there was no indication in the film that JFK was shot & killed at the pergola sidewalk steps location (the 3rd string in the visual FBI 3D model shown in WCD 298), yet both reported such (Hoover to the WC, Life magazine to the world with its Nov 29, 1963 magazine). Once it is recognized & accepted that Hoover's FBI & Life magazine were lying about the shooting from the onset, the stage is set for those who once possessed blind faith in Hoover's FBI & Life magazine to consider alternative explanations of the ambush & the door opens for what you have studied & concluded IMHO. It also makes clear that the MSM TV specials & newsprint that followed the WC Report & supported its conclusions were continuing what Hoover & Life magazine had started. Exposing the fib is as simple as examining where Life depicts the fatal headshot in its Nov 29, 1963 issue plus looking at where Hoover's 3rd string (fatal headshot) is located in WCD 298 after viewing the Zapruder, Nix & Muchmore films & searching for a fatal headshot at the North pergola sidewalk steps location. It's not present. Hoover & Life employees could both see it's not there as well. Why was Hoover & Life magazine lying about the shooting is another subject. I believe that Oswald as the solo shooter not only had to be sold to & accepted by the public at all costs for 2 reasons: the image of Oswald as a punk drifter with no purpose in life other than to destroy (terrorist) made sense at the time (a Mark Chapman type of loser sells when explaining a senseless murder) but also as a person whose murky background would not be fully investigated & exposed by US officials because it led back to 3 governments (two of them being the USSR & Cuba, both hostile to the USA at the time). Only a select few in Government & the mafia knew of the CIA/Mafia plots to kill Castro & the ongoing attacks on Cuba. Oswald was necessary to the story in order to keep the lid on the kettle's boiling contents. Problem is: the public never really bought it. That's why the interest in JFK's murder is still high after 51 years of 'Oswald did it'. Researchers that focus on the course of action the WC undertook with its SBT allow what Hoover did first to go unnoticed. It should be exposed & not forgotten each step of the way that the head of the FBI at the time was lying to the global public about the shooting & the WC devised a 'better' lie to sell a short time later. As LBJ explained to Hoover on the phone, initially the WC was created to cut off a 'rash of investigations' that would give an ok to Hoover's Report. Hoover's report never made it into the WC Report, but WCD 298 did & it clearly demonstrates Hoover lying about the shooting. Recall some of the Commissioners & staff complaining about Hoover's Report & WCD 298 in that Hoover had done their work for them; something that falls apart when scrutinizing the Zapruder, Nix & Muchmore films. BM

There's a lot on the table for the global public to consider, Robert. Some would say too much on the table; the shooting happened just one way. Someone asked how all of this will lead to who killed JFK. I believe the answer is in Hoover's phone call with LBJ detailing how Oswald committed the crime solo & WCD 298. Both tell us that Hoover was either afraid to be honest with the public for fear of the backlash (causing WWIII?) or the murderers pointed back to the Government of that time in some capacity. Knowing that Hoover's FBI had the Z-film (copy) the night of & the weekend of the assassination there is absolutely no justification in that film for the 3rd string in WCD 298 nor the 29 Nov 1963 issue of Life magazine publishing a photo depicting the pergola sidewalk steps as the location JFK was shot in the head & killed. Both are candidates for interpretation of lies. That's what makes them important & worthy of scrutiny today. How the Government of 1963 reacted to the murder of JFK can lead us directly to who was responsible. If it wasn't a portion of that government, it was a government that was feared at the time. Incidentally, if you've been following the Ferguson police ambush coverage there are many similarities between it & JFK's shooting. Both occurred with a multitude of witnesses near the victims & there is a difference of opinion as to shot origins & trajectory at this point. Some already believe it's an inside job or outside agitators did the shooting (ISIS?). What type & make of weapon(s) hasn't been established yet. Maybe in time you'd go into what is wrong about the 'fringe' analysis. For instance, just to name a few, Doug Horne has your monument shooters behind the stockade fence, one by the corner closest to the pergola steps, the other closer to where the fence meets the TUP. Sherry Fiester, Larry Rivera & others have the kill shooter close to where James Tague was standing. Plenty of rear shooters sales persons abound. Solo 'Oswald did it' cultist abound at aaj. Analyst John Orr reported to Janet Reno back in the day when he was a Justice Department attorney that the 'kill shooter' was on the roof of the Records Bldg. They can't all be right. Your diligent efforts may win over more supporters for you in the long run? I find your analysis intriguing. BM

