David G. Healy

Funny how the majority of Americans [and growing] are of the opinion that the official version is nothing but xxxx. Do you also believe that the Gulf of Tonkin 'incident' was real? The WC was the truth about Dallas or maybe that the Poles attacked Germany and some Communist set fire to the Reichstag?.....post away you Coincidence theorists and apologists for the Empire.....while the forces are evil are currently on your side the tide of history is not, I'm afraid..... so declare 'victory' and be smug....no one is buying the story you sell. Majority of American? Time to pony up there Lemming and post the actual poll that gave these numbers. No one is buying what YOU have to sell these days WITHOUT some actual DATA to back up your claims. ah.... hello, Craigster -- looks like the data is there, pony up time

'Bill Miller' wrote: I have never claimed to be a photographic expert, but I know photograqphic experts and Costella is not one of them. A Photgraphic Expert (or even a good researcher) would have known why the MPI version of the Zfilm was not as sharp as the 1st generation copies that Life Magazine placed into print, but it seems that Costella was oblivious to this information. Even someone skilled in perspective or even someone who has studied drawing would have seen that Moorman's camera was above the tops of those motorcycles windshield in Mary's famous Polaroid, but not Costella. These are all indications in my view that Costella is not a Photographic expert nor even is he qualified to render opinions about photos because of his inability to read them properly. Bill Miller Please let us know who your photographic experts are, after all we'd like to give them the credit they so deserve. So folks, the above response is shorthand for, NOPE he doesn't want to compare credentials with John Costella. Why not get Gary's permission and start a thread about the MPI film...? I'm sure those folks are ready for more criticism... Better yet, get RGroden in here to talk about the Z-film, maybe his credentials [which I'd like to see in black and white] can pass muster.... Maybe Mary Moorman will drop by and clarify her street/grass position? After reading Lifton's, Pig on a Leash, I'm not quite sure where she was...

Sid Walker' wrote: Looks like Peres, that meet with your approval?

Some rumors had Oswald working undercover (ATF?), doing grunt work on gun running, illegal fire arm sales or some such thing. Not sure if Stone's 'JFK' alluded to this or not.

Don't worry John. These guys must actually like each other. They've been enjoying repartee with each other for five years, dating back to other forums. Scarcely a day goes by when one of them doesn't have something to say to the other. Think about it, John. Five years. My unsolicited advice is to stay out of their discussions. There are plenty of other threads. Mike Hogan Get lost Hogan we've been onto your game for a few years....!

3+ years and this is the best you manage? Verify the problems the Costella study made, have a Physicist endorse your position, we'll move on, should be a peice of cake, yes? If I remember correctly, John Costella was going to be the Lone Nutter's/Dealey Plaza photo historical record savior (who spent weeks courting him? then to be told by Costella, they didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground) -- then lo and behold look what happened, Costella quote: "the Zapruder Film is a fraud...". THAT surprised even ME... So, whoops, no wonder why your pissed... psst, there are NO Elm Street lighting questions! Your expertise can remain in the studio... we don't need it! Is it ANY wonder why this case has languished... Is Zavada still alive...or just brain dead? Jack I don't know, Jack. Last I heard he was under the weather for a spell... I'll be dropping him a note soon, see where he and Ray Fielding are with the new and improved report... I haven't received any inadvertant emails from members of the gang recently, so I'm out of that loop In all honesty, I'm not so sure we're gonna hear anything substantial, or otherwise.

'Bill Miller' wrote: [...] David, Costella isn't qualified to make such findings. For instance, Costella missed the point of Moorman's camera being above the cycles windshields in support of Moorman being in the street or not, so what I am saying is that he is capable of making mistakes as we all are. And as someone of authority, he has an obligation to seek peer review which I have not seen him do. In fact, some of the mistakes he has made didn't take an expert to see them. Costella certainly is not a photographic expert ... of course, perhaps this is one of the reasons that he doesn't seek peer review of his work. Bill Miller ********** then you should have absolutely no problem finding, retaining a physicist to review his work (its all out there, been in the public for 3+ years now, website, published, etc) and put the issue to rest. But you won't, or you can't find some such individual. What kind of credibility does that lend to your side of the debate? NONE I say! How do you know Costella is not a Photographic expert, are you willing to place your credentials (to the best of my knowledge nobody knows what your photo credentials are, if in fact you have any) against his?

