David G. Healy
-
Posts
3,622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David G. Healy
-
-
Written by Jossiah Thompson. AKA Good old fashion common sense. By Denis Pointing
Friday morning in Dallas dawned overcast and showery.
Although "Abe" Zapruder knew the president would be passing close to his office, he chose to leave his year-old movie camera at home. Later that morning, his longtime secretary, Lilian Rodgers, persuaded him to go home and get it. The camera was a top-of-the-line Bell & Howell, Model 414 PD 8 mm camera. He purchased it a year earlier to take movies of his grandchildren. In a family scene on the same spool of film that later would contain John Kennedy’s death, Abe’s grandson can be seen digging beside a tree in a backyard patio.
Shortly after noon, Zapruder wandered over to Dealey Plaza from the Jennifer Juniors offices on the fourth floor of the Dal-Tex Building. He was called "Mr. Z." by his staff and that’s what his receptionist, Marilyn Sitzman, called him as they made their way across the sun-splashed intersection of Elm and Houston Streets. Zapruder and Sitzman moved through the gathering crowd at the intersection and made their way to the concrete pergola and grassy slope of Dealey Plaza beyond. Once there, Zapruder ran his camera to test its windup spring.
"Well before the presidential motorcade came down the street," Marilyn told me in an interview for Life magazine back in 1966, "Mr. Zapruder ran a few frames of the film just with us standing there on the lawn." The frames show Sitzman in a tan wool dress standing by a bench where sit fellow Jennifer Juniors employee Beatrice Hester and her husband, Charles.
"Then he," said Marilyn, "I don’t know if he had decided before or had picked a spot, but he went on top of the... what do you call it?"
I answered that it was a "concrete square."
"Yes," she continued. "Well, he stood up there and he asked me to come up and stand behind him ‘cause when he takes pictures looking through the telescopic lens he might get dizzy and he wanted me to stand behind him so in case he got dizzy I could hold onto him."
Marilyn described what she saw standing there on that concrete pedestal with her boss.
"We saw the motorcade turn the corner at Main onto Houston. He hadn’t started taking pictures there then and we watched them as they came down Houston; and just as the motorcycles that were leading the parade came... started... came around the corner and started down the hill, he started taking pictures then. And there’s nothing unusual about it... there was nothing unusual until the first sound, which I thought was a firecracker, mainly because of the reaction of President Kennedy. He put his hands up to guard his face and leaned to the left, and the motorcade, you know, proceeded down the hill. And the next thing that I remembered correctly... clearly was the shot that hit him directly in front of us, that hit him on the side of his face."
Marilyn said this shot hit Kennedy "between the eye and the ear" and "we could see his brains come out, you know, his head opening. It must have been a terrible shot because it exploded his head, more or less."
Marilyn then described how she and Abe got down off the pedestal, ran down the hill in front of the pedestal and then made their way back into the pergola structure. They were photographed there first by AP photographer James Altgens and then by Art Rickerby of Life magazine.
As the confusion in the Plaza settled down, it was obvious that Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal were in a position to have seen everything. Dallas Morning News reporter Harry McCormick got to the Plaza about ten minutes after the shooting and tried to talk to Zapruder. "Abe" said he would only talk to federal investigators. McCormick went off to find a federal investigator.
Dallas Times-Herald reporter Darwin Payne heard about Zapruder probably from Marilyn Sitzman and Beatrice Hester who were standing across from the Depository in front of the Dal-Tex Building. Payne went to Jennifer Juniors and briefly interviewed Zapruder and tried to get publication rights to Zapruder’s film. Rather quickly, McCormick showed up at Jennifer Juniors with Secret Service Agent Forrest Sorrels in tow. Sorrels later said Zapruder was quite emotional. Zapruder said he would give a copy of the film to Sorrels but it could only be used officially by the Secret Service and not given to any newspapers or magazines. Zapruder told Sorrels he expected to sell the film for a high price. McCormick offered Zapruder several hundred dollars for the film right there but Zapruder turned it down.
McCormick, Sorrels, Zapruder, plus Zapruder’s business partner Erwin Schwartz, then went to WFAA-TV to get the film developed. WFAA-TV could not develop the film but put Zapruder on the air with program director Jay Watson. A still photo shows Schwartz sitting in the studio holding the Zapruder’s camera while Zapruder described over TV what he had seen. Bert Schipp, chief photographer at WFAA-TV, called the Kodak lab and made sure they could process Zapruder’s film.
A Dallas police car took Zapruder, Schwartz and Sorrels to the Kodak lab near Love Field. It was now getting close to 3:00 PM.. Phil Chamberlain met them upon their arrival at the lab. Dick Blair ran off the remaining film onto the camera take-up spool. The film was taken out of the camera and given to Kathryn Kirby. She perforated it with the number 0183 and passed it on to J. Kenny Anderson for processing. Zapruder remained in the lab with his film while all this was being done.
During processing of the film, SS Agent Forrest Sorrels left after receiving word that Lee Harvey Oswald had been arrested. Another Dealey Plaza witness, Phil Willis, and his family arrived with his 35 mm slide film for processing.
Zapruder, Phil Chamberlain and other employees saw the unslit 16 mm film run on a projector at twice normal speed to check for processing errors. Zapruder wanted to run it again. Chamberlain, however, afraid of damaging the film on the projector, told Zapruder there would be no charge for the processing and gave him the processed film.
Zapruder said he wanted to make copies of the 8 mm film for Forrest Sorrels. Kodak could not do this but suggested Zapruder take the film to Jamieson Films in central Dallas. Duplicating film would be the first choice for copying but neither Kodak nor Jamieson had any in 8 mm format. Instead, Chamberlain gave Zapruder the last three rolls he had of Kodachrome IIa (tungsten balanced). They each were 25-feet-long and would have to suffice for copying by Jamieson.
