Ed O'Hagan

-The written and sworn report of the finding of a Mauser rifle on the sixth floor of the TSBD by Dallas lawmen. Comment: It's possible that small arms were being smuggled directly into Dallas, concealed in rolls of carpet imported from Israel, and subsequently they were being forwarded by Ruby on behalf of the Mob to Clinton, Louisiana, for distribution to anti-Castro Cubans being trained at Lake Pontchartain. In early 1963 in New Orleans, Lee Harvey Oswald had been tagged as being an FBI informant, probably as the result of information supplied by Guy Banister, and, accordingly, Ferrie, Shaw, et al. decided that he had to be eliminated. So they drove him to Clinton on voter- registration day, August 23, 1963 to begin the 'setting-up' process. Oswald ostensibly was seeking employment, getting his hair cut, etc. according to witnesses... ( For those who, like myself, accept the 'two Oswald' theory, I would want to suggest that both Harvey and Lee were in Clinton around the same time , but not necessarily on the the same day. Check out http://www.jfk-online.com/manchester.html and note the presence of the FBI in Clinton that day). The intent of the visit to Clinton ( and also a few days earlier to nearby Jackson) was to ensure that the news of LHO's relationship to the FBI as an informant, would be slyly conveyed to Ruby. To subtly prove the point, information getting back to Ruby would later convince him that Oswald was snooping around Clinton and neighbouring Jackson with the FBI tagging along supportively. What the visit to Clinton accomplished, was both the manipulation and encouragement of the Mob to become involved in getting rid of Oswald, and also its involvement in the provision and delivery to Dallas of the weapons to be used in Dealey Plaza on 22/11/1963. Later in October when Oswald was rooming at Mrs. Bledsoe's, Ruby paid Oswald a visit. A punch-up resulted, and Mrs Bledsoe gave Oswald his marching orders. If Ruby and Oswald had not become enemies, Ruby would have delivered the Mauser directly to Oswald, and he would have carried it into the TSBD disassembled, wrapped, and under the guise of its being curtain rods, Oswald would have taken the rifle up to 6th floor and hidden it in the same spot where it was later discovered following the assassination. However, here's what I suggest actually happened: Ruby enlisted the assistance of Officer J.D. Tippit to make the delivery of the Mauser to Oswald. At 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday , November 22,1963 both Oswald and Tippit were in the Dobb's House restaurant on North Beckeley. Tippit was at the counter drinking coffee, while Oswald was complaining loudly about the unsatisfactory cooking of his breakfast eggs. This was highly unusual behavior on his part. He was normally a quiet customer, and he usually was in the restaurant much earlier. Moreover, he should have been working at the TSBD from 8:00 a.m. Tippit did not become involved. But when Oswald later departed the restaurant and hitched a ride to the TSBD from a passing motorist, he was carrying a wrapped package, which he told the driver contained curtain rods. Not alone that , but his entire conversation could be described as being one that the driver would easily remember: and that was exactly what Oswald intended. Similarly, he had raised a fuss in the restaurant for the very same purpose, namely so that both the restaurant's customers and its staff would be able to recall that Tippit and he had been present at the same time. - Oswald changing seats at the Texas Theater. Sitting beside one person and then sitting beside others in an almost empty theater. Comment: I suggest that Oswald was seeking a potential hostage. I wrote the following as an exercise in Speculation 101. Remember we are not so much lawyers armed to the teeth with convincing evidence, but rather detectives chasing down leads and looking at various possibilities. When we do it we are speculating . When scientists do it, it's called hypothesizing, and when Einstein did it, it was called attempting a giant intellectual leap forward. So here goes.... Quite some time ago I phoned Bill Drenas concerning his ‘Tippit timeline’ . I described to him what I had concluded might be a possible scenario in explaining the sequence of events which he had described so very well in his article, CAR #10 WHERE ARE YOU?’ Bill suggested that I write a paper on the topic and present it to the JFK research community at the following November JFK assassination conference in Dallas . However, I decided that posting it online and as a story rather than as a long -winded research paper, might accomplish just as much in painting the overall picture. I do not intend becoming involved in defending the narrative in any way; and if it runs contrary to individual theories in regard to the Tippit murder, then, hopefully, it might possibly provide an incentive for others to publish their own explanations as to what occurred in Oak Cliff that fatal afternoon. Read on ! Ed O’Hagan Malice In Wonderland Officer J.D. Tippit watched as the two ‘three-wheeler’ motorcycles came across the Houston Street viaduct and then turned south on Lancaster. He waited for a few moments and gave them time to get a couple of hundred yards ahead, and then revving- up the engine of the police-cruiser he sped out of the Gloco gas -station lot and drove quickly down Lancaster. He turned right on Eight and stopped at the house where Harry was awaiting their arrival. Iggy and Mike had already dismounted from the machines inside the garage, and Harry was waiting for them to come outside so that he could close the garage door. J.D noticed that Harry was looking very upset and appeared to be in a great hurry to get the two men out of the garage as quickly as possible. As J.D. was pulling -up, Mike, ran over, and before the cruiser had even stopped he was in the front seat beside J.D and yelling at him, “Head for Lee’s place on North Beckley. You know where it is.” “Oh, my God ”, said J.D, “ you mean that Lee and the Cubans actually went through with it? “ Yeah, they did , and Iggy and I each took a shot at him as he ran across the grass to the pick-up wagon , and we both missed. But I guess he heard nothing, and so he’s none the