Jack White

Glenn: "(3) Several researchers have witnessed this film, in person."

In order to even begin this thread we should know who these "several researchers" are, and certainly we need to know the name of the person who was doing the filming.

Steve,

As named by Jack White, below.

Jack,

Well, this doesn't have anything to do with me. Would you not agree that the question of why this "other" film is not a subject of research - at least as far as I'm aware - is peculiar? Considering the claimed contents of this film, I find this very odd. The Z-film has rendered a mountain of research, the other film - none?

Dean

So what's stopping this 'other researcher' from stepping forward?

I do not understand the question.

Jack

PS

On second thought, I guess you mean people like you and me. Only 6 or 7 people claim to have

seen the other film. After they realized it was NOT the Z film, they DID research to whatever extent

possible to determine what it was they saw. However, it was years later, and the trails were cold.

The important things are:

1. None was aware of the stories of the others, and came forward independently.

2. All said the film was superior in quality to the Z film.

3. All said the film showed the limo turning the corner.

4. All said the film showed the limo coming to a stop.

5. All said the film was from the same OR ALMOST SAME viewpoint as Zapruder.

That is everything we know. Where do we go from there?

One other thing...William Reymond said he was told that the film he saw several

times WAS THE H.L. HUNT COPY OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM. However, this is just

hearsay, since the film he described matches "the other film."

One might say all 6 persons were mistaken. The odds of that?

As for the researcher that DellaRosa told a more complete version to, the answer

lies with whatever the agreement was between Rich and that person.

Jack

You must be new to this. Those who viewed the other film have been discussed for many years. From memory:

Rich DellaRosa...viewed numerous times under classified circumstances.

William Reymond...viewed numerous times courtesy of former intelligence agent.

Dan Marvin...viewed as a CIA training film.

Scott Meyer...Dallas researcher.

Milicent Cranor...saw it at a TV network.

Gregory Burnham...member of this forum.

...and I think one more. All of them reported:

LIMO TURNING CORNER FROM HOUSTON TO ELM

LIMO COMING TO STOP FOR ABOUT TWO SECONDS

Jack

The error has not been fixed.

.My image that I uploaded will not post.

Read what Dr. Mantik says.

Jack

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

No, I did not say that. I said last year that I had hundreds of books relating to the JFK assassination and I had read about 12 of them cover to cover. I have skimmed them all and I read selected passages and key chapters of them.

For about 3 years I have studied the JFK assassination intensively. I have read a lot of the best stuff online, not in a book. I read a lot of the new stuff: LBJ: Mastermind of JFK's Assassination, JFK and the Unspeakable, Brothers, etc. Those books are built on 45 years+ of JFK research and you get the best of the old stuff included in them.

The best of the early works has been in is in the new stuff, and the worst of the early works usually gets kicked out and ignored over time. I have Six Seconds in Dallas, but I do not plan on reading the whole thing. And shouldn't that title be 8.5 Seconds in Dallas? See what I mean about the new books being a better use of time?

As for lists of Best Books on the JFK Assassination and Worst Books on the JFK Assassination, for the main part, I have gotten these recommendations from OTHER RESEARCHERS! I just take all their picks, stick them on a list, and rank them according to my personal, subjective preference. When I first started my research, I called about 10 of the most experienced JFK researchers and asked what 10 books I should buy, then I bought them all off Amazon. I spoke to folks like Dawn Meredith, Walt Brown, Ed Tatro, Martin Shackleford just to name a few. I learned the LBJ angle early on.

A lot of times when I see Jim DiEugenio recommend a book I will put it on the list almost automatically; for example JFK: Ordeal in Africa or Battling Wall Street by Gibson. That is one thing Dean Haggerman has not figured out: some of the "best" books on the JFK assassination are books that are not completely about the JFK assassination. There is a tremendous about of critical knowledge in the "tangential" books ... books about Lyndon Johnson, Clint Murchison, H.L. Hunt, John McCloy, James Angleton, GHW Bush, Nelson Rockefeller... books that talk about JFK's foreign policy battles, his battles with Wall Street, books on the Council on Foreign Relations (Perloff) or Bilderberg (Tucker), books that talk about the Kennedy brothers wildly dysfunctional and yes weird personal lives like Heynmann's Bobby and Jackie. I do think it is weird for a guy like RFK, with 10 kids, to be having a torrid affair with Jackie, his own brother's wife. I've been told that this affair began PRE-JFK assassination! The Dark Side of Camelot is another fine book, written by a lone nutter, that gives us tremendous insight into the JFK assassination.

I just recently bought someone's entire JFK collection to add to my already quite signficant one. Included was some rare books like With Malice by lone nutter Meyers and Jesse Curry's JFK Assassination file. I already have Harvey and Lee by Armstrong - a book that I rate half genius and half pure baloney. Many JFK books are like that: great stuff mixed in with crap. You have to read critically.

Reading "Defrauding America" by Rodney Stich and googling "Chip Tatum Pegasus" will give you great insights into the JFK assassination. Because those books are all about the "secret team" the government within the government that Fletcher Prouty and Oliver North have spoken about.

The way I read a book is I underline them and mark them up, writing comments in the margins, putting stars and astericks near key sentences. Dean Haggerman, by contrast, I imagine just stares at his copy of Six Seconds in Dallas over and over again. I am marking up, writing all over Harvey and Lee and Hagerman is just worshipping/staring at Sylvia Meagher book. My JFK books are working copies, not collector's items.

Sometimes in a JFK peripheral book there will be just once sentence that will tell you all you need to know. For example in Clint, there is the anecdote about the usurper President Lyndon Johnson calling his benefactor Clint Murchison in December, 1963, and Clint telling the maid that he can't talk now because he is taking a nap. That shows who has hierarchy. Just one golden nugget that reveals so much.

Or in Kai Bird's book The Chairman on John J. McCloy, there are 2-3 sentences about John J. McCloy going dove hunting with Clint Murchison on Clint's ranch in Mexico in the summer of 1963. Key evidence of the close personal ties of Texas oil men with the PEAK of post WWII US intelligence. Remember that the next time DiEugenio tells you LBJ and Texas oil men had no role in the JFK assassination. They were the largest players - the CIA worked for those guys.