At Jamieson company, the film was copied on a Bell & Howell 5205 Model J continuous contact printer, which had been customized by Jamieson’s staff. As a result, the three copies were marked outside the frame with a "septum line" unique to this particular printer. The same filter pack was used to make all three copies with the exposures bracketed one-half stop apart.
Zapruder returned to the Kodak lab with his camera-original and three unprocessed copies. The copies were given lab ID numbers 0185, 0186 and 0187 and were processed immediately. Following processing, the camera-original was split to 8 mm and viewed at least once by Chamberlain, Zapruder and twelve to fourteen lab personnel. The film was watched in stunned silence except for an audible gasp when Kennedy’s head exploded.
While Zapruder was having his film copied, Life magazine was moving resources to Dallas. In New York, Life managing editor George Hunt cancelled the print run on next week’s issue and sent editorial and photo lab staff to Chicago where a major portion of next week’s issue would be printed. Life editors Dick Stolley and Tommy Thompson flew into Dallas from Life’s Pacific Bureau in Los Angeles and set up offices in the Adolphus Hotel. Meanwhile, Life stringer Patsy Swank had heard of Abraham Zapruder and his film and told Stolley. During the evening hours, Stolley started calling Zapruder’s home at fifteen-minute intervals.
Meanwhile, Zapruder had tracked down Forrest Sorrels, head of the Dallas Secret Service office. He and Erwin Schwartz gave Sorrels two copies of the film while retaining the camera-original and the best of the three copies. At 9:55 PM that night, Secret Service Agent Max Phillips sent off one of these two copies to Chief Rowley in Washington. Very likely, it was that copy which National Photo Interpretation Center (NPIC) technicians studied later that weekend.
Somewhat dazed by the events of the day, Zapruder drove around aimlessly for one-half or three-quarters of an hour before arriving home at 11:00 PM. Stolley reached him at that hour and wanted to see the film that night. Zapruder put him off until the next morning. They would meet at 9:00 AM at Jennifer Juniors.
Stolley showed up at Jennifer Juniors an hour early at 8:00 AM. He persuaded Zapruder to show him the film and bought initial rights from Zapruder for $50,000. Stolley walked out of Zapruder’s office with the camera-original and Zapruder’s remaining copy. Stolley sent both to Chicago where editorial and photolab people were assembling.
The camera-original was worked on in Chicago over Saturday and Sunday. During this preparation work, it was accidentally broken in two spots (Z frames 156-157 and 207-212). Frames 208 through 211 may have been "cooked" or "burned" in a too-hot enlarger as the issue was being prepared. Since these frames survived on both the Life and the two Secret Service copies, it was of no great consequence. Thirty-one (31) frames were selected for black and white reproduction in the Life issue which would hit news-stands the following Tuesday. Millions of copies of Life started to roll off the printing presses in several cities Sunday night and Monday.
Meanwhile, back in New York, Life’s publisher viewed the copy obtained by Stolley and instructed Stolley to buy worldwide exclusive rights from Zapruder. On Monday morning, Stolley met with Zapruder and his lawyer and negotiated the sale to Life of worldwide rights for $150,000. As early as Tuesday or Wednesday, copies were ordered from the Life photolab by editors and began to circulate. In Chicago, a private lab made a 16 mm black and white copy for Life. In Washington, D.C., another private lab made a 16 mm black and white copy for the Secret Service. The Secret Service made additional copies of their copies and these were circulated to other law enforcement agencies. That Monday, Dallas secret service agents asked if they could use the 16 mm projector owned by the local CBS affiliate (KRLD) to view the film. They brought over the film in 16 mm format and Bob Huffaker projected it for them. Huffaker remembered that Dan Rather of CBS News was there to watch it with the agents.
Over the next few weeks, the Zapruder film was at the evidentiary center of various law enforcement investigations. On November 29, 1963, SS Agent J.J. Howlett reported that using the Zapruder film he had been "unable to ascertain the exact location where Governor John B. Connally was struck." However, Howlett stated that "it had been ascertained from the movies that President Kennedy was struck with the first and third shots fired by the assassin, while Governor Connally was truck with the second." Both the initial Secret Service and FBI reports on the shooting reported it the same way, their analyses of the Zapruder film contradicting the later Warren Commission’s single-bullet theory.
The combination of what is seen on the Zapruder film and the minimum mechanical firing time of the rifle caused the Warren Commission extreme difficulties through the winter and spring of 1964. The camera-original of the film was brought to Washington on one occasion and screened by Herb Orth for various members of the Commission staff. In addition, slides of the film were provided by Life. However, nowhere in the voluminous Warren Report or its 26 volumes of testimony and exhibits will one find a single mention of the most obvious feature of the film — the left, backward snap of Kennedy’s head and body following the impact of a bullet to his head.
This one feature of the film was probably responsible for bringing about a reopening of the case in the 1970s. When Bob Groden showed a bootlegged version of the film on Geraldo Rivera’s program, Goodnight America, the American public saw for the first time what had shocked Marilyn Sitzman. Sitzman had been transfixed by the gruesome explosion before her eyes and had not paid much attention to the movement of the President’s body under the impact of the fatal bullet. But the American public saw all this and it registered. A tidal wave of public outcry reached Congress. I was on Rivera’s program with Groden that night (March 6, 1975) and worked that summer with him lobbying senators and representatives. The one part of our presentation that always evoked an audible intake of breath was the showing of the Zapruder film with its gruesome climax. Within a matter of months, the showing of this film and the revelations of the Church Committee prompted Congress to order a reinvestigation of the assassination.
The camera-original of the film now rests in the National Archives as well as the two first-generation copies provided by Zapruder to the Secret Service. The third and best copy of the film, which Zapruder retained and then gave to Dick Stolley on the morning of November 23rd, resides with other Zapruder material in the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza. Zapruder died on August 30, 1970. Marilyn Sitzman died on August 11, 1993. Dick Stolley is alive and well in New York City where he worked for many years as editor of People magazine.