wiser. He should be home by now, and if not, then all we can do is wait and see if he turns up. Meanwhile Lee was in his room at 1026 N.Beckley checking that his .38 Special revolver was fully loaded . He knew that someone had taken a shot at him as he was leaving the TSBD and running towards the Rambler. He had heard the high pitched whine of the bullet as it had zipped past his elbow and stuck the sidewalk only a few feet away. What he did not know, and neither did Mike nor Iggy, was that it had been a third shot fired by Fil from his position down by the underpass. Lee realized only too well just how he had been tricked. If he had remained in the TSBD, he would have been safe. But they had planned to get him to leave the building... something he had never intended doing. With the Cubans up on the sixth floor doing the shooting, all he had to do was sit in full view in the cafeteria down on the second floor, and he had a perfect alibi. And that’s exactly what he had done. It was only when that cop had come in with his gun drawn that Lee began to realize that things had changed, and that he had to get out of the building very fast. If the cop caught the Cubans upstairs before they had time to leave the building, then Lee knew he was in a really bad situation. The shot that had gone whizzing past his elbow at waist level had left him in no doubt whatsoever that he had been set up, and that his life was in deadly jeopardy from that moment on. Lee tucked the revolver into the right side pocket of his pants, and was about to leave the room when suddenly he heard the sound of a car horn being tooted twice quickly. He took a quick look outside and saw the cruiser with J.D. behind the wheel, and Mike sitting beside him. They waited for a few moments, then Lee saw Mike nodding at J.D. and the cruiser moved away. He thought that they had left, but in fact J.D. had just driven the cruiser a couple of hundred yards up the street and parked where he could keep the house in full view. Lee left the house and walked quickly over to the bus stop. J.D. and Mike saw him, but J.D. had to wait for the then approaching bus to pass where they were parked before pulling the cruiser back onto the street again.. By the time they caught up with the bus, it had already stopped to pick-up Lee, and it was now on the move again heading south on N. Beckley. Looking through the rear window as he was walking down the aisle of the bus to take his seat, Lee had already spotted them following along behind. He knew that if he remained on the bus he would have no chance at all. All they had to do was pull ahead of the bus and stop it. They had every opportunity of doing just that all the way down Beckley, but they never attempted it . The only explanation he thought was they were waiting for him to get off the bus, and then they would make their move. And sooner or later Lee knew he would have to leave the bus, but he was determined it was going to be at a location of his own choosing. As the bus appproached the corner of Beckley and Jefferson , he made his decision. He would get off the bus very quickly and immediately head for the lobby of the Texas Theater, and wait to see if the cruiser pulled up in front. At least that way he would have a chance. They would have to come inside after him through the front entrance, and he would be waiting for them armed and ready. If it came to a gunfight, he would also be able to retreat all the way inside, and in the dark among the seats the odds would be even more in his favour. Getting back out onto the street again by making his escape through one of ground -floor fire -exits was another important consideration. As it turned out the cruiser drove right past the Texas Theater without stopping and continued heading along Jefferson. Lee purchased a ticket and went inside and sat down. As his eyes became adjusted to the dark he saw that there were only a few people in the audience. One person was a woman who was sitting a few rows in front of him. That gave him an idea. He would wait for a few minutes and then return to the lobby and take a quick look to see if all was still O.K outside. To provide himself with an excuse for so doing, he purchased a container of popcorn from the man at the concession stand, and when he went back inside he sat down beside the woman. He intended to remain sitting there right beside her, and then after a while he would take another look outside to see if the coast was clear,... and if it was, he would take his leave of the Texas Theater. But just in case they did in fact return with reinforcements and surrounded the place, he needed an insurance policy... and the woman was going to have to pay the premium for him. He would take her hostage. That way he could control the situation, and they could not risk shooting at him in case they hit the woman. Allowing the others to leave and carry the news out onto the street, would suit him just fine. That way the story of the hostage-taking would spread quickly and the police and media were going to be all over the place in no time flat. He would be taken, but he would be taken alive. The time was 1:15 p.m. when Lee sat down beside the woman, and right away he noticed something about her that had been unable to see when he had been sitting a few rows back. The woman was pregnant. Lee wanted a female hostage, but not one who was also with-child. Using her as a shield and getting her to respond quickly to his demands, was quite obviously not going to be straightforward on account of her condition. He would have to look elesewhere for a potential hostage, and one who would be more suitable to his intended purpose. Lee left his seat, moved to another and again sat beside a member of the audience. In a few minutes he moved again, and sat beside one or two others, each time sizing them up as possible hostages. Hopefully, next time when he went out to the lobby and if the situation looked normal, he would be able to leave the Texas Theater and it’s unsuspecting patrons sitting comfortably in their seats enjoying the movie. Give it another 15 to 20 minutes and Lee decided he would make a final trip to the lobby. At 1:16 P.M. about eight blocks away from the Texas Theater, and a few yards from the intersection of E. Tenth St and