Or Robert Dallek's book Flawed Giant where he recounts the little known, but extremely significant friendship between Lyndon Johnson and Nelson Rockefeller and how LBJ was secretly supporting Nelson Rockefeller for president in spring 1968. I consider that to be of BLOCKBUSTER importance; most JFK researchers have no idea of such close ties between LBJ and the Rockefellers who I think were BOTH involved in the JFK assassination (if Lansdale was, then Allen Dulles was, if Dulles was then Nelson Rockefeller was ... then Henry Kissinger MIGHT have been. Got that?)

Hey, Haggerman, is "Flawed Giant" on your list of JFK books? It ought to be.

So the way I learn about the 1963 Coup d'Etat is that I read broadly, but I rarely read a whole book, especially the older ones; they just are not worth your time. The quality newer ones incorporate the best of the old research. I do recommend a book like History Will Not Absolve Us; it has stuff in there like Castro's speech on 11/23/63 deconstructing the JFK Assassination that NEED to be copied and put on the internet.

I learn by reading a few books, reading the best of many internet articles, skimming and reading selective chapters of many, many books. I will watch videos including Peter Jennings Beyond Conspiracy, which I highly recommend as an example of purely distilled CIA propaganda delivered by Bilderberger/CFR Peter Jennings 40 years post JFK assassination. That is why understanding the role of the Council on Foreign Relations in the JFK murder/cover up is so important; many of the key folks interviewed in that film are CFR members.

By the way, based on my extensively reading and study in the JFK assassination, I do currently NOT think the Zapruder Film has been fabricated or faked. Notice I used the word "currently" because I constantly change/update my views based on new information/analysis.

Basically, Robert Groden has it right, and you Zapruder film alterationists are barking up the wrong tree. Woof woof. That is my *current* take.

Morrow is a book COLLECTOR, not a reader. However, he does read REVIEWS, and judges books by his feelings about the reviewer. Hmmmmm.

Jack

JFK slumped over to his left. Gravity caused the blood to flow down to the left from the head opening.

People should use common sense...if they have any.

Jack

As we've seen, the Newmans and Zapruder, standing on Kennedy's right side, all thought the bullet struck Kennedy on the right side of his head, by his right temple. But they weren't the only witnesses on the right side of Kennedy to note an impact on the side of his head.

The above is better than the below? Really?

i) Dr. Robert McClelland: "The cause of death was due to a massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple," Commission Exhibit 392. [‘Admission Note,’ written 22 Nov 1963 at 4.45 pm, reproduced in WCR572, & 17WCH11-12: cited in Lifton’s Best Evidence, p.55; and Meagher’s Accessories After the Fact, pp.159-160.]

ii) Dr. Marion Jenkins: "I don't know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process," 6WH48. [Cited by Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After The Fact: The Warren Commission, The Authorities, & The Report (New York: Vintage Books, 1992 reprint), p. 40.]

iii) Dr. Robert Shaw: "The third bullet struck the President on the left side of the head in the region of the left temporal region and made a large wound of exit on the right side of the head" [Letter from Dr. Shaw to Larry Ross, "Did Two Gunmen Cut Down Kennedy?", Today (British magazine), 15 February 1964, p.4]

iv) Dr. David Stewart: “This was the finding of all the physicians who were in attendance. There was a small wound in the left front of the President’s head and there was a quite massive wound of exit at the right back side of the head, and it was felt by all the physicians at the time to be a wound of entry which went in the front,” The Joe Dolan (Radio) Show, KNEW (Oakland, California), at 08:15hrs on 10 April 1967. [Harold Weisberg. Selections from Whitewash (NY: Carroll & Graf/Richard Gallen, 1994), pp.331-2.]

It was not only Parkland staff who attested to a left-temple entrance wound.

Entirely independently of them, Father Oscar Huber, upon leaving the hospital after administering the last rites, said precisely that, an observation he reaffirmed in an interview with Shirley Martin in late 1964; and eyewitness Norman Similas told the Toronto Star the same thing on the afternoon of the assassination. The left-temple entrance, as Sylvia Meagher noted in Accessories After the Fact, was in fact plotted by both Humes & Boswell at Bethesda, the former before alteration, the latter after a brief (and aborted) attempt to expand the entrance wound so as to effect a complete, neat, straight reversal of bullet bath (from front-left, rear-right, to vice-versa).

Now why would you want to omit all mention of the above, Pat?

What Paul points out has always been one of the unexplainable mysteries of witness observations which nobody ever followed up.

Jack

Well, what of the third witness, then? Well, in his earliest interviews, Charles Brehm claimed to see Kennedy really get blasted and get knocked down in the car. No mention of an explosion from the back of his head.

I am delighted to remind Herr Speer of the pith of Brehm's original statement:

“Drehm seemed to think the shots came from in front or beside the President. He explained the President did not slump forward as if [sic] he would have after being shot from the rear,”

“President Dead, Connally Shot,” The Dallas Times Herald, 22 November 1963, p.2 [cited by Joachim Joesten. Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy? (London: Merlin Press, 1964), p.176.]

I did like the weaselly reference to Brehm's "earliest interviews," though. Nice one, Pat.

What nonsense, Paul. What "Drehm" "seemed" to think does not relate whatsoever to the point I was making, namely that BREHM did not see an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head.

And I guess you think the term "weaselly" means accurate. Here are Brehm's first statements. WHERE OH WHERE does he say he saw an explosion from the back of the head?