****************************
If altered, the Zapruder film would be an example of a more general phenomenon: the alteration of physical evidence by the authorities in a criminal case. Yes, it does happen. Not often. In fact, it's almost unique. For the last twenty-four years, I've made my living as a defense investigator in criminal cases. Some of these cases were quite celebrated and had quite large stakes on the table for the authorities. In these twenty-some years of experience, I've seen it happen only once or twice. But it does happen.
So let’s ask ourselves: What conditions would have to be satisfied in order for it to make any sense for someone to alter or fabricate physical evidence?
Let’s try a hypothetical case.
Let’s suppose that a particular letter is found at a crime scene. Let's say that that letter was the output of a computer at a remote location. Let's also say that the investigating officer for the authorities had some incentive to change the wording in the letter. If you were that investigating officer, what questions would you ask yourself? Wouldn't you first ask whether there were other copies of the letter? Had the writer kept a copy in a safe place or given it to someone else? Was the text of the letter kept on the computer? Even if it had been deleted from the hard drive of the computer was there a backup somewhere? The alteration of evidence in a criminal case is a desperate act. Would you take that chance if you knew that irrefutable evidence of the alteration might turn up somewhere else? And how could you ever be sure?
Now let’s take for an example a photograph of a crime.
First, you'd have to know exactly how you wanted to alter it. Secondly, you'd have to be sure no other copies — no negative hidden away, no second copy residing in someone else's possession — existed. Thirdly, you'd have to be sure that no other photographs taken by anyone else would later surface to expose the alteration.
First, the problem of copies.
As shown above, the original of the film was processed and copies made under Zapruder’s control on the afternoon of November 22nd. Within hours, two of these copies were given to the Secret Service who immediately began the copying process. One copy was sent to Washington that night with additional copies being made by a private lab in Washington for other law enforcement agencies. The next morning, Zapruder turned over the original and a first copy to Dick Stolley of Life magazine. These were flown to Chicago and immediately turned into enlargements for the Life issue then in preparation. By early Sunday, printing plants in various cities were printing millions of copies of Life containing 31 Zapruder frames. During the next week, the proliferation of copies of the film continued as both the Life photolab turned out copies for editors and a private lab in Chicago produced one or more 16 mm black and white copies. There was no way for anyone to control the ever-growing number of copies, any one of which could expose a potential forgery.
Next, the problem of other photographers.
At the same time that copies of the Zapruder film were being made in Washington, New York and Chicago, other photographers were having their film developed. Fetzer has claimed that the government laid a security net over photo development in the Dallas area, posting individual FBI agents to photo developing locations. This, of course, is nonsense. All the FBI did was ask photo developers to include a note in packets of developed film asking customers to contact the FBI if their photos showed anything relevant to the assassination. Many of the most important films of the assassination were still in their owners’ cameras when the proliferation of Zarpruder copies started. The FBI first learned of the Muchmore film, for example, when it was shown on the New York City station WNEW-TV just after midday on Tuesday, November 26th. Orville Nix's film remained in his camera until the weekend of November 30th/31st.
This is important because of an obvious fact which cannot be underestimated.
When a single event is photographed from different viewpoints, the various photos form a self-authenticating fabric. If any single photo is altered, it will no longer fit with the others. This self-authenticating fabric is precisely what we have with respect to the photographic record of Dealey Plaza on November 22nd. Several dozen photographers were taking still and movie film in and around the Plaza on November 22nd. Where correlations can be made, all of the other photographs and frames of film taken during the assassination correlate with each other and with the Zapruder film.
For example, the famous Altgens photo taken from the front of the president’s limousine as it proceeds down Elm Street has been shown to be coincident with Zapruder frame 255. This means that the position of the limousine with respect to background objects, the position and demeanor of the occupants of the limousine, the position and demeanor of spectators... all these small details have to mesh if both are to be considered authentic. If there is any discrepancy between the two, then some degree of forgery may be suspected. Likewise, (1) with respect to the equally famous Moorman photo showing the limousine in the foreground with the grassy knoll behind and Zapruder and Sitzman on their pedestal, (2) with respect to the Muchmore and Nix movie films which show the assassination itself and the killing impact on Kennedy’s head, (3) with respect to the Willis, Betzner and Towner photos. All these photos and movie film form a single, seamless tapestry. From different angles they present a single picture of what happened in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. Since many of these films were still in their owners’ cameras at the time the Zapruder film genie escaped from the bottle, the fact that they match the Zapruder film establishes the authenticity of both.
With the sequential, detailed exposure of the fallacious arguments presented in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, it becomes ever more clear that Fetzer’s latest book is not just about the Kennedy assassination. Rather, it is about THE BIG CONSPIRACY of which the Kennedy assassination is only a part. The United States failed to go to the moon and constructed the moon photos on a sound stage. It was not an airliner but a DOD missile that crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11. Senator Wellstone’s plane was brought down by an electro-magnetic pulse weapon and even the space shuttle may have been downed by a similar weapon. These are views which Fetzer and some of his contributors have either proclaimed or backed. Fetzer’s book not only exemplifies bogus science put to work in the service of a cult belief, it also offers a whole reservoir of urban myths surrounding the Kennedy assassination.
For true believers, it is not just the Zapruder film whose authenticity is a "hoax": (1) Other films and photos of the events in Dealey Plaza have been fabricated in whole or in part. (2) Physical evidence has been planted. (3) Bullets and cartridge cases have been changed while in government possession. (4) X-rays and photos of the President’s body have been altered and a fake brain has been substituted for the real brain. (5) The President’s body itself has been radically altered before being subjected to autopsy. (6) Two — not three — cartridge cases were found on the Sixth Floor of the Depository with a third added later. (7) A bullet made a through-and-through hole in the windshield and this hole was covered up by the Secret Service. And only for the truly paranoid.... (8) Dealey Plaza has been sprinkled with "listening devices" called "rain sensors" to spy upon the conversations of people like Jack White and John Costella.