Patton., J.D was being shot to death in the street. It might never have happened if Harry had not been so upset with the news that JFK had been shot. “That bastard and the Cubans ”, he had screamed at Iggy, as J.D and Mike were driving away. “Well, I ain’t waiting here for J.D. and Mike to get back. Whoever hell likes can take the bloody trike-bikes back to West Illinois. I am calling a cab and going over to Kay’s place. You can stay here if you like, and J.D. can drive you and Mike back to change out of the uniforms when they get back here.” Iggy decided that when the cab arrived he might as well ride along with Harry, and then when Harry got out , he would get the cabbie to drive him the few blocks south to 410 E. Tenth St., where he, Mike, Fil, and the other guy, had assembled earlier that day for one final meeting prior to setting out for Dealey Plaza. They had arranged to meet back at the apartment around 1:30 P.M., if all went according to plan. When cab-driver Scoggins had dropped-off Harry at Kay’s place, and then Iggy at #410 E. 10th street, he decided to park round the corner on Patton and eat lunch. Meanwhile, Iggy had gone inside to change out of the police uniform. That morning when he had left the motel he had worn a light coloured shirt and light khaki-coloured pants. His usual atttire was a neat two -piece suit , but if he and Mike were going to meet Ruby at 9:00 a.m. near the Jiffy Store on Industrial Ave. to pick-up the ‘scoped and silencer equipped rifles , and then later have to do a bit of climbing up the dirt covered embankment down by the underpass to stash Fil’s rifle, he had decided he was not going to get his good suit messed up. He would take it with him to #410 and then change into it later in the afternoon when he got out of the police uniform. Iggy was just about to pull on his good pants when Mike came running through the doorway breathlessly saying, “ How come you’re here? He’s inside the Texas Theater. We can nail him there. J.D. dropped me off . He said to tell you to put the uniforms in the T-Bird , and he’ll drive by the motel and pick them up after dark later this evening . You had better get back into your old clothes. This could be messy.” After J.D had dropped off Mike at #410 he went straight ahead heading east on E. Tenth Street. There was a lot of talk coming in over the radio that JFK was definitely now dead and that half his head had been blown away. J.D. swung the cruiser south on the next street and headed towards Jefferson Blvd. again, making a right when he reached it, and in a few minutes was driving back towards the Texas Theater. “Lee has to get the hell outa there ,” he thought. “JFK’s got half his head blown away. These guys are the ones who must have done the shooting, and now Lee is going to be murdered as well. I’ve got to get him outa there before Mike gets back to do him in. But if I go into the movie-house looking for him, I am going to be seen, and I’ll be in really deep trouble. It’s bad enough now, but this is well beyond what they asked me to do.” J.D. slowed the cruiser as he passed the theater, and then as he was almost stopped he noticed the sign fixed to the wall. Above and to the left of the entrance, was the box-office telephone-number. He knew then what he was going to do. A few hundred yards further down on the opposite side of the street was the Top Ten Record Store, and as fast as he could drive the cruiser he headed right for it. Dashing inside he grabbed the phone and called the theater. The phone rang several times, but nobody picked -up the receiver . Completely frustrated , J.D. decided that he had to get back to #410 as fast as possible and prevent Mike from getting to the theater . Slamming down the telephone-receiver, and then racing outside to his cruiser that still had the engine running, J.D was within the space of a few seconds behind the steering -wheel and driving quickly away from the Top Ten Record Store. He drove north on Bishop and within moments was heading once again east on E.Tenth St. He knew that Mike would be walking , since Iggy had the keys to the T-Bird, and Iggy was still with Harry back at the house on Eighth. If he could grab Mike, that would go a long way in making things work out much better for him. As he was coming up to the intersection with Patton , Mike was just leaving the apartment carrying his uniform over his arm. He was now back in his street clothes, as was Iggy who was walking just a few paces behind him and out of J.D.’s view. Iggy was carrying both his uniform and his suit on hangers , with the suit placed above the uniform so that it was closer to his left side . In his right pant’s pocket he was carrying a loaded automatic pistol. When J.D. saw Mike walking towards him carrying the uniform , he just could not believe his good fortune. It never dawned on him that if Mike was on his way to the Texas Theater walking, then why would he be taking the uniform with him. But he had no time at all to figure-out the answer to that question. By that time Mike was right up level with the passenger-side window and bending down to speak to J.D. through the open side -vent. J.D told him to open the back-door of the cruiser and put the uniform in the rear seat. Mike did as he had been instructed, and while he was so doing J.D. was easing himself out of the driver’s seat, opening his door, and drawing his revolver from its holster. When Mike closed the rear door and looked up, J.D. was already pointing the weapon right at his chest. Iggy saw what was happening, drew his pistol with his right hand and fired twice directly at J.D., striking him with both shots. Burnt powder residue was blown into his good suit as the weapon was fired and the expended shells were ejected. Mike then drew his revolver and shot J,D. again, and then walked round the front of the cruiser to where J.D. was then slumped on the ground. He pumped the final round into J.D.’s head to make sure he would be dead. But now it was impossible for Mike to join Iggy in the T-Bird as they had intended, If anyone saw him jumping into the vehicle beside Iggy, that would have put an end to the whole thing right there and then. A red T-Bird, and even without the license plate having been noted, was all that had to be reported