Charles Brehm and his small son Joe were several yards to Moorman’s and Hill’s right and can be seen in the Zapruder, Nix and Moorman films, as well as the Bond photo. (11-22-63 notes on an interview of Brehm by a Dallas Times-Herald reporter immediately after the shooting, as presented in The Zapruder Film by David Wrone, 2003) "The shots came from in front of or beside of the President." (11-22-63 article in the Dallas Times Herald) "The first time he slumped and the second one really blasted him," These were the words of Charles Drehm...Drehm seemed to think the shots came from in front of or beside the President." (11-22-63 (NBC?) radio interview found on the internet) “I happened to be about fifteen feet away from the President when the first shot hit him. There is some discussion now as to whether there was one or two shots that hit him, but the first shot rang out and I was positive when I saw the look on his face and saw him grab his chest and saw the reaction of his wife that he had been shot and just at that time, which was probably a few seconds later the second shot rang out and he just absolutely went down into the seat of the car. There was a third shot that went and by that time I had grabbed my little five year old boy who was with me and ran away from the scene of the thing. But the only thing that I did witness and something I'm sorry I did witness very honestly was the look on his face when that shot hit, and the look again on him and his wife's face when the shots started to ring out. And it was very obviously that he was hit. The first two shots that were heard. The first one hit the president—there was no doubt whatsoever--because his face winced and he grabbed himself and he slumped down. I do believe without any doubt that the second one hit him because he had an immediate reaction with that second shot. I do know there was a third shot but as I said by that time I had grabbed my boy and started to go. I did not witness Governor Connally’s being hit.” (11-22-63 WBAP television interview first broadcast 3:15 CST, as shown in Rush to Judgment) “Unfortunately I was probably 15-20 feet away from the President when it happened…He was coming down the Street and my five-year old boy and myself were by ourselves on the grass there on Commerce Street. And I asked Joe to wave to him and Joe waved and I waved (breaks up)…as he was waving back, the shot rang out and he slumped down in his seat and his wife reached up toward him as he was slumping down and the second shot went off and it just knocked him down in the seat...Two shots..." (When asked if he saw the shooter) "No, sir, I did not see the man who did it. All I did was look in the man's face when he was shot there and saw that expression on his face and he grabbed himself and slide, and the second one whenever it went--I’m positive that it hit him--I hope it didn't--but I'm positive it hit him and he went all the way down in the car. Then they speeded up and I didn't know what was going on so I just grabbed the boy and fell on him in hopes that there wasn't a maniac around.” (11-23-63 UPI article found in the Fresno Bee) “He was waving and the first shot hit him, and then that awful look crossed his face,” Brehm said.” (11-25-63 FBI report, 22H837-838) ‘‘He and his son stood right at the curb on the grass and saw the President’s car take a wide swing as it turned left into Elm Street. When the President’s automobile was very close to him and he could see the President’s face very well, the President was seated, but was leaning forward when he stiffened perceptibly, at the same instant what appeared to be a rifle shot sounded. According to Brehm, the President seemed to stiffen and come to a pause when another shot sounded and the President appeared to be badly hit in the head. Brehm said when the President was hit by the second shot, he could notice the President’s hair fly up and then roll over to his side, as Mrs. Kennedy was apparently pulling him in that direction. Brehm said that a third shot followed and that all three shots were relatively close together. Brehm stated that he was in military service and has had experience with bolt-action rifles and he expressed his opinion that the three shots were fired just about as quickly as an individual can maneuver a bolt-action rifle, take aim, and fire three shots. Brehm stated he definitely knew that the President had been shot and he recalled having seen blood on the President's face. He also stated that it seemed quite apparent to him that the shots came from one of two buildings back at the corner of Elm and Houston Streets. Immediately after the third shot rang out, Brehm pushed his son down on the grass and for the moment was more concerned with the safety of his son who might be hit by any wild gunfire which might follow. Brehm expressed the opinion that between the first and third shots, the president’s car only traveled some 10 to 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the president was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway underpass.”

Speer accelerates his ever diminishing credibility!

My responses in italics.

SPEER: What crud. You can bet dollars to donuts these are not exact quotes from Bill Newman, but Jack's quite possibly skewed recollections of what Newman said. I've read a number of statements by Newman, and have viewed a number of interviews. And he has NEVER said the Zapruder film is at odds with what he saw, at least ON THE RECORD. If you think he has, please find it. If you think he will, please track him down and get him to put something in writing. It is also beyond offensive that here you are suddenly claiming Newman as a highly credible witness supporting YOUR views, when 1) he has always claimed the sound he heard came from behind him at the time of the head shot and not from the fence to his right (which I have come to believe as well and which you NO DOUBT claim is nonsense) and 2) he saw NO blow-out on the back of JFK's head at the moment of the fatal impact, and instead noted a blow-out by Kennedy's ear (which supports the accuracy of the Zapruder film, and which you no doubt claim is nonsense).

Accusing me of lying (skewed recollections) is the last straw with Speer. This is absurd. I spent about 20 minutes (on the cited occasion) questioning Newman. I had done the same before twice, years earlier. What he said was very clear and vivid. I made up nothing, changed nothing, only

paraphrased some of his replies.

SPEER: So you admit I was right when I said these were not exact quotes. Thanks.

I reported what he said. I have NO views to support.

SPEER: What nonsense. You have staked your entire reputation on the Zapruder film being fake, and here you present "paraphrased" statements from Newman suggesting the film has been faked, when he has never mentioned this to anyone else. Of course, you have views to support.

Speer's changing the interpretation of what Newman said about the origin of the shots is despicable.

SPEER: You are just grandstanding here. I have NEVER changed the interpretation of what Newman said. He said it came from behind him. He said it within moments of the fatal shots.

He has ALWAYS consistently said the shots came from behind him, and that he was "in the line of fire". All

photos of the Newman family show that directly behind them was the pergola and picket fence.

SPEER: Wrong. We've been through this before. Newman thought the head shot came from behind him, from the pergola, or garden, whatever, and NOT from the picket fence to his right. He has on numerous occasions demonstrated this--including in the video Duncan has already linked to.

He did not say anything about "a blowout of Kennedy's ear", but instead said that is where a bullet struck (right temple). I discussed this with him on THREE OCCASIONS, years apart. He always used the same analogy..."like a baseball bat hit him in the right temple"...never mentioning a "blowout".

SPEER: More nonsense. You're pretending Newman didn't see a blow-out so you can pretend he just saw Kennedy fall over in the seat while his brains blew out the back. This allows you to pretend his statements don't support the accuracy of the Zapruder film. Well, there's a couple of problems with this. One is that Newman was looking directly at the back of Kennedy's head at the moment of the fatal impact and saw nothing blow out the back. And two is that Newman and his wife discussed this blow out over and over and and over again.