3+ years and this is the best you manage? Verify the problems the Costella study made, have a Physicist endorse your position, we'll move on, should be a peice of cake, yes? If I remember correctly, John Costella was going to be the Lone Nutter's/Dealey Plaza photo historical record savior (who spent weeks courting him? then to be told by Costella, they didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground) -- then lo and behold look what happened, Costella quote: "the Zapruder Film is a fraud...". THAT surprised even ME... So, whoops, no wonder why your pissed... psst, there are NO Elm Street lighting questions! Your expertise can remain in the studio... we don't need it! Is it ANY wonder why this case has languished...

'Bill Miller' wrote: Please allow me to try and add some clarity to all this ... dgh: clarity? sounds like you're running interference for the clowns.... lmao! I am rather puzzled as to why Jack would post on the Bronson film in light of his poor ability to interpret photos. Did the limo advance east between the two images (Bronson slide Vs Bronson film) - the answer is "yes' ... that is what happens when a man takes a photo of a moving car and then lowers it to then start filming with his movie camera. As far as Zapruder and Sitzman being too short and the other differences mentioned - thats all Jack's making. dgh: YOU can't hang a positive ID on Zapruder/Sitzman standing on that DP pedestal, yet it's Jack's fault for saying their too short? roflmao! Trying to look for definition in such a poor degraded film capture can only lead to incorrect interpretations. Should BS reply to such nonsense - maybe not, but in all fairness to BS ... no one complains when it is Jack doing the same thing. dgh: AGAIN you can't hang a positive ID on Zapruder/Sitzman standing on that DP pedestal -- can Slattery positively ID to our satisfaction whose standing on the pedestal? Your grasping at straws champ! And as far as Craig's role in all of this .... Craig doesn't come off as a historian of the JFK assassination so much, but rather he is an expert in lighting when it comes to photography. dgh: Oh, other than using *silk* how much of a expert do you need to be when dealing with a single lighting source called the SUN -- this isn't studio lighting 101, if Lamson can dish it out, he can take it. If this is the best you got... LOL His answers may not offer enough of a conspiratorial explanation for some peoples liking here, but regardless of what one wishes to believe ....... they will be hard pressed to find another expert to disagree with the points Craig makes regarding these matters. dgh:01 bullxxxx... when it comes to experts in ANYTHING you'll gain notice when you produce a physicist to dispute John Costella findings.... Bill Miller

Jack you would not know a photographic fact if it bit you on your azz... I guess in your case ignorance IS bilss. To many *specular highlights* is your brewsky these days?

Hi, Cliff. I've taken the liberty of excerpting the quotes above from several of your messages, not to comment on the evidence at issue—since I believe the "medical evidence" is almost exclusively the game of the disinformationists for reasons set forth herein—but to comment on the games played on their selected playing fields. The boundaries of their playing fields are always marked by the edges of the mists of ambiguity. Hardly any greater ambiguity exists than the provenance and validity of the "medical evidence." It is a Klein bottle of "evidence," existing inside and outside itself with no entrance and no exit (and that can be taken in any way anyone wishes, literally or figuratively). Their playing fields are governed, in terms of time, only by infinity, and, in terms of goals, only by conflict: time never expires, conflicts are never resolved, scores cannot be made, arguments can be neither won nor lost. But the game can be won infinitely by the playing field owners, since the only goal anywhere on the field is the continuance of the conflict through any means, any tactic, without the slightest regard for any rules of engagement, debate, or decency. Anyone reckless enough to play their game on their own fields of ambiguity with the hope of any other possible outcome is doomed by stepping on the field. Their overriding and ruling rule is chaos, not order. Even if one should be clever or observant enough to make inroads of clarity on their foggy fields of ambiguity, the amorphous boundaries—like the time that governs play—are infinitely movable and infinitely expandable through the infinite accusation of fictional "arguments" never argued or proposed, just as you bemoan above. If you should be so astute as actually to take one tiny piece of their ground, 20,000 more acres of mist are created from nothing in an instant and added to the field stretched out before you. And what does it matter, anyway, once one has accepted and donned the hideous uniform/costume/frightmask they created for the "Conspiracy Theorist," a non-existent and entirely generalized "persona" that the disinformationists have so thoroughly discredited that to wear the garment is to lose the game. As long as they can make the game one of "CTs" versus them—in their own endless conspiracy of disinformation, a delicious irony—they have assured for themselves infinite conflict on their own fields of infinite ambiguity, and that is the only game they will play. Ashton Gray I've always felt the CT versus Lone Nutter arguments [regarding the DP photo/films] are in play to hide case medical evidence conflicts [including x-rays] more specifically the SB-Theory. Great post Ashton... David Healy