by one single witness, and they were sunk. For a few brief seconds Mike paused, thinking about what to do. Mike knew all along who the principal fall guy was going to be... Lee. Well then, let him take the credit for shooting J.D. as well. Mike was carrying identification identical to Lee’s. All he had to do was to throw down his wallet, and when he shot Lee he would make sure to remove his wallet from his dead body. One ‘Lee’ was as good as another, and who would know the difference anyway once the wallet was found at the scene of the Tippit murder, and Lee was discovered to be minus a wallet when they examined his body back at the theater. Mike threw down the wallet , but it was Iggy who, while pointing in the direction of Patton first broke the silence by shouting at Mike “Get going!” Mike responded immediately and dashed off running south on Patton. Iggy waited a few moments to make sure no one had seen him, walked to the T-Bird, and placed both the uniform and the suit inside. He drove away heading east. He had two things in mind. The first was to find a telephone booth in order to phone in misleading information to the Dallas police. To give Mike time to get to the theater, he intended to tell them that he had just seen a man with a pistol running northward on Patton along the street from the direction of 10th street. Secondly, he was hoping to meet Fil driving back to #410, and tell him what had happened . Unfortunately it was not until he had driven as far east as Industrial Ave. that he was able to find a telephone booth where he made the anonymous call to the DPD. It was then that it occurred to him that both the uniform and the suit would test positive for gunpowder residues. The uniform was no problem, that could very easily be explained, and he was not at all worried about it. But if he was caught and they tested the suit, they would soon conclude that he had been ‘in’ on the Tippit murder, and it would not be long before they had figured-out the whole deal from beginning to end. So the suit had to go in a hurry, if only for the time being. Iggy liked the suit, and so he wanted to hide it where he could pick it up again later that evening, granted of course that all went well as the day wore on. He decided that the best place to hide the suit , and at the same time keep it clean an dry, was in that very same telephone booth. However, when he returned later in the evening to retrieve it , much to his dismay the booth had vanished. What had happened was that the Dallas police had traced the call back to the telephone booth, sent a truck to the location in the afternoon, and had the booth removed to be gone over for fingerprints. Afterwards when they released the booth back to the telephone company, their engineers, while examing it, discovered Iggy’s hidden clothing. Six months after the assassination the F.B.I. reported that it had succeeded in finding the suit, but still the penny never dropped, and the suit, so far as can be discovered, was never tested for gunpowder residue. After leaving the telephone booth, Iggy drove west on Jefferson and parked close to the Texas Theater.When he arrived , there were already police-cars in front of the building , and a large crowd was beginning to assemble on the sidewalk . He lifted the uniform out of the T-Bird and holding the hanger by two fingers slung it over his left shoulder. In his right hand he was carrying a microphone with a ball-shaped head. It was attached by a wire to a portable two -way radio-pack which he was carrying fastened to his belt just above his left rear pocket. It also had attached an extension-cord with an ear-plug module. Iggy walked to the side of the gathering outside the theater and holding the microphone close to his mouth gave the impression that he was talking to someone. At that time he did not know if Lee was living or dead, but since there were lots of cops inside the theater , he concluded that Mike must have ‘fixed’ Lee and they had arrived on the scene very shortly thereafter. The spectators were asssuming exactly what he intended them to assume, namely that he was a cop and that he was talking police business on the radio. What he was doing in fact was monitoring police radio- messages which were being transmitted to police HQ from one of the cruisers parked at the sidewalk. while watching what was going on at the same time. Then came the message that Lee had been taken alive inside the theater, and that ‘the guy from the CIA’ ( Mike), who had been captured up in the balcony, was going to be released after Lee had been escorted out to a cruiser in front of the theater. So, surmised Iggy, Mike had failed to ‘nail’ Lee, , but at least Lee was now in custody, and he could still be ‘fixed’. ‘Mike from the C.I.A’ was taken out the side-door of the theater and transported to the parking-lot of the El Chico restaurant on W. Davis, where he had parked the borrowed Plymouth. Iggy had driven behind them all the way from the Theater, and after the driver had left he drove into the parking lot. Mike, who was by this time getting ready to drive away, got out of the Plymouth and came over to the T-Bird to speak to Iggy. Iggy told him to go on ahead to the motel, and he would be there in about 15 minutes after he had picked up a take-out order from the restaurant. Iggy then got out of his car and walked across to the entrance of the El Chico. Mike got back into the Plymouth, and was just about to turn left and head west on W. Davis when he was spotted by an employee of the Mack Pate garage, which was located one block south on W. Seventh St. and directly behind the El Chico. The man, T.F. White, was a frequent visitor to the restaurant to pick-up food and beverages, both for himself and other workers at the garage. He recognized Mike, having spoken to him on a couple of occasions when they were both waiting for their orders to be prepared . Although White did not know his first name , he did know Mike’s surname , because when bringing his order to the counter from the kitchen the waitress would call it out, and Mike would respond accordingly. At that time Mike and his family had been living on Neeley St., just one block north of W.Davis. His name was ‘Oswald’. Attached Picture of Iggy outside the Texas Theater