(11-24-63 FBI report, 22H842) “At that time he heard the bullet strike the president and saw flesh fly from the President’s head”

(11-29-66 interview with Josiah Thompson) “In my opinion the ear went…

(2-17-69 testimony in the trial of Clay Shaw)"then when the car was directly in front of me, well, that is when the third shot was fired and it hit him in the side of the head right above the ear and his ear come off…I observed his ear flying off, and he turned just real white and then blood red"

(7-23-86 testimony in televised mock trial, On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald)"just as the President's car got directly in front of me, the President was probably fifteen feet away, Boom, and the side of his ear flew off, and justa, bits and pieces flew off. I can remember seeing just a white flash, and then the red, and the President fell across the car, as if you'd hit him with a bat.

(Interview in The Men Who Killed Kennedy, broadcast 1988)Then he got nearer to us, and, bam, a shot took the right side of his head off. His ear flew off. I heard Mrs. Kennedy say 'Oh, my God, no, they shot Jack!' He was knocked violently back against the seat, almost as if he had been hit by a baseball bat. At that time, I was looking right at the President and I thought the shots were coming from directly behind us."

(Excerpt from 1991 interview with Mark Oakes, found online) "As the car got directly in front of us, the President was not much further than I am to you--probably ten to twelve feet, he was directly in front of me--the third shot rang out and I remember seeing the side of his head come off.

(11-20-97 interview published in No Case To Answer, 2005)the third shot rang out and I can remember seeing the side of President Kennedy's head blow off. There was black matter and then grayish and he fell across Mrs. Kennedy,

(No More Silence p. 94-101, published 1998)the third shot rang out, and it hit the President. It appeared to me that it hit him on the side of the head, as the side of his head came off. I can remember seeing a white mass, and then just a mass of red.

(Oral History for the Sixth Floor Museum, 7-10-03)just as he got straight out from the curb from us, the third shot rang out. And I can remember seeing the side of President Kennedy's head come off, and I thought his ear came off. And I testified to that effect but years later I saw a picture that showed otherwise. But I can remember seeing a flash of white and the red blood....(When discussing a report received at WFAA saying the President was still alive) "I was kinda dumbfounded to hear these people saying that, when just minutes earlier I'd seen the side of his head come off." (When asked if he knew the President was dead when first interviewed on WFAA) "When you see something the size of a grapefruit or orange or something blow out into the air, and then you hear the statement that he was in the emergency and was shot in the back whatever, it dumbfounded me momentarily.." (When later asked about his impression the shots came from behind) "It was the visual impact that it had on me more so than the noise--seeing the side of the President's head blow off, seeing the President go across the car seat into Mrs. Kennedy's lap, in her direction. It gave me the impression that the shots were coming from directly behind where I was standing." (When stressing just how much his impressions of the shot location were based on what he saw as opposed to what he heard) "It might be difficult for me to testify that I heard a noise."

(11-19-08 AP article by Dylan Lovan)'Ten, 12 feet in front of us, the third shot rang out, and that's when the side of his head flew off and I could remember seeing' the blood

(Tru TV program Conspiracy Theory, first broadcast 11-19-10)Just as the car got right in front of us, the third shot rang out, and the side of President Kennedy's head blew off (as he says this he reaches for his temple). We seen the brain matter and the blood fly off.

Speer makes up things to fit his theories.

SPEER: more nonsense. This is the same kind of stuff LNs say when I prove them wrong. "You're making things up." Not.

Newman is very clear. The head shot came from the right front, directly over his head, and hit JFK in the right temple. Ask him today; that is what he will say.

SPEER: EXACTLY. EXCEPT FOR ONE THING. He will not say right FRONT. Kennedy was PAST Newman at the moment of the head shot. He thought the shot came from BEHIND him. Not to his right. I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp. Watch the video posted by Duncan. It shows Newman pointing out where HE thought the shot came from...and it's not anywhere near where you want it to be.

I doubt that Speer has ever talked to Newman, especially three times...yet he disputes those who have. But he is willing to put words in Newman's

mouth to make him say what fits Speer's preconceived theories. Despicable acts of someone with an agenda.

Jack

SPEER: I think it's readily obvious which one of us is putting words in Newman's mouth to further his agenda. I'd double dog dare you to get Newman to sign something or state on camera that he thinks the Zapruder film is fake, because it does not reflect events as he remembers them. But why waste my breath?

I "do not want" the shot to come from any particular place. I talked to Newman on three occasions. I reported where he

said the head shot came from. Speer is the one who wants it to come from a certain place. In talking to me, Newman

was very specific; Speer has NOT talked to Newman and makes up what he wants Newman to say. Nonsense. Speer

is rapidly losing all credibility.

Jack

No chemtrails here for more than a week...but yesterday I saw a CONTRAIL. It quickly evaporated close behind the plane.

Jack

Though I believe that Morrow has made some valid points about LBJ, in recent postings he has revealed

himself to be a very shallow thinker with an agenda. Jim's rebuttal is on target.

Jack

I'm looking for a really good, digital copy of the Elm St. sequence in the Bronson film.

If anyone has one or can point me to one, please let me know. I saw Robin's BTW, but it only includes a few of the frames.

There are only A FEW frames. Remember, Bronson was operating BOTH a movie camera AND a 35mm camera. The

Groden collection contains what I presume to be the entire Bronson movie.

Jack

My responses in italics.

Pat Speer troubles me.

My response: Oy vey. Yep, it's ME that's troublesome, and not the fact that you've bought into and have been repeating a bunch of nonsense for years and years and years.

For him to be right, everyone else--including Clint Hill, Erwin Swartz,

Malcolm Perry, Charles Crenshaw, Pepper Jenkins, James Carrico, Charles Baxter, as well as many

others, including witnesses in Dealey Plaza at the time--have to be wrong. So what is the more

likely: that all of these witnesses were mistaken in reporting the blow-out at the back of JFK's

head, when they were there and reported their personal observations, or Pat Speer, who was not?

My response: What nonsense! This is not about me vs. THEM. I know little of Swartz, but none of these men outside Crenshaw were conspiracy theorists. i.e. none of them believed the shots came from the front. Now, this would suggest to a reasonable person that they were not quite sure where the large head wound was on the skull. In fact, Perry, Jenkins, Carrico, and Baxter would come to acknowledge they were wrong, and Hill would engage in a national book tour in which he insisted both that the fatal shot hit above the ear, and that no shot came from the front. So, the question is not who am I to say these men were wrong, but who are YOU to pick their early statements and turn them into a religion, and ignore everything else they had to say?