The proof of what you are saying is looking all those interested in this cold case in the face is WCD 298 & Hoover's white house phone conversation with LBJ, Robert Mady. Keeping in mind that Hoover's explanation to LBJ in their White House phone call ambush discussion does not jive with the z-film, Nix & Muchmore films indicates to those believing you've got what occurred correct that Hoover's analysis (that was given to the WC in the visual form of WCD 298) was not a mistake nor error, but a lie. This means the re-enactment filming done by the FBI/SS & DPD, the surveying, the placement of the shots & WCD 298 were all a charade; there never was anything in the films indicating JFK was shot dead at the pergola steps. This tends to lend weight to non-alterationists believing the z-film was never tampered with in the least. IOW, the public was shafted by Hoover from the very get go. I believe focus needs to stay on WCD 298 & Hoover's phone call with LBJ post-assassination, remembering that they represent Hoover's analysis & explanation of the crime. Hoover's final word on the matter at the time. It would have been the official Government explanation of the assassination shooting sequence had the WC not blown it off as wrong & went the SBT route that it published. Hearing LBJ explaining to Hoover on the phone that the WC was being created to 'rubberstamp' Hoover's report invites one to wonder who convinced LBJ that Hoover's analysis would not stand the test of time & got his blessing to wade into the murky waters of the SBT. It too, hasn't stood the test of time, has it? What's working against you these days is not so much the rear shooter sales persons but those proposing a south knoll shooter. Your analysis does not allow for such a possibility. Are you willing to join forces with those believing such? BM

Hi, Robert Consider this, if you will....According to Clint Hill, JFK was sprawled across the back seat of the limo face up with a portion of the rear of his head lying on the seat. Do you see an avenue open for a monument shooter to fire at JFK in this position, hit him in the throat and the bullet exit out the rear of his head while sprawled across the seat, face up? JFK would not present a target to a TSBD or Dal-Tex shooter sprawled across the back seat but I do believe a monument & adjacent area shooter could see JFK as a target while looking down into the interior of his car from the higher elevation both the pergola & grassy knoll fence are. I'm asking this because WCD 298 and the 3rd string indicating a hit to JFK at the pergola steps keeps nagging at me. Something told Hoover's FBI & those involved in the initial film re-enactments & surveys that JFK was hit in the head at pergola steps. Guided by the z-film I cannot come up with a justification for this analysis other than Hoover's boys & the SS both saw something in the z-film that guided them to place the 3rd shot location traffic cone where it is seen in the re-enactment films (beginning the week of JFK's burial), WCD 298 and also the same place Life magazine reported the headshot in its Nov 29, 1963 issue (there's a photo taken from the 'sniper's nest' with an arrow pointing to the pergola steps as the spot where JFK was shot in the head & killed). I am fighting the obvious alternative here: Hoover's FBI was lying or incompetent at analyzing the shooting with 3 amateur films to guide them. I don't want to believe that alternative. Perhaps what initial analysts saw was cut out of the z-film & that's how the jump in JBC & Nellie's positions was created? WCD 298 suggests to me the z-film was monkeyed with post-Hoover analysis that led to the creation of WCD 298 and during the life span of the WC. WCD 298 & what Hoover told LBJ about the shooting was swept under the rug much too long by researchers focusing on the WC's SBT instead of the initial Hoover's FBI analysis & conclusions (3 shots, 3 hits, 3rd shot the headshot at the pergola sidewalk steps). It stands to reason that if a monument shooter could look down into the interior of JFK's parade car, see him as a target of opportunity & take a shot or two at JFK sprawled across the back seat, face up, such a gunman might also see JBC as a similar target and shoot down at him also (like shooting fish in a barrel). Your thoughts? BM