There are solid, scientifically grounded reasons for believing that all the shots fired that day in Dealey Plaza did not come from the Texas School Book Depository. In the last few years, the work of Dr. Donald Thomas on the acoustics evidence has rocked earlier skepticism of this evidence back on its heels. It now appears that the chance of the sound impulse of the so-called "grassy knoll" shot being caused by random noise is not 1 in 20 but rather 1 in 200,000. Even more to the point, by applying the work of Dr. Michael Stroscio on the Zapruder film to the acoustics evidence, Thomas has been able to show a correlation between the sound and timing of five shots on Dallas Police Channel #1 and the timing of apparent shots in the Zapruder film. New analyses by Drs. Art Snyder and Erik Randich concerning neutron activation tests done on various bullet fragments show great promise. None of this meticulous, hard work would find a place in Fetzer’s work. Rather, it appears in obscure peer-reviewed journals.
What is particularly odious to me is that Fetzer’s work attempts to mimic the hard work of an earlier generation of private citizens who carried out a meticulous and rigorous investigation of the Kennedy case. It was nearly forty years ago, long before Professor Fetzer and his cohorts came on the scene. Calvin Trillin wrote about it in an article in The New Yorker entitled "The Buffs"(6/10/67; pp. 41-71).
There was Mary Ferrell in Dallas, Penn Jones just outside Dallas, Sylvia Meagher in New York City, Paul Hoch in Berkeley, Cyril Wecht in Pittsburgh, Vince Salandria and myself in Philadelphia, Harold Weisberg in Maryland and Ray Marcus in Los Angeles... and many, many more. A housewife, a lawyer for the school board, the editor of a small paper, a graduate student, a young professor, a WHO official. We were little people. People who had only a few things in common — inquiring minds, an unwillingness to be intimidated by public attitudes, more than a little tenacity, a bit of modesty and a willingness to laugh at oneself. None of us had any money or hoped to make any money out of this. We believed that the government had cheated in their investigation but we weren’t going to cheat in ours. We were going to follow the strict canons of historical research and believed that precisely that rigor would lead us to the truth. We didn’t cite hearsay when we could go to the original source. We didn’t publish muddy photos and then tell people what they should see in them. We didn’t substitute our own speculations for actual evidence. Most importantly, we weren’t looking for any dramatic sensations. We were doing it for its own sake. We formed a community... the closest thing to a true community of inquiry that I've ever known.
Nothing could be farther from that community than the twisted logic and assassinated science of Fetzer's work.
Looking at the present book against the example of that community, one has to be reminded of Marx's prediction that somehow or other historical events get repeated first as tragedy and then as farce. If the HSCA investigation of the 1970s is seen as repeating the work of the buffs as "tragedy," Fetzer's latest compilation must be seen as repeating the whole thing as "farce!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
old news Pointing, real OLD news .... you have the credentials to challenge anything Fetzer or those that contributed to his books have to say? If so speak up.... or asre you just another Josiah Thompson place mat?
-
yawn..... nice dance, no cigar
Don't get in a hurry, David. I am going to give it a few more post and then I'll post just the exact opposite of what I previously said like you did, then I will win the 'David Healy double-talk Award' .... thats far better than a dance and/or a cigar!
focus at the topic at-hand... no comment regarding Paul's post? Or, are you running again? C'mon give us some faith in you, you're out of your league here champ, Gary has thrown you to the wolves.... did you say you were now working at the 6th Floor Museum, I forgot?
Your's in research,
David Healy
-
Doesn't convince, Len. There was a film circulating which was genuinely gruesome and it wasn't the Muchmore:An inconclusive reply to inconclusive speculation. You failed to reply to my other points.
You are correct, Len and its only more reason that these select few never get anywhere with what should be earth-shattering news! Here is something Mack said to me when discussing this issue, "I'm not aware of any confirmed account of an actual film of the assassination on Russian TV or, for that matter, any TV station or network until midday on what is now the FOX TV station in New York City.
To the contrary, I am aware of many conflicting accounts of both the Z and Muchmore films indicating great confusion in the news media as two American giants, LIFE and UPI, waged their own battle to be first with assassination images. Stills from both films started appearing on TV and in print as early as Tuesday the 26th.
Also, it is quite possible that the date of the Russian TV film appearance is in error or the reporter's characterization of it weeks later is simply wrong.
I also know from several newspaper stories at the time that live U.S. broadcast coverage of the assassination weekend that was seen in Europe, Russia, Japan and many other countries all originated with NBC. That network had exclusive access to the transatlantic cable and the two orbiting satellites; in fact, NBC, whose original tapes still exist and whose contents have been seen and documented minute by minute in two books, aired the Dave Wiegman film several times. Wiegman's film, while not showing Kennedy being hit, does show the assassination scene before, during and after the assassination. The horrified faces of the eyewitnesses on the ground - Cheryl McKinnon and the Newman family - would certainly have been considered upsetting or even gruesome at that more sensitive time. "
yawn..... nice dance, no cigar
-
Marilyn described what she saw standing there on that concrete pedestal with her boss.
"We saw the motorcade turn the corner at Main onto Houston. He hadn’t started taking pictures there then and we watched them as they came down Houston; and just as the motorcycles that were leading the parade came... started... came around the corner and started down the hill, he started taking pictures then. And there’s nothing unusual about it... there was nothing unusual until the first sound, which I thought was a firecracker, mainly because of the reaction of President Kennedy. He put his hands up to guard his face and leaned to the left, and the motorcade, you know, proceeded down the hill. And the next thing that I remembered correctly... clearly was the shot that hit him directly in front of us, that hit him on the side of his face."
Marilyn said this shot hit Kennedy "between the eye and the ear" and "we could see his brains come out, you know, his head opening. It must have been a terrible shot because it exploded his head, more or less."
where'd you find this, Wade?
DHealy
thanks man!
David
I found this website for Josiah Thompson - http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zapho...pson-proof.html
-
Marilyn described what she saw standing there on that concrete pedestal with her boss.