I am sorry, but somewhere along the way, Pat Speer lost his bearings and began to believe what

he wanted to believe instead of what the evidence supports. He is subjective and unscientific.

My response: Hogwash. Hogwash. Hogwash. It's obvious from this you know nothing of me and have never read anything I've written beyond what I've posted in the threads that you've started. I started out a conspiracy theorist, was briefly swayed by Posner, sought to find out more, and became a conspiracy theorist again. Because I READ thousands of pages and hundreds of articles on forensic pathology, autopsy photography, and the radiology of gunshot wounds. This gave me a NEW perspective on the case, one based in large part on SCIENCE, and not on the crap in most conspiracy books.

Bernice Moore has just posted something highly relevant here on the parallel thread in the Deep

Politics Forum, "Did Zapruder film 'the Zapruder film'?", which should make a difference to all.

But, of course, for Pat Speer, even Bill Newman will be just another witness who got it wrong!

This post is located at:

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?6822-Did-zapruder-film-quot-the-zapruder-film-quot/page4

Here is the message that has just been posted:

***************

jack this below,i have been going through some cds,and this is from a post at Rich's in the past,

i am only throwing it in here for added information, not to way lay the discussion, please continue,

i thought it may be of interest to others... best b..

5 min_ Newman intv_ wkaa tv dallas_nov_22_63

You posted this information below on Nov. 21/04..I have never

forgotten it.

Jack: Thursday afternoon in Dallas I had a chance to talk for a few minutes

again with Bill Newman and asked him some questions again: (answers

paraphrased)

JW...did you notice Zapruder on the hill behind you?

BN...before the president arrived I noticed a man up there

with a camera. At that time I thought it was O.L.Nelms, the

eccentric Dallas millionaire. But I later learned it must have

been Mr. Zapruder. I did not know Mr. Zapruder, but I was

familiar with what Nelms looked like. Afterwards I thought

to myself "I hope Mr. Nelms did not shoot him."

JW...was there a woman with him (Nelms/Zapruder)?

BN...I did not see any woman with him. He was alone.

JW...Did you notice anything which conflicted with the official story?

BN...In the Zapruder film, the president's car does not stop, but

I know for sure that IT STOPPED FOR SEVERAL SECONDS RIGHT

IN FRONT OF ME. There is no mistake about that! And all the other

cars behind had to come to a sudden stop too! Then it speeded up

and left. It was not at all like the Zapruder film.

JW...What is your most memorable memory of the day?

BN...Oh...the head shot, right in front of me. His head exploded

and went back and to the left like somebody hit him in the

right temple with a baseball bat. The shot came from behind me.

Whom do you believe? Bill Newman or Arlen Specter?" [or Pat Speer?]

Jack

*************

My response: What crud. You can bet dollars to donuts these are not exact quotes from Bill Newman, but Jack's quite possibly skewed recollections of what Newman said. I've read a number of statements by Newman, and have viewed a number of interviews. And he has NEVER said the Zapruder film is at odds with what he saw, at least ON THE RECORD. If you think he has, please find it. If you think he will, please track him down and get him to put something in writing. It is also beyond offensive that here you are suddenly claiming Newman as a highly credible witness supporting YOUR views, when 1) he has always claimed the sound he heard came from behind him at the time of the head shot and not from the fence to his right (which I have come to believe as well and which you NO DOUBT claim is nonsense) and 2) he saw NO blow-out on the back of JFK's head at the moment of the fatal impact, and instead noted a blow-out by Kennedy's ear (which supports the accuracy of the Zapruder film, and which you no doubt claim is nonsense).

My response: What crud. You can bet dollars to donuts these are not exact quotes from Bill Newman, but Jack's quite possibly skewed recollections of what Newman said. I've read a number of statements by Newman, and have viewed a number of interviews. And he has NEVER said the Zapruder film is at odds with what he saw, at least ON THE RECORD. If you think he has, please find it. If you think he will, please track him down and get him to put something in writing. It is also beyond offensive that here you are suddenly claiming Newman as a highly credible witness supporting YOUR views, when 1) he has always claimed the sound he heard came from behind him at the time of the head shot and not from the fence to his right (which I have come to believe as well and which you NO DOUBT claim is nonsense) and 2) he saw NO blow-out on the back of JFK's head at the moment of the fatal impact, and instead noted a blow-out by Kennedy's ear (which supports the accuracy of the Zapruder film, and which you no doubt claim is nonsense).

Accusing me of lying (skewed recollections) is the last straw with Speer. This is absurd. I spent about 20 minutes (on the cited occasion) questioning

Newman. I had done the same before twice, years earlier. What he said was very clear and vivid. I made up nothing, changed nothing, only

paraphrased some of his replies. I reported what he said. I have NO views to support. Speer's changing the interpretation of what Newman said about

the origin of the shots is despicable. He has ALWAYS consistently said the shots came from behind him, and that he was "in the line of fire". All

photos of the Newman family show that directly behind them was the pergola and picket fence. He did not say anything about "a blowout of Kennedy's

ear", but instead said that is where a bullet struck (right temple). I discussed this with him on THREE OCCASIONS, years apart. He always used the

same analogy..."like a baseball bat hit him in the right temple"...never mentioning a "blowout". Speer makes up things to fit his theories. Newman

is very clear. The head shot came from the right front, directly over his head, and hit JFK in the right temple. Ask him today; that is what he will say.

I doubt that Speer has ever talked to Newman, especially three times...yet he disputes those who have. But he is willing to put words in Newman's

mouth to make him say what fits Speer's preconceived theories. Despicable acts of someone with an agenda.