Well, David ... at least Pee-Wee Herman did his business in a dark movie house Vs. you doing it on a forum whose subject matter is of no real interest to you. Bill Miller well, of course -- Bill Miller comes up with something original -- what-a-loon!

Tell ya what. Take a class on remedial spelling and grammar. Read a few books on the case. Learn to differentiate what constitutes an "LN" and a "CT." Quit acting like a jerk and a fool. Then maybe the "lurkers" as you call them won't think you're a "Lone Nut" Then I'll be satisfied. Mike ... you are trying to reason with a jerk-off ... Healy isn't interested in anything but trolling the JFK forums. Bill tsk-tsk, alleged CTer's that have been called out certainly squirm. Put up something original, I'll consider it -- Hogan's nothing more LN clone, just like YOU, till then, you are just another voice in the LN choir

Let me bring'em up to date.... I think your a royal a**hole, you think the same of me... You stay on the LN side of the street, I'll stay on the CT side, satisified?

do YOU?

Well, David ... you were a member of the looney forum when all that discussion was going on and I brought up to Burnham that his time allotment for the limo stop was several seconds diferent than othes who were at that time claiming to have seen the so-called other film. Why, if you were reading the forum at that time, that you would not have heard about the limo stop lasting 3- 4 seconds is something that I cannot explain other than you were not paying enough attention or have merely forgotten it. It was those variances in these other film claims that caused me to question that so many individuals had seen the same 'other film'. Why would some rabid alterationist make a false claim in support of their beliefs ... you are kidding me - right! Who might be dishonest enough to make such a claim ... maybe the same people who were being given all these different versions of another film and then claiming that they alll belonged to a list of people who say saw the same 'other film'. Bill Miller C'mon now Bill, every forum you join, disagreeing with your position, is a *looney* forum. What the hell is new about that? You know damn right and well if the film alterationists folded up the tent, you'd have to drift back to obscurity, inflated egos being what they are, I doubt you'd stand for that, yes? -- I think your shucking and jiving AGAIN when it comes to alleged 3-4 second limo stop. If there's another film, there's another film, what makes you so nervous about it's possible existence? So, I wouldn't let *not* seeing the other film get you down, I haven't seen it either. Haven't spent much bandwidth dealing with it either. Rabid Lone Neuter's and WC supporters NEED the CTer's.

Yep! Guess that we need to inform all of those South Korean teenagers who are riding up and down the Interstate style highway from Seoul to Tague on 900 (+)CC motorcycles that the US "fouled" up. Not to mention the considerably raised standards of living for ALL of the South Korean people, complete with industry, shopping centers, and "excess" throughout the country. Yep! The big, bad ole US Government forced all of this upon the South Korean peoples, when in fact they merely wanted to be left alone in their rice fields to die of numerous diseases or famine. We are soooooo bad! P.S. The older of the South Koreans were about the only peoples I encountered who demonstrated a true appreciation for what the US had done in their country, for them. They had served under the complete dictatorship of Japan, and were aware of the casualties and damage done to their homes by the North Koreans. They had lost many of thier kin in fighting the North Koreans, and fully recognized the loss which the US had committed itself to in order that they could better their lives and the lives of their children. and displayed that gratitude by serving alongside American Forces in Vietnam. The ROK Infantry, while in Vietnam struck terror in VC AND N. Vietnam [regulars] hearts and minds. Where ever MACV placed the ROK Infantry (II Corps ?) was more often than not, the quietest neighborhood in So. Vietnam.