"We saw the motorcade turn the corner at Main onto Houston. He hadn’t started taking pictures there then and we watched them as they came down Houston; and just as the motorcycles that were leading the parade came... started... came around the corner and started down the hill, he started taking pictures then. And there’s nothing unusual about it... there was nothing unusual until the first sound, which I thought was a firecracker, mainly because of the reaction of President Kennedy. He put his hands up to guard his face and leaned to the left, and the motorcade, you know, proceeded down the hill. And the next thing that I remembered correctly... clearly was the shot that hit him directly in front of us, that hit him on the side of his face."
Marilyn said this shot hit Kennedy "between the eye and the ear" and "we could see his brains come out, you know, his head opening. It must have been a terrible shot because it exploded his head, more or less."
where'd you find this, Wade?
DHealy
-
Hi everyone,
I found this excerpt from Josiah Thompson:
Over the next few weeks, the Zapruder film was at the evidentiary center of various law enforcement investigations. On November 29, 1963, SS Agent J.J. Howlett reported that using the Zapruder film he had been "unable to ascertain the exact location where Governor John B. Connally was struck." However, Howlett stated that "it had been ascertained from the movies that President Kennedy was struck with the first and third shots fired by the assassin, while Governor Connally was truck with the second." Both the initial Secret Service and FBI reports on the shooting reported it the same way, their analyses of the Zapruder film contradicting the later Warren Commission’s single-bullet theory.
The combination of what is seen on the Zapruder film and the minimum mechanical firing time of the rifle caused the Warren Commission extreme difficulties through the winter and spring of 1964. The camera-original of the film was brought to Washington on one occasion and screened by Herb Orth for various members of the Commission staff. In addition, slides of the film were provided by Life. However, nowhere in the voluminous Warren Report or its 26 volumes of testimony and exhibits will one find a single mention of the most obvious feature of the film — the left, backward snap of Kennedy’s head and body following the impact of a bullet to his head.
I have searched this forum for information on SS Agent JJ Howlett, however, nothing has appeared....
might want google Vince Palmara (he's done much work re SS agents and the JFK assassination) -- you can start here: http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/VP.html
-
I posted this on another thread but I will post it here as well.Fetzer's Film Hoax is available on the web in abbreviated form. It is not very convincing. He believes the entire Zapruder film is a special effects project, with pasted figures of JFK, Jackie and the Connallys placed over a limousine filmed empty, etc. It hinges on some less than convincing problems with the exact angle of the Stemmons Freeway sign and the lamp post.
dgh01: "less than convincing..." are you suggesting the 'physics' are incorrect, or just difficult to believe?
I reviewed the entire site carefully. While I believe the key Headshot Frames may have been doctored in a similar manner to the autopsy films, and the provenance and authenticity of the publicly available prints are highly problematic, the Fetzer theory is not supported by the evidence.
dgh01: What evidence might that be? Surely not Gary Mack, Tink Thompson told me so....?
This thread only makes sense if you have read the book or clicked through the HOAX site. I was not convinced that the film was one big special effect. I do believe the wounds may have been retouched, and that frames were removed to downplay the 1963 Secret Service braking to a near stop in the middle of the ambush.
dgh01: something is better than nothing, I suppose! There is something WRONG with the Z-film, if it's altered, the whole world has been lied too, WHY?
David Healy
Shanet
Hi all
By James Fetzer: No one has suggested that "the whole Zapruder film is a hoax" in the sense that every frame or every image has been faked. The film as a whole is a reconstruction using some authentic footage that was then subjected to the sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects. Try visiting John Costella's "Intro to Zapruder Film Alteration" on assassinationscience.com and you will have the chance to understand how this was done from the world's leading expert on the film. Try it, you'll like it--unless, of course, you are one of those zealots who cannot abide the very idea, in spite of extensive and varied evidence supporting that conclusion.
Time to revive this thread.
Having also read the Hoax site but not, I admit, having read Fetzer's Film Hoax book, I don't find the arguments on the website too convincing.
Jack White seems to imply that the whole Zapruder film is a hoax but I would say to that there is simply far too much to fake: all the people standing on the grass, the car, the secret service and police as well as the principles in the car. The idea of propaganda films or Mary Poppins being "proof" that the Zapruder film was faked in its entirety will not wash.
I agree that there are oddities about the film which might point to manipulation of the images in certain frames, similar to the probable doctoring of the JFK autopsy photos and the photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald with the rifle, and possibly frames missing, but again there is too much in the Zapruder film to fake to claim that the entire film is a hoax to the extent that it could take in my myself and other reasonably minded observers such as Congressional committees or other investigators.
Best regards
Chris George
praytell what's this about?
****This post has been edited by Evan Burton: Yesterday, 08:21 PMReason for edit: Added bolding to distinguish Jim's reply rather than it appearing as just a repeat of the previous posts with no additional comment***
correct me if I'm wrong, the last post to this thread was nearly 2.5 years ago (mine).... Jim Fetzer posts to this thread yesterday and you edit his post for WHAT reason again? What are you doing, Evan? This your own personal playland? Jim Fetzer have an editor assigned to him on this forum?
How dense are you David? Sheesh!
have a tough time reading dates and times, too? Or am I moviong too fast for you?
-
I posted this on another thread but I will post it here as well.Fetzer's Film Hoax is available on the web in abbreviated form. It is not very convincing. He believes the entire Zapruder film is a special effects project, with pasted figures of JFK, Jackie and the Connallys placed over a limousine filmed empty, etc. It hinges on some less than convincing problems with the exact angle of the Stemmons Freeway sign and the lamp post.
dgh01: "less than convincing..." are you suggesting the 'physics' are incorrect, or just difficult to believe?
I reviewed the entire site carefully. While I believe the key Headshot Frames may have been doctored in a similar manner to the autopsy films, and the provenance and authenticity of the publicly available prints are highly problematic, the Fetzer theory is not supported by the evidence.
dgh01: What evidence might that be? Surely not Gary Mack, Tink Thompson told me so....?