Jack

Cliff,

I appreciate your post, but I think you are wrong about the evidence. Read through the witness

reports I have presented--many thanks to Bernice!--and you will see that there is a consistent

pattern of reports about a large blow-out to the back of the head (about the size of your fist

when you double it up) from which cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue was extruding, a small

wound of entry to the right temple, and more subtle evidence (from a piece of beveled bone) of

a second shot to the back of his head. While one or another witness reported a shot to the left

temple, when I said I see no indications of it, I mean there is no blow-out to the right-rear as

an effect of such a shot, even though there is to the left-rear, as we all know. Those reports

are more likely to have been caused by left/right orientation mis-descriptions. David W. Mantik

and David Lifton have done a terrific job of clarifying the X-rays and the Bethesda medical techs'

reports, while the ARRB uncovered the enlargement of the blow out by Humes using a saw. What his

manipulation means is that our best evidence comes from the Parkland physicians. But, as you have

seen, their testimony as well as that of the Parkland nurses supported what I have described. That

is most of how we know what we know about the head wound, which seems to be well-established

and even supported by an unlikely source, namely, the testimony of Clint Hill, as I have reported.

When you take all of this evidence together, there really is no reasonable alternative hypothesis.

Just as a point of clarification, while I conclude he was hit twice in the head, I do not rule out that he

MIGHT have been hit a third time. But I don't see any evidence for it.

And that's because the head wound evidence is tainted beyond redemption. He may have been hit

in the head four times for all we know.

The high likelihood of pre-autopsy surgery to the head makes the finding of fact impossible in

regards to the number of head shots.

On the other hand, the point of "Reasoning about Assassinations" was to demonstrate that, once

we have established where the bullet entered his back--about 5.5 inched below the collar and to

the right of the spinal column--we know that the shot to his throat and the wounds in Connally

have to be accounted for on the basis of separate shots and separate shooters, which means, as

you have implied, the existence of conspiracy in the death of JFK is established simply by locating

the shot that hit him in the back.

Indeed. The unchallenged T3 back wound evidence forces nutters like Vince Bugliosi to tell whopping

lies about the Dealey Plaza photo evidence. Prevarications are not arguments, no matter how many

times they are repeated, or by whom.

I suggest that this is a good reference on CEREBELLUM, especially the illustrations:

Cerebellum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the smaller region in the lower part of the brain. For the large region of the brain, see Cerebrum.

Brain: Cerebellum

A human brain, with the cerebellum colored in purple

Drawing of the human brain, showing cerebellum and pons

Part of Metencephalon

Artery SCA, AICA, PICA

Vein superior, inferior

NeuroLex ID birnlex_1489

The cerebellum (Latin for little brain) is a region of the brain that plays an important role in motor control. It is also involved in some cognitive functions such as attention and language, and probably in some emotional functions such as regulating fear and pleasure responses.[1] Its movement-related functions are the most clearly understood, however. The cerebellum does not initiate movement, but it contributes to coordination, precision, and accurate timing. It receives input from sensory systems and from other parts of the brain and spinal cord, and integrates these inputs to fine tune motor activity.[2] Because of this fine-tuning function, damage to the cerebellum does not cause paralysis, but instead produces disorders in fine movement, equilibrium, posture, and motor learning.[2]

In terms of anatomy, the cerebellum has the appearance of a separate structure attached to the bottom of the brain, tucked underneath the cerebral hemispheres. The surface of the cerebellum is covered with finely spaced parallel grooves, in striking contrast to the broad irregular convolutions of the cerebral cortex. These parallel grooves conceal the fact that the cerebellum is actually a continuous thin layer of neural tissue (the cerebellar cortex), tightly folded in the style of an accordion. Within this thin layer are several types of neurons with a highly regular arrangement, the most important being Purkinje cells and granule cells. This complex neural network gives rise to a massive signal-processing capability, but almost the entirety of its output is directed to a set of small deep cerebellar nuclei lying in the interior of the cerebellum.

In addition to its direct role in motor control, the cerebellum also is necessary for several types of motor learning, the most notable one being learning to adjust to changes in sensorimotor relationships. Several theoretical models have been developed to explain sensorimotor calibration in terms of synaptic plasticity within the cerebellum. Most of them derive from early models formulated by David Marr and James Albus, which were motivated by the observation that each cerebellar Purkinje cell receives two dramatically different types of input: On one hand, thousands of inputs from parallel fibers, each individually very weak; on the other hand, input from one single climbing fiber, which is, however, so strong that a single climbing fiber action potential will reliably cause a target Purkinje cell to fire a burst of action potentials. The basic concept of the Marr-Albus theory is that the climbing fiber serves as a "teaching signal", which induces a long-lasting change in the strength of synchronously activated parallel fiber inputs. Observations of long-term depression in parallel fiber inputs have provided support for theories of this type, but their validity remains controversial.

Jack, This is the only image I have received on this so far, which I posted on #292. If you

have another, sent it along and I will post it in place of this one, if I have them right. Jim

As I noted, sorting out the wounds using photographs of the inside of the cranium is extraordinarily

complicated, where I recommend that anyone with a serious interest in these questions must read

Mantik's brilliant chapter in MURDER (2000). This requires an extremely high level of competence.

Jim...I am still blocked by the forum from posting images. Will you please post the image

I sent you of my analysis of the "gaping hole" autopsy photo. Others have attempted to

explain the image, but I believe that they are all wrong. Thanks.

Jack

Thanks, Jim. At the time of my last message, your posting of the image had not yet appeared, or

I would not have requested it again.

What everyone is ignoring is the area at left which has been drastically lightened. It clearly shows

a bullet hole © just to the right of the EOP. Just beyond the bullet hole is a small glass specimen

jar apparently containing a few metal fragments. In my opinion, the Harper fragment came from

the area of this fist-sized hole. The view looks inside the empty cranium. The inshoot hole can

be seen in the right temporal area, and the beveled outshoot hole is seen on the yellow line from

the inshoot. To me it is very clear. I do not understand why this explanation is not obvious to all.

Jack

PS. I forgot to mention that the reflected scalp is to the top of the picture, which is labeled

TOP OF HEAD.

Jim...I am still blocked by the forum from posting images. Will you please post the image

I sent you of my analysis of the "gaping hole" autopsy photo. Others have attempted to

explain the image, but I believe that they are all wrong. Thanks.

Jack

PS. WILL SOMEONE DETERMINE WHY I AM BLOCKED FROM POSTING IMAGES????????????

I remember reading that the CEREBELLUM is a distinctly different COLOR than the CEREBRUM, so the doctors

could not possibly mistake the two. A little research could verify this.