Yes, David ... it can be mathematically proven. You would know this if you'd spend more time actually doing research instead of trolling the forums. Anthony Marsh did this study many years ago and for a brief moment I had thought he was in error, but it was I who was wrong. How did Marsh conclude the exact timing of the Moorman photo in relation to Zapruder's film, well let me make it as simple as I can ... Not only is the position of Jackie in relation to JFK important, but Marsh recognized the importance of the cycles that both Martin and Hargis were riding. You see, between Zapruder frames - those cycles are varying in the distance of their advancement to one another. In Z313 and Z314 - Martin hasn't advanced to the point of passing Moorman's location so to duplicate Mary's photo. The same can be said about Z315 and by Z316 the cycles have advanced in relation to one another too far for by then JFK would be seen through Hargis's windshield. So what Marsh did was to break up their advancement between frames into increments. (I'd have to go check, but I believe he did .10 increments) By doing so he could see that mathematically Z315.6 was when the cycles were best aligned to match that of Moorman's Polaroid. But let's not forget that the alleged 'other film' witnesses are talking about a 2 - 4 second limo stop at the moment of the head shot. 2 seconds equals 36 Zapruder frames and Marsh clearly is working within two Zapruder frames and anything beyond that isn't even worthy of discussion because of the alignment of Martin and Hargis's cycles shields to JFK. So once again I say that the Moorman photo proves beyond a doubt that any 'other film' showing JFK's limo stopped for several seconds is nothing more than a reenactment film that someone has mistaken for the real Zapruder film and /or some of them, if not all, are lying about witnessing such a film. Bill Miller regarding the limo, I've heard of a] slowdown-only, 2] less than one second stop, 3] 2 second stop -- never heard the 4 second time before. Of course all this is meaningless if what we see in Moorman 5 was around the the 2nd shot, the final head shot taking place around Z-355-60. What supports that contention is the SS/FBI reenactment, DP surveyor data .... Lying about seeing another film? Why? The point and rational of that? Its possible existence doesn't help the Z-film alteration crowd, and its definately a pain in the ass for the LNutter's... It's alleged existence advances the case not one inch.... the final head shot taking place around Z-355-60. What supports that contention is the SS/FBI reenactment, DP surveyor data .... The remaining questions being: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z341.jpg 1. When is Z341 NOT Z341? 2. If a man falls down in the forest and there is no one there to see it, did he still fall????? What about if he "jumps" up in the air while in the forest????? How about if he "jumps" up in the air while on Elm St.???????????? 3. And lastly, exactly how fast was Clint Hill, how fast did he have to run, and how many times did he "jump"? Mr. ALTGENS: I was prepared to make a picture at the very instant the President was shot. I had refocused to 15 feet because I wanted a good closeup of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's why I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had prefocused in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened and that's as far as I got with my camera. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z341.jpg ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. ALTGENS: He seemed as if at the time----well, he was in a position-- sort of immobile. He wasn't upright He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have just lodged--it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For those unaware of "history", the frame of the Z-film which showed Mr. Altgens standing with the camera to his eye and about to take the photo, appeared in various newspapers throughout the country on either 11/23/63 or 11/24/63. (can not recall which date that it appeared in the Mobile, AL "Register". This is of course why the WC made an attemp to NOT call Mr. Altgens to testify, as well as NOT publish any copies of the Z-film past the Z334 mark, prior to Mr. Altgens becoming visible in the film, as well as NOT show Mr. Altgens frames of the film which clearly demonstrated his location on Elm St. in exact relationship to the yellow mark on the street curb. This is also the reasoning as to why the WC made their completely phony "AP" photographer re-enactment photo in which they moved the position of the re-enactment camera farther up Elm St. in order to make it appear that Mr. Altgens was in fact standing close to the impact point of the Z313/second shot impact to the head of JFK. http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol18_0054a.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This thing truly is not that difficult to understand. and thanks to you, Tom! For presenting over the years, a clearER *picture* regarding the dimensions of Elm Street and DP in general...

link is dead...

'Michael Hogan' wrote: [...] It's not fair to selectively pick and choose what parts of Zapruder's testimony you want to use to support events as you interpret them, and than dismiss other parts of his testimony by claiming he is being less than honest. Mike ************ Eliminating the "verbose" gets right to the LN POV, doesn't it? Guess if we all thought and felt that way, the WCR would of been swallowed hook, line and sinker, by one and all, including Harold Weisberg. For your information, there's more than a few out here that understand, as well as KNOW, Zapruder was less than honest. However, he is on the record as one that wanted to cooperate isn't he?...