This thread only makes sense if you have read the book or clicked through the HOAX site. I was not convinced that the film was one big special effect. I do believe the wounds may have been retouched, and that frames were removed to downplay the 1963 Secret Service braking to a near stop in the middle of the ambush.
dgh01: something is better than nothing, I suppose! There is something WRONG with the Z-film, if it's altered, the whole world has been lied too, WHY?
David Healy
Shanet
Hi all
By James Fetzer: No one has suggested that "the whole Zapruder film is a hoax" in the sense that every frame or every image has been faked. The film as a whole is a reconstruction using some authentic footage that was then subjected to the sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects. Try visiting John Costella's "Intro to Zapruder Film Alteration" on assassinationscience.com and you will have the chance to understand how this was done from the world's leading expert on the film. Try it, you'll like it--unless, of course, you are one of those zealots who cannot abide the very idea, in spite of extensive and varied evidence supporting that conclusion.
Time to revive this thread.
Having also read the Hoax site but not, I admit, having read Fetzer's Film Hoax book, I don't find the arguments on the website too convincing.
Jack White seems to imply that the whole Zapruder film is a hoax but I would say to that there is simply far too much to fake: all the people standing on the grass, the car, the secret service and police as well as the principles in the car. The idea of propaganda films or Mary Poppins being "proof" that the Zapruder film was faked in its entirety will not wash.
I agree that there are oddities about the film which might point to manipulation of the images in certain frames, similar to the probable doctoring of the JFK autopsy photos and the photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald with the rifle, and possibly frames missing, but again there is too much in the Zapruder film to fake to claim that the entire film is a hoax to the extent that it could take in my myself and other reasonably minded observers such as Congressional committees or other investigators.
Best regards
Chris George
praytell what's this about?
****This post has been edited by Evan Burton: Yesterday, 08:21 PMReason for edit: Added bolding to distinguish Jim's reply rather than it appearing as just a repeat of the previous posts with no additional comment***
correct me if I'm wrong, the last post to this thread was nearly 2.5 years ago (mine).... Jim Fetzer posts to this thread yesterday and you edit his post for WHAT reason again? What are you doing, Evan? This your own personal playland? Jim Fetzer have an editor assigned to him on this forum?
-
courtesy of Jim Marrs and Ralph Schuster....
-
yeah.... sure you did.... uh-huh! Perhaps Groden whispered in your ear, eh..... LMFAO
It wasn't Groden, but rather someone on this forum that has seen your countless say-nothing responses.
Bill the best you done in 6 years is create a .gif animation (a bad one at that) Time to move on champ.... the following is #4, from the top 25 tactics disinfo agents use on the USENET boards
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your
opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself
look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you
may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/
opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the
weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way
which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike,
while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
sound familiar?
-
Fellow members, I have been in touch with Gary Mack today via email about the Oswald Russian tape. He told me the tape hasn't been released by the KGB. The Museum doesn't have it. Gary would like it if someone would donate the book Harvey and Lee to the 6th Floor Museum in Dallas. I think it's a historic book and should be donated to any organization -- despite personalities -- regarding President Kennedy Assassination Research.
Kathy Collins
While they might do well to have it - why don't they just purchase a copy and not ask for it as a donation. They charge an entrance fee for their museum and make profits. Copies are still available new.
Peter:
It is just the type of book, that the TSBD does not and will not sell...that is the why he wants one copy donated.... Last Hurrah may have a copy they can buy... I'll sell them mine for $1200 bucks (cash, no checkeroo)
....he does not recommend such books be stored in stock....let alone sold at the book store.......
It has been available for several years....so why would he want a donated copy now.....??
When he has delibertatey ignored such all these years, perhaps it is an awakening....
I would suggest as you have, the TSBD buy it's own copy........they are very quick to charge anyone and all for copies
of anything they sell ,as well as for admittance....
B............
perhaps Gary is finally through with the Great Zapruder Film HOAX, eh? Looking for something else to stimulate his senses?
-
That's about as lame as you can get..... So, why are you responding to the posts here? perhaps? Let's see, you've made a career out of responding to posts that you feel aren't worthy of response, that cover it? I suspect that's pretty damn dumb to everyone else but YOU. Dumb enough to respond to each and every post concerning Dealey Plaza film/pics. Wonder why no one gives you credit for film/photo research? Simple, you've done none! Unless of course you call helping Groden hawk his wares in DP on occasion....
edit--objectionable phrase
Yes, David you contributions to this forum are quite impressive ... and to think that you are the one who says he is never invited for JFK film showings. And how dumb can I be to have caught you talking out of both sides of your mouth. When I get my laptop back, I will go back to supplying the links to your statements saying just the opposite of each other.
Let me share an excerpt from one of those people who you say doesn't give me credit for anything ... and thanks for opening the door for me to have an excuse to share the following quote from an email a received several days ago ...
"I think Healy has alot of nerve dissing you, when he sits on the fence. The
proper educated way for him to speak would be just an "I don't know for sure--it
may be possible." but he's ridiculous in his posting. and the funny part is
his buddy, Jack, feels the same way you do about Gordon Arnold and Badge Man.
For him to back Jack, and say the stuff he does, shows me he lacks the
ability to think clearly."
yeah.... sure you did.... uh-huh! Perhaps Groden whispered in your ear, eh..... LMFAO
-
As for the alteration of the Z-film not being undertaken "to excise visual proof of conspiracy," I can only say "phooey." That was precisely why it was undertaken. In inverting that truth, you leave the field wide open to every limited hang-out the CIA and associated drones can dream up. The anti-alterationists have effectively held the field since at least 1975, and have taken us nowhere, precisely as intended. Some of us want to see a very outcome long before another three decades have elapsed.
Paul
LOL !!! Another three decades has elapsed ??? Your paragraph is basically saying that if you grow bored and aren't happy with the script, then just make one up. The discovery of alteration in the JFK assassination films would be news that would be in every newspaper and on every news station in the world within the first day of its discovery. But that news would have to be verifiable and that's precisely why such evidence never gets past a forum like this. If the bar was ever set any higher to where posters here couldn't no long just be able to step over it, then most of the threads seen here wouldn't exist.