Jack

Reymond tried to arrange for me to view it years ago during a visit to Paris, but the owner backed out, alas.

I know of NOTHING which has been called THE REAL ZAPRUDER FILM being seen by anyone. I do know of something called ANOTHER FILM or

THE OTHER FILM being seen by different persons at different times, independently of each other. Calling it the "real Zapruder film" is a deceptive trick

to try to ridicule it.

The persons who saw THE OTHER FILM are of highest character, are good observers and have absolutely no motivation to fabricate a story like this. None

of them had heard of anyone else's story. Their stories all are consistent with each other. By my remembrance there are (were) 6 or 7 of these viewers. Two of

them saw it multiple times. Rich DellaRosa saw it two or three times under security oath conditions. Before he died, Rich told the complete story to a trusted

associate. One researcher saw it at a news network, thinking it was the Z film, which at that time had not been released. One person was shown it several

times by a former intelligence agent. At least one person saw it on a college campus. One alleged viewer said he saw it as a CIA training film, but some

persons do not trust him. All these persons are known, but I am not mentioning them by name, except for Rich, whose account of the OTHER FILM has

been published. At the time these persons saw the film, many "believed" they were seeing the Zapruder film...and only realized after seeing the extant

version that it did not jibe with what they had seen before, which was indelibly etched in their memories. One of these persons saw it at a news network.

Later, after seeing the extant version, this researcher went back to the network and asked to see the film seen earlier, and got a denial that it existed.

It is understandable that those who have not seen THE OTHER FILM might deny its existence. But ridicule of responsible researchers is reprehensible.

It is understandable to believe that such a film does not exist. It is not understandable to condemn those who have seen it. How can someone who did NOT

see the film dispute those who did?

Jack

Then what is it Jack? Is it another film that no one knows was taken? Was it by the Babushka lady? I doubt it since her film was from the opposite angle. Anyone would have known it.

I am not ridiculing anyone. Especially Mili Cranor, who I have the highest respect for--and who you choose not to mention.

I posed a truthful situation. Which I stood by and watched on Rich's forum. Person after person-not Mili-- began to say that they saw this "other film", which you do not want to say was the real Z film, but I do not know what else it can be. Until finally someone said they saw it on TV, the late night news in a fairly big Texas town.

I was kind of taken aback by this chain reaction which culminated in tens of thousands of people seeing this "other film". And yet no one had ever written a word about this event. And yet even though this film was supposed to be buried for national security cover up purposes, it was somehow not.

Now, how did it slip out so often and in so many places?

Second, if it is not the Real Z film, then what is it?

I answered that. It is NOT the "real Z film". It is ANOTHER FILM or THE OTHER FILM. They are reported to be so different they CANNOT be the same.

I purposely did not mention Mili Cranor. She was the researcher who visited the network. Few know of her Fourth Decade article.

Dan Marvin is the person who saw it at a CIA training facility. William Reymond, French journalist, was shown the film multiple times by a

retired French intelligence agent, who told him it was the HL Hunt copy of the Zapruder film...but Reymond's description matched THE OTHER FILM,

not the Z film. Rich DellaRosa's description is the most detailed, because he saw it three times UNDER CLASSIFIED CONDITIONS (when he was on

active duty). Others who saw the OTHER FILM under different conditions are, as I recall, Greg Burnham, Scott Myers, and Rick Janowitz.

All of these people described the same film, including the limo making a wide turn from Houston, and the limo coming to a stop of about 2 seconds

during the head shot. What are the odds of ALL of these people lying or being mistaken about the same details?

Jack

Jack; thanks for your clarification, but rick was not one of the six, one time on Rich's that was proposed that he did, but he appeared and clarified for all that, no, he has not seen the other film........best b...there are just the 6.and milicent saw it at CBS ..b

ps..Jack, if you would like i can send you the partial thread from rich's that took place at that time, re the names the discussion you had with rich is included and the names were clarified...best b

Thanks. I guess I misremembered on Rick, although I remember some discussion with him about it.

Jack

In Garrison's interview in Playboy, I think he says the Sherman case was unsolved. And he implies that there was a shroud of mystery and secrecy around it.

Haslam shows in his book that this was certainly the case. THe investigation was shut down, the public announcements were turned off, and then the veil of secrecy descended. This is after the first reports in the press called it a murder. This was based on repeated stab wounds.

Ed had to go through a real obstacle course to get the autopsy report. Which is interesting as hell. It was kept under wraps for something like three decades.

The final police report on her death was not composed until ten weeks later. Then there was a supplementary report five days after that.

As per the mice in cages, Nicky Chetta, the coroner's son said his father saw them also. (Halsam, p. 46)

Now please note the difference here between what Chetta and Garrison said they smelled and saw vs what Baker says Ferrie was into.

Jim...since you believe Haslam, do you also support Baker?

Jack

It has come to my attention that Edward Haslam has engaged a reputable New Orleans PR firm and has undertaken a series of personal appearances/book signings to promote "Dr. Mary's Monkey," as well as the book of his star character Judyth Vary Baker and her book "Me and Lee: How I Came to Know, Love and Lose Lee Harvey Oswald." Indeed, Haslam is appearing this morning on WWL-TV in New Orleans. As I have stated before, it is not my intent to come between Haslam-Baker and their book buyers or possible movie deals; Nevertheless, in the search for factual accuracy in the field of JFK research, I wish to offer a dissenting view for any who may be compelled to search the topic online. Hence, this post in a more narrowly-focused forum for serious research.

I have studied the life of one of Haslam-Baker's major characters, David Ferrie, for many years and am in the process of writing a biography of him. I have obtained every document I could find about Ferrie and interviewed many who knew him, and I write from that informed perspective. With his permission, my comments are seconded in whole or in part by Stephen Tyler, a New Orleans filmmaker who produced "He Must Have Something," a look at the Jim Garrison investigation, and who has conducted a great deal of research into the other major character, Dr. Mary Sherman. It is fair to say that my thoughts are also supported by others with special expertise in the New Orleans aspects of this case.