I believe it would be discredited as a 'sophisticated hoax, perpetuated by clever individuals with a deep seated need for attention/affection in their efforts to promote a 'conspiracy' - at complete odds with the official record - not worth paying $16M in tax payers dollars for -- a sham of gargantuan proportions.' Perhaps Specter would even be called upon to provide his two cents, along with Gerald Ford, Dale Myers and Gerald Posner. Maybe even Ted Kennedy - something like, 'Why some senseless individuals would continue to promote this sort of damaging hoax after all of these years escapes me. The Warren Commission demonstrated that there was no conspiracy and I am quite satisfied as to the investigation that took place at that time and its findings. These types of slanderous activities, much like that Stone film, or that insidious game released on the web, do nothing but bring pain to my family and the memory of my Brother.' - lee thanks Lee, I agree....! David

Carl, We've got plenty of "enhanced" versions of the Zapruder film -- what we're sorely lacking is a *exact* duplicate [down ONE film generation] of the Zapruder film [residing at NARA] for research purposes... A "enhanced" version of the Zapruder film is in fact, a altered copy of the in-camera Zapruder film. 8mm film has a long and well travelled history. The film format is capable of high resolution imagery. Even world airlines used the same format for in-flight movie presentations [complete with sound]. The people of the US own the Zapruder film, around 1998 the US taxpayers paid 16million dollars for the film, unfortunately the Z-film copyright wasn't part of the deal. The film is administered by the 6th Floor Museum in Dallas, Texas.

'Craig Lamson' Jack wrote: Present EVIDENCE of the other film rather the accounts of flaky indiviuals like DellaRosa. Perhap the actual FILM? Craig wrote: Can't fathom how difficult it is for one to believe another DP film exists...? So tell us, how would a difficult limo turn from Houston to Elm *blow the case open*? How would the Limo slowing to a quick stop, *blow the case wide open*? How would a further down Elm St, fatal 'headshot' *blow the case wide open*? At this stage of the game would any of the above get us closer to a "conspiracy" resolution...? Simple fact: conspiracy theory exists, HSCA determined it was a conspiracy, that cat is out of the bag.... The rumor exists, that of, another DP film exists, others claim to have seen it... So, IF the other film exists, perhaps the proof you're so adept at calling for, might be right in front of your eyes, that being: the extant Zapruder Film And yes, the rumor persists other films/photos are fake - problem is: your side can't close the Dealey Plaza seamless films/photos deal... with today's technology that should be a snap btw, some of those nilly-willy college kids of the 60's helped turn this country away from an abyss [protestors-demonstrators included]. Also, during those same day's, some of those SAME willy-nilly college kids fought, led and died protecting and ensuring the good fortune some of us so cherish these days [especially on the way to the bank, eh?]. What do YOU or ANYONE else think would happen if "the" other film showed up tomorrow?