That's about as lame as you can get..... So, why are you responding to the posts here? perhaps? Let's see, you've made a career out of responding to posts that you feel aren't worthy of response, that cover it? I suspect that's pretty damn dumb to everyone else but YOU. Dumb enough to respond to each and every post concerning Dealey Plaza film/pics. Wonder why no one gives you credit for film/photo research? Simple, you've done none! Unless of course you call helping Groden hawk his wares in DP on occasion....
edit--objectionable phrase
yeah Beckett, what did you edit out of my post?
-
[...]
There certainly seems to have been an attempt to "sheep dip" Oswald by having someone impersonate him, but I personally dont belive in the extreme nonsense that Armstrong put's forward in his book. You, of course, will have to make up your own mind.
[...]
"extreme nonsense" not bad for no cites, eh? Perhaps you can be the first to undertake the huge project, shooting down Armstrongs work. Show him the error of his ways, eh? Have you even READ Armstrong's book.
Thanks,
DHealy
-
As for the alteration of the Z-film not being undertaken "to excise visual proof of conspiracy," I can only say "phooey." That was precisely why it was undertaken. In inverting that truth, you leave the field wide open to every limited hang-out the CIA and associated drones can dream up. The anti-alterationists have effectively held the field since at least 1975, and have taken us nowhere, precisely as intended. Some of us want to see a very outcome long before another three decades have elapsed.
Paul
LOL !!! Another three decades has elapsed ??? Your paragraph is basically saying that if you grow bored and aren't happy with the script, then just make one up. The discovery of alteration in the JFK assassination films would be news that would be in every newspaper and on every news station in the world within the first day of its discovery. But that news would have to be verifiable and that's precisely why such evidence never gets past a forum like this. If the bar was ever set any higher to where posters here couldn't no long just be able to step over it, then most of the threads seen here wouldn't exist.
That's about as lame as you can get..... So, why are you responding to the posts here? perhaps? Let's see, you've made a career out of responding to posts that you feel aren't worthy of response, that cover it? I suspect that's pretty damn dumb to everyone else but YOU. Dumb enough to respond to each and every post concerning Dealey Plaza film/pics. Wonder why no one gives you credit for film/photo research? Simple, you've done none! Unless of course you call helping Groden hawk his wares in DP on occasion....
edit--objectionable phrase
-
I have no doubt that the Z-film was altered by the killers of JFK.
Not primarily in an effort to excise visual proof of conspiracy, but rather to promote arguments for same.
The most obvious alterations -- the splices and missing frames -- were designed to be detected and subsequently to engender confusion, false mystery, and antagonisms within the research community that the conspirators knew would form in the wake of their unmistakably conspiratorial deed.
I would argue that, on balance, honorable alterationists inadvertantly have done severe damage to our cause.
photo and film alterationists have sparked latter-day JFK assassination debate for quite awhile now, in fact those early day film-photo debates got this board of the ground... if thats sever damage, its worth it, the JFK movie debates had long since passed....
-
Another beautiful job of capturing an image Ed ... the clarity ... the detail ... simply amazing! By the way ... what is it???
you do understand the term *research* correct? And, you know FULL well what that image is. In case you haven't got the message, there are some on this board and many other places that don't believe the alleged in-camera Zapruder film fully demonstrates what happend on Elm Street that day...
May the Lone Nuts conceed gracefully, that includes you!
-
dance sweet gloria, DANCE.... right now I'm imagining sitting at a desk with a portable computer, access to the internet, a ftp site or imagine this, a server someplace...
From my imaginary place I created a imaginary post which made to the forum with image attachments or imagine this, a LINK... so, many of us have been doing just that for years, on other related and non-related boards -- so, put up your material or simply move on, your embarassing the 6th Floor Museum.....
Did my imaginery post make it to the forum? Looks like it. Ain't science grand?
David, one can go back and read everything you have posted in the past 12 month period and the only thing they will walk away with that was JFK related was your two comments in on e thread where you said, 'I believe the Zfilm is altered', and 'I have seen no proof of alteration'. And tell me what you know about the 6th floor Museum??? From what I gather they don't pay any attention to the nonsense you say.
if you can't handle THIS, what makes you think you can handle a debate concerning the alteration of the "alleged in-camera Zapruder Film? Only one of the Gang has the werewithal to present a decent challenge to what was presented in 2003... Currently he's banging on your door, or haven't you noticed...
As for the 6th Floor, haven't been in the place, never will. DP now THAT is another story... So I say, yea, uh-huh... nearly everytime I log on to this forum Gary the Pope-Ghost is lurking.
-
you have access to the images and you don't deliver? - That means you got something to hide -- or, the imagery simply doesn't back up your position....
David ... here is a sock-puppet example so to try and get this simple message through to you. Imagine that you are sitting at a desk that has no computer ... would it not then be impossible for you to get on the forum so to post such foolish responses as the one above? The person who is graciously allowing me to get on the Internet DOES NOT have any programs on their laptop that allows me to do illustrations and my JFK files are not on their computer, but rather on mine which is in the shop. I hope you can understand this message because if you don't, then I don't know how to make it any simpler. Your inability to grasp this simple explanation may be why you are not invited to see the assassination films because you make people think that you are more interested in being a jerk than you are in being a serious researcher.
dance sweet gloria, DANCE.... right now I'm imagining sitting at a desk with a portable computer, access to the internet, a ftp site or imagine this, a server someplace...
From my imaginary place I created a imaginary post which made to the forum with image attachments or imagine this, a LINK... so, many of us have been doing just that for years, on other related and non-related boards -- so, put up your material or simply move on, your embarassing the 6th Floor Museum.....
Did my imaginery post make it to the forum? Looks like it. Ain't science grand?