I have read "Mary, Ferrie and the Monkey Virus" and "Dr. Mary's Monkey." While I have no issue with Ed Haslam sharing his thoughts about Ferrie, Sherman, Baker and other matters, I respectfully dissent from the notion that his main thesis is supported by the evidence he presents, or by any available evidence. Specifically, he does not provide credible evidence that Ferrie was acquainted with Dr. Sherman; that Ferrie and Sherman worked on medical research in 1963 or at any other time; that such research occurred in Ferrie's apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway; that such research was part of a covert US government project; or that Judyth Vary Baker was part of such research (beyond Baker's own claims). I have attempted to discuss these matters with Haslam, but he has been unreceptive.

I have read "Me and Lee: How I Came to Know, Love and Lose Lee Harvey Oswald." In addition, I have read Baker's earlier unauthorized book "Lee Harvey Oswald: The True Story of the Accused Assassin of President John F. Kennedy by His Lover," and have read many more writings by Baker. I respectfully dissent from Baker's claims regarding David Ferrie, and see no credible evidence to support them; In fact, it is my opinion that she never even met Ferrie. While I stipulate that she was a science prodigy and worked at the same company as Oswald in 1963, I do not understand, if the Ferrie portions of the book are not accurate, how the Oswald portions could be accurate.

It is virtually impossible to prove a negative, that something did not happen. Notwithstanding, my contacts with people who knew Ferrie suggest to the contrary, that he did not have a relationship with Dr. Sherman or Baker, and that he was not engaged in medical research in that apartment in 1963. Further, Dr. Sherman and Baker appear nowhere in the contemporaneous documentary record of the case. For these reasons, I strongly urge persons interested in the Haslam or Baker theses to seek alternate primary sources to either confirm or deny them. It makes me uncomfortable to observe that, thanks to the internet, such unproven theses are creeping out into our body of knowledge and being accepted uncritically as fact. There are two sides to every story, and there is definitely a dissenting side to this story.

BRAVO! 100 PERCENT!

I think this Groden scan is a good representation of the skull damage.

Robin...that xray depiction show's Lifton's SURGERY OF THE TOP OF THE HEAD, not the damage

seen at Parkland.

Jack

Robin:

Really nice job.

I don't see what is so hard to believe about Hill making up that space from that angle.

Secondly, Fetzer says that is SSD TInk wrote that LHO shot at JFK twice.

Can you please furnish page citations, as any scholar would if he were saying something like that.

Third, this whole thing about the motorcycle has been talked to death here. From the photographic evidence I have seen, it does not do what Fetzer says it does. He is now recycling old arguments that did not take in the first place.

Jim...your third quote is most strange. All the witnesses report Chaney moving forward. The photos don't show it. You prefer to believe FORGED PHOTOS

which are being questioned rather than the witnesses, whose first day testimony would take precedence over faked photos which they impeach.

Jack

Dear Mr Fetzer:

I am quite familiar with Mantik's studies. And so is TInk. As I said, they do not conflict with what I see on the Z film, or what Groden sees. You can yell and scream and cry about this point all you want. But it does not.

Bernice: Many times here, people have accused others of somehow being spooky or WC defenders if they do not buy into radical Z film alteration. We have seen it here on this forum right now. Tink answered the questions posed to him. That is not enough. Now, like Jim Angleton and Nosenko, Fetzer the Grand Inquisitor accuses him of evading questions etc. He has not. As per looking up things like the whole Moorman imbroglio, that is a perfect example of what I just said above: extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. That was not the case with that.

And BTW, this is a big difference between me and Fetzer. I mean he found the Nelson book convincing, he finds Best Evidence convincing, he bought into every thing in the Horne series. Let alone Judy Wood and No Planes etc. I don't. And I explain why I don't.

Third, now comes the so-called Real Z film viewings. I watched this phenomenon grow day by day on Rich's forum. At the end I sat there with my mouth agape. If you counted all the people who saw this Real Z film, it got into the tens of thousands. I am not kidding. For someone said they saw it on the late night news in a fairly big Texas town, maybe in San Antonio or somewhere like that.

So in other words, many, many,many people have seen this film, right? And not one media person ever wrote about it anywhere? Not even in the alternative press? No group of people ever called each other or met up to talk about what they saw? Really? When the Z film was shown by Rivera, the result was like an electric current going through the country: I mean it was Topic A at work and at lunch counters and water coolers. But people saw this film that no one had ever, ever seen and it showed the limo stopping, Kennedy going through all these gyrations of being hit with multiple shots--and God knows what other gory stuff, and everyone just goes to sleep like nothing happened.

Please.

I know of NOTHING which has been called THE REAL ZAPRUDER FILM being seen by anyone. I do know of something called ANOTHER FILM or

THE OTHER FILM being seen by different persons at different times, independently of each other. Calling it the "real Zapruder film" is a deceptive trick

to try to ridicule it.

The persons who saw THE OTHER FILM are of highest character, are good observers and have absolutely no motivation to fabricate a story like this. None

of them had heard of anyone else's story. Their stories all are consistent with each other. By my remembrance there are (were) 6 or 7 of these viewers. Two of

them saw it multiple times. Rich DellaRosa saw it two or three times under security oath conditions. Before he died, Rich told the complete story to a trusted

associate. One researcher saw it at a news network, thinking it was the Z film, which at that time had not been released. One person was shown it several

times by a former intelligence agent. At least one person saw it on a college campus. One alleged viewer said he saw it as a CIA training film, but some

persons do not trust him. All these persons are known, but I am not mentioning them by name, except for Rich, whose account of the OTHER FILM has

been published. At the time these persons saw the film, many "believed" they were seeing the Zapruder film...and only realized after seeing the extant

version that it did not jibe with what they had seen before, which was indelibly etched in their memories. One of these persons saw it at a news network.

Later, after seeing the extant version, this researcher went back to the network and asked to see the film seen earlier, and got a denial that it existed.

It is understandable that those who have not seen THE OTHER FILM might deny its existence. But ridicule of responsible researchers is reprehensible.

It is understandable to believe that such a film does not exist. It is not understandable to condemn those who have seen it.

Jack

The conclusion still is that no hard proof of the existence of this "other" film has ever been brought forward?

What do you mean HARD PROOF? Seven witnesses in concord would be considered hard evidence in a court of law.

Jack