http://www.ctrl.org/essay2/NCTJFKA.html The above website presents information on Gehlen and other 'names' in the United States

undefined

Following the fatal head shot, perhaps JFK's body was not exactly where the Zapruder film would have us believe it was . Here's another portion of Z.# 321 to examine: ... and the black and white rendition :

The fatal head shot had just occurred only .45 seconds earlier , and yet Jackie was able to accomplish what we see her doing from Z.321-330 ( in .55 seconds).Physiologically and neurologically impossible ! Her husband's head has just exploded only inches away from the front of her face, and yet we see not the least evidence of a startle reponse. In fact, paradoxically what we see is the direct opposite. Her eyes are open not closed, which they should be. Her movements are coordinated , not uncoordinated, which they should be. Her movement and the turn of her head are towards the source of the unexpected 'explosion' of JFK's head and not away from it, which they should be. Muscular control and coordination cannot be regained in so short a space of time. What is being depicted defies logic. The frames have ben 'doctored'. It's a sheer waste of time and energy accepting them as being other than fraudulent, and then engaging in all kinds of useless arguments relating to their significance and/or interpretation. In short, many are engaging in precisely what the WC, the HSCA, and the Zapruder film intended them to do, namely running in circles and getting nowhere. ...And, lamentably, so it will continue ! Notice that I stated, "The fatal head shot had just occurred only .45 seconds earlier , and yet Jackie was able to accomplish what we see her doing from Z.321-330 ( in .55 seconds). Physiologically and neurologically impossible !" The point being, that the human startle response cannot be resolved in a matter of .45 seconds, and what we should see is its continuance right through Z. #321-330. The total running time involved between Z.#313 and Z.# 330 is as close to 1 second as can be. If anyone thinks that a human head can be blown apart in one's face, and then less than a 1/2 second later the effects of the shock, disorientation and loss of muscular control have already run their course to the extent of what we see depicted from Z.321-330, then they must have been born yesterday. The Z. # 321-330 sequence of frames was 'doctored'. That's what I claimed , and I stand by it. The relevant section of Z. #321 is attached below. Taking a long serious look at it may suggest to viewers why the 'doctoring' had to be done. I'll return to discuss that specific frame later, and very likely by means of opening a new thread. To begin, look carefully at the image of Jackie's hair on her left side:

The fatal head shot had just occurred only .45 seconds earlier , and yet Jackie was able to accomplish what we see her doing from Z.321-330 ( in .55 seconds).Physiologically and neurologically impossible ! Her husband's head has just exploded only inches away from the front of her face, and yet we see not the least evidence of a startle reponse. In fact, paradoxically what we see is the direct opposite. Her eyes are open not closed, which they should be. Her movements are coordinated , not uncoordinated, which they should be. Her movement and the turn of her head are towards the source of the unexpected 'explosion' of JFK's head and not away from it, which they should be. Muscular control and coordination cannot be regained in so short a space of time. What is being depicted defies logic. The frames have ben 'doctored'. It's a sheer waste of time and energy accepting them as being other than fraudulent, and then engaging in all kinds of useless arguments relating to their significance and/or interpretation. In short, many are engaging in precisely what the WC, the HSCA, and the Zapruder film intended them to do, namely running in circles and getting nowhere. ...And, lamentably, so it will continue !

The fatal head shot had just occurred only .45 seconds earlier , and yet Jackie was able to accomplish what we see her doing from Z.321-330 ( in .55 seconds).Physiologically and neurologically impossible !

John, From what I can see, light was being reflected from camera lenses in that location.

Would it be helpful to conduct a comparative study of the early frames in the Nix film depicting the motorcade on Houston St. to those depicting the limousine as it was driving down Elm St.? The assumption being that no frames would have been removed from the former.

Still no reaction to the picture itself? Or is so 'lossy' that it can be justifiably ignored? I don't think so..... and the message stands, even though the messenger is in constant danger of being pilloried. Obviously once again you cannot 'see', and that's fine....but why not let others decide for themselves. Does 'lossiness' mean that images change shape or disappear? Both the right and left pictures proved to give little difficulty when examined in Adobe PhotoDeluxe. The one on the left was simply treated by the push of a single button . and it came up even clearer on the screen. The text was left as it appeared. I could have erased it, but I knew that if I left it untouched, it would show that it resulted from the despeckling. I expected that you would have something to say about it, but nonetheless that did not stop my presenting things exactly as I had found them. Both the image of the van on Commerce St. and the 'Purse' frame posted above, have images embedded which depict....What? If nobody even looks, then of course the Zapruder film remains ever the 'unaltered' depiction of the truth. .. and that was being proclaimed by some 'not-ables' many years before Zavada reported his findings. They toil not, but they certainly do spin! Finally, here is a zoomed in portion of the frame depicting images immediately to the left of the obscured letter 'P' in 'PURSE': The two smaller inset pics were cropped from Willis 5 and Betzner. All three are showing the same images in the exact same spot on the east side of the GK. What you need to do is to find them in Willis and Betzner respectively, since that's where they are depicted.

Despite the ' lossiness', and by simply dragging and dropping the picture from the website into PhotoDeluxe 2.1, all that had to be done was to despeckle it. The one on the left now looks cleaner and sharper than the one on the right . The Z. frame # was not provided when the file was originally downloaded. However, all of the 'Purse & Co' frames merit close inspection. In the one posted, here is what should be attracting attention: Just by looking at the picture should tell one that it makes little sense. However, it's up to individual viewers to decide for themselves. Who knows what might turn up.