Paul, Thanks for the interesting discussion. You strike me as fair minded, astute and a critical thinker. I've about exhausted what I have to say on this subject, but I have taken some excerpts from Zapruder's testimony at the Clay Shaw Trial. I'll be interested in your thoughts. (Any emphases below are mine) Q: What did you see as you took your films in Dealey Plaza that day? Explain to the Jury. A: I saw the approaching motorcade of the President coming from Houston Street, turning left on Elm Street and coming down towards the underpass. As they were approaching where I was standing I heard a shot and noticed where the President leaned towards Jackie. Then I heard another shot which hit him right in the head, over here, and his head practically opened up and a lot of blood and many more things came out. and: Q: During the time your film was being processed, were you present, sir? A: Yes, sir, I was. Q: On that particular day did you have occasion to view what your film showed? A: Yes, the same evening I saw this film. and: Q: Is the copy you have here today identical to the original or are there any plates missing out of this copy? A: That would be hard for me to tell, sir. THE COURT: I cannot hear the witness. What is it? THE WITNESS: That would be hard for me to say. He asked me if there are any frames missing. THE COURT: What is your answer? THE WITNESS: I couldn't say. BY MR. DYMOND: Q: So you don't know whether it is a complete copy of the film you took on the 22nd of November? A: Not if there are one or two frames missing, I couldn't tell you. And finally: BY MR. OSER: Q: Mr. Zapruder, from having seen the film just projected on the screen, can you tell us whether or not this represents what you saw on November 22, 1963, after your original film was developed in Dallas, Texas? A: I would say they do. THE COURT: I didn't hear you again. THE WITNESS: I would say that they do. Yes, they do. BY MR. DYMOND: Q: Mr. Zapruder, are you able to testify that this film that you have just seen run is a complete copy of the pictures taken by you on that day, no frames being missing? A: By complete, what do you mean? If there are any frames removed or so? Q: Any frames removed or damaged or for any reason not shown in this film? A: I couldn't tell you. Q: So you couldn't tell whether any part has been skipped, is that correct? A: I could not. THE COURT: Bring the Jury back. (WHEREUPON, the Jury returned to the courtroom.) THE COURT: All right, Mr. Oser, you may proceed. BY MR. OSER: Q: Mr. Zapruder, from having seen what was projected on this film, can you tell the Court whether or not it appears to be the same as you viewed your original film on November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas? A: Yes, it does. MR. OSER: I tender the witness on traverse. BY MR. DYMOND: Q: This will sound repetitious, but it is because the Jury has now come in. Having viewed this film, sir, are you in a position to say whether the film you have just seen is a complete copy of what you took without any frames having been deleted or taken out or skipped? A: I couldn't tell if any frames were removed. Seen as a whole it shows that I have seen. Seeing you have 18 frames a second you can take out one or two and I couldn't tell. Paul, it seems to me that Zapruder testified under oath that the film shown at the Shaw trial was essentially the same one he thought he had taken. He was only willing to admit that he could not tell if one or two frames were missing. But certainly if his opening sequence had been edited, he would have been able to tell that. If one assumes that Zapruder was honest in his testimony he would not have said what he did if the film had been subtantially altered. Also, in describing the film this time, he says "As they were approaching where I was standing I heard a shot...." Different semantics than his WC testimony and to me, at least, not entirely inconsistent with frame 190 or so......Two or three seconds later Kennedy's Lincoln would no longer be approaching, but more in front of Zapruder, I think. Mike A few things jump out during Zapruder's New Orleans questioning: He saw the limo turn but doesn't film it? The extant Zapruder film does NOT doesn't show the President's Limo turn onto Elm St. Why didn't he film it? COPY? Who provided the copy, where did the copy come from? It appears the same....?

Yes, David ... it can be mathematically proven. You would know this if you'd spend more time actually doing research instead of trolling the forums. Anthony Marsh did this study many years ago and for a brief moment I had thought he was in error, but it was I who was wrong. How did Marsh conclude the exact timing of the Moorman photo in relation to Zapruder's film, well let me make it as simple as I can ... Not only is the position of Jackie in relation to JFK important, but Marsh recognized the importance of the cycles that both Martin and Hargis were riding. You see, between Zapruder frames - those cycles are varying in the distance of their advancement to one another. In Z313 and Z314 - Martin hasn't advanced to the point of passing Moorman's location so to duplicate Mary's photo. The same can be said about Z315 and by Z316 the cycles have advanced in relation to one another too far for by then JFK would be seen through Hargis's windshield. So what Marsh did was to break up their advancement between frames into increments. (I'd have to go check, but I believe he did .10 increments) By doing so he could see that mathematically Z315.6 was when the cycles were best aligned to match that of Moorman's Polaroid. But let's not forget that the alleged 'other film' witnesses are talking about a 2 - 4 second limo stop at the moment of the head shot. 2 seconds equals 36 Zapruder frames and Marsh clearly is working within two Zapruder frames and anything beyond that isn't even worthy of discussion because of the alignment of Martin and Hargis's cycles shields to JFK. So once again I say that the Moorman photo proves beyond a doubt that any 'other film' showing JFK's limo stopped for several seconds is nothing more than a reenactment film that someone has mistaken for the real Zapruder film and /or some of them, if not all, are lying about witnessing such a film. Bill Miller regarding the limo, I've heard of a] slowdown-only, 2] less than one second stop, 3] 2 second stop -- never heard the 4 second time before. Of course all this is meaningless if what we see in Moorman 5 was around the the 2nd shot, the final head shot taking place around Z-355-60. What supports that contention is the SS/FBI reenactment, DP surveyor data .... Lying about seeing another film? Why? The point and rational of that? Its possible existence doesn't help the Z-film alteration crowd, and its definately a pain in the ass for the LNutter's... It's alleged existence advances the case not one inch....