A couple of afterthoughts for the Forum to consider: Both Pam Brown & Greg Burnham have publicly stated they saw a version of the z-film that differs from what was released to the public. This places them in an elite group of persons that include Dick Stolley, Dan Rather, Dino Bruglioni & the film people in Dallas that initially processed Zapruder's original and made 3 copies of it. Mr. Burnham & Mrs. Brown's comments on if they saw any indication of JFK being shot in the head at the pergola sidewalk steps (as depicted in WCD 298) would add to this discussion immensely. One primary weakness in Doug Horne's Hawkeyeworks z-film alteration analysis is the fact that Hoover's FBI & Rowley's SS both had original copies of the z-film & the opportunity to view them existed before, during & after the alleged Hawkeye alteration. When the SS/FBI re-enactment filming began the week after the assassination it's obvious by the placement of the 3rd traffic cone (indicating the final shot) at the base of the pergola steps that something was viewed in the z-film that indicated JFK was shot in the head & killed at that spot and not at z-313. Viewers of said reenactment films can actually see DPD Lt. Day placing the 3rd cone exactly where the 3rd string in WCD 298 is placed. These actions tend to give weight to the side of the scale suggesting something was visible to initial government investigators in the z-film that was since removed over the scale suggesting Hoover's FBI was lying or mistaken about the 3rd shot. When attention is diverted away from WCD 298 & the work that went into creating it & starts with the SBT a great disservice is done to the public & the history of the crime because Hoover's analysis gets forgotten about. The importance of Hoover's WCD 298 analysis to understanding the government's reaction to the crime & how they went about explaining it to the public cannot be over emphasized. BM

Hi, Lawrence: I'm focusing on the 3rd string on the FBI 3D model (WCD 298). Where in the Zapruder, Nix & Muchmore films does it indicate a headshot to JFK at the pergola sidewalk steps? Keep in mind, Life magazine posted a photo from the sniper's nest also indicating the pergola sidewalk steps as the place JFK was shot & killed in its' Nov 29, 1963 magazine. Life had the z-film under its belt. It should know what went down, right? The question for today's researchers and interested persons to answer is 'what led the FBI & Life Magazine to determine JFK had been shot in the head in the vicinity of the pergola steps and not at Z-313 (demonstrated visually by WCD 298 & Life magazine dated 29 November, 1963)'? The Z-film seen by the public clearly shows JFK's head exploding at Z-313 & the unfortunate victim falling out of sight across the back seat & no longer a visible target to a sniper's nest shooter immediately after the head explosion or at the pergola steps. What led both Life Magazine & the FBI to determine JFK not only was a visible target to a sniper's nest shooter at the pergola sidewalk steps but also that he was struck in the head & killed there? What evidence was the FBI relying on to make their determination of the 3rd shot visually demonstrated in their 3D model by the 3rd string (if not the Z-film, Nix & Muchmore films)? If one visualizes a funnel in Hoover's mouth & all bullets, fragments & weapons collected in the ambush dropped into the funnel, it becomes clear that it was at Hoover's discretion what to spit out into the trash can, what to spit out on the table for all to see & what to destroy & replace with false evidence. If one agrees with Doug Horne's analysis that the Z-film original was altered the assassination weekend, the 3D FBI model suggests additional alteration was performed during the life span of the WC. Something obviously was still in the z-film that was missed by Horne's Hawkeyeworks alterationists that convinced Hoover's FBI & Life magazine that JFK was shot further down Elm St. from z-313 that has since been removed from the z-film seen by the global public. If one rejects Horne's analysis, WCD 298 suggests the z-film was initially altered during the life span of the WC. It's either that or the FBI was lying about the headshot location (WCD 298 3D model 3rd string). WCD 298 is the most important visual in the WC Report, IMHO. What Hoover's FBI initially determined how the ambush went down (and what Hoover was relaying to his buddy, LBJ on the phone) got swept under the rug by the HSCA. Diligent researchers today should focus on it & ask the questions contained within this comment. WCD 298 is the culmination of the re-enactment filming & surveying that took place in Dealey Plaza the week of JFK's funeral and also the 1st week of December, 1963. It's a visual depiction of what Hoover was explaining to LBJ in their released white house phone conversation the week the WC was created. It was the initial & closest analysis of the crime aided by Zapruder's big buck film. It was done by FBI & SS pros that had been performing crime scene analysis before a lot of folks were born or wearing diapers. The fragments allegedly 'found' in the limo supports the Bugliosi argument that the 'Oswald weapon' had to have been used in the ambush because of the 'found' fragments. This requires 'blind faith' in the chain of custody, the persons within that chain & the validity of their 'evidence'. Where do these fragments tell the FBI, Life magazine & an interested global public that they resulted from a rifle shot to JFK's head at the pergola sidewalk steps? What evidence proves that determination? Where in the Z-film, Nix film & Muchmore film does one see JFK receiving a bullet wound to his head at the pergola sidewalk steps location? If the films don't indicate this (they don't), what evidence does? What evidence justified the 3rd string in WCD 298? Robert Prudhomme has already demonstrated in his thread that the FBI lied about the Oswald weapon hitting near & far targets the same high & right measurements. WCD 298 demonstrates the FBI saw something in the z-film that no longer exists or was lying about the shot locations. I expect any week now the researcher(s) that tackles the significance of WCD 298 & the reason for the absence of the Queen Mary & occupants simulated in attack re-enactments to appear in interviews on Len Osanic's Black Op Radio show. Such research may be the closest to the truth the public will ever see. BM