Set monitor screen at 800X 600. Crop and enlarge the area to the left of 'Purse'

Here is Z. Frame # 416 Zooming in: ...and on the side of the van

To facilitate your viewing, here are the positive and negative black and white versions.

<Again, my statement that this is a false dilemma applies. You demand a yes/no answer to a question that may have more than two possibilities.> Here once again is the question : (1) [A] Assuming that every single attempt to show that the film was altered, has failed, would that be grounds for concluding that it is 100% authentic ? YES/NO. It's simply asking does A imply B. The answer to (1) cannot be other than NO. The point being, that those who persist in rejecting the alterationist claims, have no grounds whatsoever for concluding that by so doing, it verifies the authenticity of the film, and that's it in a nutshell; nor can they prove that the fim is authentic (question # 2). All they can do is engage in tub-thumping rejectionist rhetoric and trotting out testimonials to the so-called 'experts' Check out www.dictionary.com for the various definitions of the word 'dilemma' and you'll read Dilemma: 1. a situation requiring a choice between equally undesirable alternatives. 2. any difficult or perplexing situation or problem. 3. Logic. a form of syllogism in which the major premise is formed of two or more hypothetical propositions and the minor premise is a disjunctive proposition, as “If A, then B; if C then D. Either A or C. Therefore, either B or D.” Where is the syllogism in (1) ? Where are the major and minor premises? There is no dilemma . The law of excluded middle prevails, and Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page ) describes it thusly : In modern logic, the law of the excluded middle states that a proposition is either true or false. As one of the laws of classical logic, it can be symbolically expressed as P ∨ ~P. Derived from the Latin principle "tertium non datur", it is literally translated as "a third is not given." In plain language, on the other hand, the law may take the form of someone claiming that there are two points of view on the matter of such-and-such, and that no third point of view is possible. In traditional logic, this law is formulated as "A is B or A is not B" in which statement A is a subject and B a meaningful predicate (to be asserted or denied for A) : "Socrates is mortal or Socrates is not mortal," for example. The law may also be reformulated as "B(A) or not B(A)". If one were to falsely assume that a poorly-defined predicate - the B part of the proposition - must be either true or false, that person has commited the fallacy of the excluded middle. This law has a long and complicated history in philosophy, and is commonly referred to as a false dilemma. Either the film was 'doctored' or it was not, There is no middle ground ( "tertium non datur" ) , but apparently you think that there are two or more alternatives, not alone w.r.t to (2) , but you erroneously apply the self-same malarky above in the opening quote in responding to (1) < "My current understanding of the provenance of the film.....indicates that alteration is unlikely, at least within the detection capabilities of today's technology." > That's the direct opposite of what one of your fellow travellers is saying, namely, "...... could a cutting edge 1963 fake, pass muster in the 21st century?" Also, there's nothing like CYA just in case it turns out that future technolgy reveals that you chose the losing side <I'd like to think that this qualifies for an open-minded position, as I've certainly not closed any doors or avenues of discussion.> I can accept that you like to think that - D'ont we all ? But when it comes to closing doors, out of nowhere you appeared and attempted to slam one right in my face. Take care that your readers do not misinterpret 'open-mided ' as being 'self-righteous'. The cultivation of a few redeeming faults serves all of us admirably, as does the adoption once in a while of a modicum of intellectual humility . There is absolutely no disgrace in being wrong about something. Confession is ever good for the soul, so they say. Talents differ and to err is human. Everyone , and no matter how talented or intelligent, can make mistakes . There's a saying, 'Anyone who never made a mistake, never made anything'. .

<Charlie with all due respect I dont think the question is whether the film could have been altered, but rather, could the alteration have remained undetected, given the level of scrutiny applied to it. in other words could a cutting edge 1963 fake, pass muster in the 21st century > No, one would think not... and that's precisely what many subscribers on this forum and all the other JFK assassination forums have been reporting. It certainly does not pass muster. Could it be that the 'experts' cannot 'see' , or is it that they see only what they want to see.? Such an inspired observation will most certainly be appreciated by alteration aficionados everywhere. Well done !

Comment: Mark, based on what you wrote , I understand that like Robin you too have unanswered questions. Having unanswered questions is fine, and I have not the least problem with anyone asking questions. As a matter of fact the more questions that are asked, so much the better. If one keeps open-minded and asks questions, one is quite simply seeking the truth. However, if one already knows the truth, then there is no necessity to seek it. However, how does that lead you to believe that the film is authentic? Moreover, once you countenance the posssibily of the film having been 'doctored' , which you have, then you are facing the reality of having to conclude that you really do not know for sure. You say you believe the film is authentic, which is in fact precisely what CT anti-alterationists and LNers alike are claiming. They do not know, they just believe. The only difference being, is that they will not concede even the possibility of tampering, while you do. The most intolerant people in the history of the world's religions have been true believers. Religious fanaticism thrives on intolerance, as did the Spanish Inquisition, Nazism, and all the way up to what we are seeing to-day in Afghanistan and Iraq with the suicide bombers. As Winston Churchill observed "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject", and if Winston were alive to-day and subscribing to this forum, I am perfectly sure that he would not be constraining his definition only to one side of the house. If you visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith you might want to conclude that 'knowing' something to be true and 'believing' something to be true are not synonymous. Keeping an open mind is just dandy. In that regard, I must say that to your great credit, both Robin and you stated your positions quite clearly. But in so doing , why is it that the answer to question (1) has not yet been provided ? ... I am still waiting. Open -minded people, if they ever go on the attack , consistenly attack the sins and the deeds, but refrain from lashing out at the sinners and the doers. It's a pleasure to dialogue with such good people, and it reflects toleration and goodwill. When I read what they have to say, it reminds me that there are three kinds of people in the world; people who are interested in discussing people, people who are interested in discussing events , and people who are interested in discussing concepts and ideas. The third group thrives on both open -minded commom sense and unbiased thinking. Would that we could follow the example of the two mind readers who met in the street, and one said to the other, " You are feeling really well to-day, Sir. Tell me .... How am I ? Thanks for responding .