-
Bill
The version below comes from a UPI print I found on the net somewhere. It's darker than most. Arnold's torso can be seen in good copies of Moorman all the way down to the top of the wall.
Gary
One can only assume that you agree with gary Re: " Arnold's torso can be seen in good copies of Moorman all the way down to the top of the wall " and you must now concede that all examples posted by Myself, Chris and Miles..do NOT show the torso of Arnold coming down to the top of the wall, and that therefore in order to prove your rebuttal.....You must produce a good copy of Moorman as described by Gary which shows Arnold's torso coming down all the way to the top of the wall. If you can't, your claim is dead in the water.
Duncan
Wrong, Duncan. The prints that you used are being said to not be good enough for you to get the lines in the right place. Your position is like the one Miles had when he wanted to argue that until someone posted the view from the Hudson location to the tower - then he must be correct. That theory was wrong - dead wrong! You - Miles - or Chris pool your money together and for a mere couple of hundred bucks ... one of you can be flown to Dallas ... go in a visit Mack - see his prints - and post their observations on the forum. So far from what I have gathered ... not a one of you have bothered to call the Museum to even see if they have better images and what they show. Mack is good enough to pull them up and look at them for you, then you bitch that they aren't laid in your hands. Its not your fault for having crap images to work with, but it is your fault for trying to argue them against better prints. If you think Mack is lying ... like was asserted over the view from the steps that he was good enough to relay to us and was proven right, then go to the plaza and call him on it. It must get pretty frustrating for Gary to read the stupid things said on this forum when he deals with so many people who actually go to the plaza to inquire about his source materials, while others choose to remain armchair researchers who are satisfied with using poor images so to make claims that are simply based on sloppy unreliable research practices.
you have access to the images and you don't deliver? - That means you got something to hide -- or, the imagery simply doesn't back up your position....
-
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/25/imus.lawsuit/index.html
Hey, if they go to trial we'll have an active case, and maybe they can call Ruth Paine to testify if she thinks the Rutgers BB team is a bunch of matty haired hose.
BK
This has got to get better. Tim Miller, of course, is our friend who dropped by to visit and promote his books, including a Warren Report with a new intro by Ford, and Miller pleading that he really does believe in a conspiracy. Then he left in a huff and a puff without even leaving John Simkin a copy.
Now let me get this part straight. Miller has never published anything else before, gets Ford to sign 4,000 copies, apparently the last thing he died before he "crokes," as the story so aptly puts it, then after failing to drum up any book sales here Miller desides to buy a plug from Don Imus, whose claim to fame is defaming the Rutgers (Jersey) women's basketball team on national tv.
Then Miller is surprised that the plug backfires, and Imus ridicules both him and Ford, Flastsigned Press.com gets millions of hits but nobody buys the book, and Miller parlays Imus into a soon-to-be-thrown-out-of-court lawsuit filed pro bono by his brother in law that gets Miller an additional fifteen minutes of publicity.
And maybe somebody will buy the book, personally signed by the late, and only former President of the United States elected by the people of the fourteenth legislative district of Michigan.
Maybe the book will sell if it came with a custom made, official ceremonial, gold enlaid and platinum, decorative china plate with inlaid with a photo of Ford and Elvis.
Or take a full page out in the NYT. Or get Bob Vernon to shill for him.
BK
LMAO....your last sentence should read *Or take a full page out in the NYT, and get Bob Vernon to shill for him*.
-
Miller dronned:
[...]
You must have 'Duncan-itis' whereas simple messages are very hard for you to understand. I don't have my laptop and its programs that allow me to do illustrations or it would have been done immediately like all the many other times I have had to create illustrations to show the pitiful ridiculous mistakes that end up on this forum ... and usually by the same individuals.[...]
what-a-excuse, NOW Miller can't create a illustration, what a joke. (man, Gary Mack sure hits this thread a lot, must be catching up on the new employees posting)
-
Actually, I was invited by Lancer to speak at one of the anniversary get togethers, way back when on that VERY subject. Unfortunately I was working out of country at the time and had to pass. I recall mentioning in passing mentioning to a few at the time"beware of charlatans", their on the way.... Disinfo agents dressed in researcher clothing.... Seems I had a premonition you were headed our direction.... I was right, AGAIN <sigh>
It certainly didn't take long for Conway to see that mistake for I know for a fact that she wouldn't lower her conference to the level of the Jerry Springer Show so to have you on the bill at this time.
And, how would you know such a thing, or anything for a FACT if you weren't pulling Lancer strings -- you can tell me, I won't say a word to anyone.....
So, how much did you invest in the new and improved Lancer board?
-
the wonderful world of Nutter evasion, now I KNOW Miller works for the 6th Floor Mausoleum..... pound away Duncan!
More from the jerk that says he believes the Zfilm is altered and says there is no sign of alteration to the Zfilm ... all in the same thread. And you wonder why you are not invited to see the assassination films at the Museum !!!
no place to run nor hide, wild Bill -- time to put up or shut up....
Actually, I was invited by Lancer to speak at one of the anniversary get togethers, way back when on that VERY subject. Unfortunately I was working out of country at the time and had to pass. I recall mentioning in passing mentioning to a few at the time"beware of charlatans", their on the way.... Disinfo agents dressed in researcher clothing.... Seems I had a premonition you were headed our direction.... I was right, AGAIN <sigh>
p.s. the alleged in-camera Zapruder Film (located at NARA IS altered) now, WHY do you think someone would want to do a thing like that, Bill? Feel free to start another thread discussing the issue, no sense in mucking up this thread with your ravings concerning the Z-film
Rebuttal to Zapruder film alteration.
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
TRASH? You look lovely when you whine, know that....
So anyday, anytime when it comes to discussing your film-photo credentials, AND alteration aspects of Z-film its cast of characters (new and OLD) surrounding the film... you don't measure up to ANY of the characters champ....how many times do you need to get beat up around here?
Gary Mack giving out 6th Floor Purple Hearts these days? LMAO!