Hi Roger, Some living witnesses that come to mind that may shed some light on the van & panel truck in question include Tina Towner (Pender), Buell Wesley Frazier, Rosemary Willis, Pierce Allman & Hugh Aynesworth (claims to have been at the corner of Houston & Elm Streets before, during & after the ambush of JFK) & others near the vicinity of the vehicles not mentioned. It would be interesting for all interested in this story to know how long the van had been parked near the Elm Street intersection prior to the attack on JFK, when it left the scene & what activity occurred in & around it during its time on Elm Street. Perhaps someone associated with any of known, factual witnesses can ask them about the vehicles & tell us their responses (if they don't do it themselves). I've wondered if the van was used in the ambush to transport persons into or out of the area, jam police communications, if the initial info on Oswald's address was disseminated to DPD from the van or if the van was associated with Zapruder's garment business. Some have speculated the unknown Dal-Tex fire escape ladder man & the epileptic seizure person originated from the van. It would have been in a less conspicuous place had it been parked in that small area between the TSBD & the Dal-Tex or behind the buildings. Perhaps it was where it was photographed to allow for a quick getaway? Your topic is a reminder that, even after 51 years & a mountain of government investigations & reports, books, magazines, newsprint, TV & radio specials & commentary, educational speaking engagements & the increased discussion of JFK's murder on the Internet, there's still territory that hasn't been fully explored & presented to the global public in the JFK murder case. Brad Milch

Hi Greg Your post #9 triggered a memory of a heated discussion I read on one of the competing JFK forums not long ago (aaj?) concerning Mr. Mack. Seems someone took the time to add up his museum salary & estimated what he pocketed from the several TV specials pushing the LN case Mack participated in & concluded Gary Mack had joined the millionaire's club. That was compared to the chump change Lee Oswald carried on him when arrested. The conclusion was that Mack had fared far better post-assassination than did Mr. Oswald. Both have been accused over time of being instruments of the 'dark side'. BM

Hi, Ian: I agree. Hoover never backed away from his 3 shots, 3 hits analysis. One can almost visualize him explaining the ambush to LBJ with a pointer pointing to the 3 strings in the 3D model when listening to the released Hoover-LBJ phone calls post-ambush. What has gotten lost in the decades after the assassination is that Hoover's FBI, elements of the SS & the media were the initial investigators closest to the crime itself. They had access to the ambush site, the z-film & other evidence the public did not (the Queen Mary being one example of such 'other' evidence). One will notice in the Nov 29, 1963 issue of Life, that magazine also indicates the pergola steps as the point on Elm Street where JFK was shot in the head & killed as he was near that location in his parade car. MSM was backing Government investigators & analysts from the get go. People that read that magazine & watched the CBS TV news specials that followed the release of the WC Report are still alive & remember what they were told; others born later can access that info on the Internet easily. WCD 298 represents the work performed to measure Dealey Plaza, one of the cars involved in the ambush (Queen Mary) & line of sight from alleged shooter (sniper's nest), photographers present during the attack, etc. The 3D model represents the visual output of all that input just described. It's either a visual truth or a lie. If it's the truth, how did those initial analysts justify each of those 3 strings indicating shot hits in the 3D model? IMHO, this is where a majority of analysts steer themselves into trouble by veering away from WCD 298 & what it indicates by starting their own analysis from scratch. WCD 298 & what it depicts should always be the starting point because of what it tells a viewer the initial analysts had determined had happened on Elm Street 51 years ago, at a time when the evidence that visual is based on was supposedly in its virgin, untampered state of being. The challenge today is to justify the existence of the 3 strings on the 3D model with the evidence that justified each of them being represented on that Government visual display. As previously noted, the z-film indicates JFK was shot in the head at z-313 & fell across the back seat of his parade car a few frames later, out of sight to a TSBD 'sniper's nest' shooter. The Nix film shows the JFK parade car pulling away from the Queen Mary tailgating it by the end of the North pergola retaining wall with JFK out of sight before the car reaches the sidewalk steps. Where is the evidence that JFK was a visible target to a TSBD 'sniper's nest' shooter & was struck in his head & killed by such at the sidewalk steps location? BM