(1) Assuming that every single attempt up to now , to show that the film was altered, has failed, would that be grounds for concluding that it is 100% authentic ? YES/NO (2) Are you prepared to explain how you know with absolute certainty that the film was not altered ? YES/NO ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Frank, Generally speaking I find your comments to be both appropriate and helpful. You observed correctly that one cannot prove a negative. That is precisely the point I was making, since it highlights the sheer impossibility of anyone being able to respond with a YES to question (2). Nevertheless, there are those who persist in so doing. To put a stop to that kind of nonsense, could doubtless be classified as being wishful thinking, but that in fact was why I posed the questions. You said: <Your questions create a logical fallacy in several ways.> Comment: Not so. You are referring to ' questions '. That is precisely what I was avoiding, namely putting (1) and (2) together to frame some kind of syllogism. The questions can be answered individually without compromising oneself in any way. The logical fallacy is accomplished by those who respond with YES to both questions. Further, I notice that you and others have completely avoided responding to (1). May I take it that you would respond to it with a NO? .... and, yes, both questions are leading questions, but that excuses nobody from having to face up to having to address them, and each individually. Certainly a NO response to both questions was being implied, or if you prefer 'forced' , but that was both logical and absolutey essential , in order to show that even if one rejects/cannot accept alterationist arguments, nevertheless that does not justify the conclusion that the Zapruder is authentic, nor as Charles Black so eloquently implies , does it preclude the liklihood of the alterationist position being verified in the future. <First, you have created a false dilemma by forcing only a yes/no answer when there are obviously alternatives.> Comment: If by ' false dilemma' you are implying that some kind of dissembling was being employed, then once again your interpretation is unfortunately being based on the assumption that I was attempting to establish a common 'middle' where none existed. For example the 'B' in deducing that if A=B and B=C, then A=C . In fact, as I stated above, I was arguing the case for separating/not combining the two questions, and thereby attempting to ensure that they would not be interpreted as being major and minor premises of convoluted thinking. <Secondly, you are shifting the burden of proof, incorrectly, away from the claimant. In essence, the logic goes like: "I believe the z-film was altered. Prove to me that it wasn't." This not only incorrectly shifts the burden of proof, but also requires proving a negative.> Comment : I had already considered the 'Prove to me that it wasn't.' aspect' prior to posting the questions. Under the circumstances, it is a perfectly legitimate consideration, and not with the intention of transferring what you describe as being the burden of proof, but most certainly to increase awareness of the fact that it is absolutely impossible to respond to a statement which should never have been made in the first place. Once again I am drawing attention to the fact that not alone is the anti-alterationist position untenable, but also that it is nothing more than what it's very name implies. It negates/rejects the claims of dedicated and honest reporters , and then proceeds to defend the Zapruder film as being the genuine article. There is no "B' linkage between their (1) and (2) YES positions , but still they persist in making the inference. ( I also addressed this aspect in the opening paragraph.) <It is, obviously, perfectly acceptable to call any given theory into question. However, when calling into question a theory that has by in large been accepted, the burden of proof falls squarely on the claimant. Comment: What I am doing is quite the opposite. I am calling into question the CT anti-alterationist faction who apparently prefer the 'doppelganger' role of 'running with the hare while hunting with the hounds'. When it comes right down to it, their position re the Zapruder film is exactly the same as the LN position. Both hold it to be authentic. How can anyone justifiably claim to be a CT subscriber, claim that the assassination was based on a conspiracy which was then covered-up by the WC, and then naively conclude that while the WC was lying on the one hand, the Zapruder film is a testimony to truth on the other. The only reason that the film was ever made available for public viewing, was to add support to the LN mythology, and for no other reason. To conclude: It's quite simple really. There is no possible way that (2) can we answered YES, for (2) could equally well have been written ' How do you know that the film was not 'doctored' ? ... as you correctly observed when you referred to the impossibility of proving a negative proposition. In other words, those who proclaim that the film is 100% genuine, would be well advised to admit that logically they have no way of knowing one way or the other, and so, to mend their ways, all they have to do is respond to (1) with an obviously logical truthful NO. The question is... Is there one of them with sufficient intestinal fortitude to admit it ? Therein lies the challenge to preserving integrity. Just wait and see !

Robin, First you said, " I don't subscribe to the Zapruder film alteration theory." Now you say, " I don't confess to know ANYTHING about this case with absolute certainty." What all of that conveys to the reader is that since you do not subscribe to the alteration theory, then either you support the anti-alterationist position or you do not. Which is it?.... Or are you saying that you are keeping an open mind and presently subscribing to neither one nor the other? That would be quite understandable, and it would leave nobody the opportunity to infer, that since you do not subscribe to the alteration theory, you must necessarily then believe that the Zapruder film is 100% authentic. To elucidate further, what follows was originally written to be posted as a response to one who, so to speak, 'jumped the gun' in order to put his own 'spin' on things. The implication being that by putting the two questions, I was at the same time somehow suggesting that I believed that the footage was 'doctored' shortly after the assassination. I most certainly do not believe that could even have been possible. What I do believe, is that anyone who viewed the film prior to the WCR would have seen nothing out of place. The film at that time was indeed an authentic representation of what had actually occurred.There was no need to 'doctor' it, for what it depicted left the case completely open for anyone to conclude that JFK's death involved more than just LHO. The point being, that it only became necessary to 'doctor' the footage after the WC had pronounced LHO to be the LN assassin. This is my response: Shaping something entirely to one's own preferences and deliberately avoiding either to quote and /or to address the actual questions which were posted, can so very easily be interpreted as being just another example of psychological judgment assuming pride of place over logical judgment. Lest there be any doubt whatsoever as to the specific questions which were asked, here they are again: (1) Assuming that every single attempt up to now , to show that the film was altered, has failed, would that be grounds for concluding that it is 100% authentic ? YES/NO (2) Are you prepared to explain how you know with absolute certainty that the film was not altered ? YES/NO Limited YES/NO responses were requested. The fact of the matter is that (2) YES cannot be logically deduced from (1) YES . The fact that one rejects every single attempt that has been made by a great many others to show that the film was altered , does not mean one can then logically conclude that it justifies the assumption (and that's precisely what it is) that (2)YES is verifiable. Rather than announce oneself to all and sundry as being 'atheistic' , would it not be logical and indeed wiser to adopt the role of the 'agnostic' , cultivate a modicum of intellectual modesty , and declare that at the very least one will remain to be convinced one way or the other. It's called keeping an open mind, and it will assuredly be of great assistance in transforming limbic emotional prejudice into neocortical toleration and goodwill towards others, who, presumably, are equally just as committed to seeing that truth and justice will eventually come to pass in the case of the assassination of JFK.

Robin, I have two limited response questions for you to address: (1) Assuming that every single attempt up to now , to show that the film was altered, has failed, would that be grounds for concluding that it is 100% authentic ? YES/NO (2) Are you prepared to explain how you know with absolute certainty that the film was not altered ? YES/NO If you are correct, I and many others will be compelled to admit the error of our ways. While it will be embarrassing, nevertheless, I for one shall not hesitate. What is, is. What is not, is not. There can be no middle ground. All I have to do to mend my ways, is to have someone explain logically to me, not how they know that I and the others are wrong, but how they know for certain that he/she is correct when claiming that the Zapruder film is unquestionably the genuine article, the 'real deal' so to speak. I have already posted that question in an earlier thread. Last time I looked there had been well over 100 visits, but not one person had replied. Hopefully that will not be the case on this occasion. I really and truly want to understand how one can arrive at such a conclusion.

Might be the seat behind him. Mark, You may be quite correct . Take a look at the attached picture, and you can see it's possible that Nellie wedged her purse into the narrow space between the bottom of the glass partition and the top of the front seat. There also appears to be a matching glove to the right of the purse. The only thing is, the color clashes with the color of her suit. Anyway, I'll let it go for the present , and continue working on the remainder of the presentation later this evening or to-morrow.

Can anyone identify the green item lying above the dashboard in front of Kellerman? He appears to be either holding it or touching it with his left hand. Right away I thought it might be Nellie's purse, but since its green colored, it would not have matched what she was wearing ... ???? Then I thought it might be a roll of small -sized, light green colored garbage bags. The green color is important, since I shall be referring to it later in the current thread. .. and is that a thermos flask right above it? If it is,then the green item might possibly be Kellerman's wrapped lunch, and he's taking it out of the glove compartment along with the thermos, in order to find something underneath. However, there is one possibility that seems much more reasonable: The flask contains ice water, and the green item is a plastic bag containing dixie cups. What do you think?

Gary, To the left of the tree the middle section of the limousine which, if you zoom in on it , appears to depict Jackie holding JFK on the rear seat and Nellie Connally standing above her husband, John, who is lying slouched on the jump seat below her. That may be all just fine and dandy, but compared to the depiction of the front and rear sections of the limousine, it's completely out of proportion. Compare the size of what appears to be Jackie and JFK's images with that of Clint Hill's on the trunk and Kellerman's in the front seat. The 'tree' would be concealing the exact spot where I said JFK was lying on his back in the limousine, immediately behind and partially on top of John Connally's jump seat, but whether or not the tree was 'doctored in' remains an open question.

Here is Z. frame #456 . It is recommended that first impressions be verified using PhotoShop or a similar type of software. Likewise, the pictures posted immediately above by Robin. Notice that the rear seat appears now to be occupied only towards the right.