Larry Peters

If your contention is that you can tell the world the Zapruder film is altered unless someone can prove to you that it's not, then that is an asinine statement on any level. In the section you had witten in the hoax book, you claimed you had no proof that the Zapruder film was altered, now you contradict what you said in the book. You were presented examples as to why the claims of alteration are in error and instead of you being specific about anything, you just say no one can show you why it's not altered. At least I assume that is what you stated from the disjointed and poorly structured sentence you wrote saying "Because folks such as yourself can not show me why it [the z-film] altered ..." I disagree, but for arguments sake, let's say you are correct. Please tell me how that is any different than what you have done in every one of your replies? At least I can say why I found someone's claim to be correct or wrong ... I have yet to hear you address one alteration claim in a way that would lead someone to think you might know why you thought an alteration claim was legit. dgh02:Nobody at Lancer is qualified to make an educational - technical "guess", let alone prove Dr. Costella thesis as wrong --- I think anyone who can place Costella's overlay against his Moorman and Hill images taken from the Zapruder film and place them over the same Zfilm images to see if Costella sized them correctly only to find that he made himself a good head or more taller than Charles Brehm is qualified. I'd say anyone who corrected his alleged 27 hour window for alteration of Moorman's #5 Polaroid by pointing out Moorman and her photo was filmed within 30 minutes of the assassination is qualified. I'd say that anyone who can show the gap variances and how far off White, Fetzer and Mantik were, despite Costella flip flopping back and forth only to fall on the alteration side of the fence is qualified. Below are several people's recreation photos of the pedestal to window ratio as seen in Moorman's #5 photograph. Maybe someone should question Costella's credentials. (see gap comparisons below and explain how Costella thought White, Mantic and Fetzer got it right) It's important because Costella supported Jack's poorly researched claim. It's important because you keep talking about Costella's credentials meaning something when his work is shown to be full of poor observations and a lack of knowledge concerning the facts of the case. Keep in mind that this is the same guy who wondered if the CIA had tampered with his cordless razor and bugged the sprinkler system in Dealey Plaza with listening devices. I have stated that I believe there was a conspiracy. As I recall - you have defended some of the alteration claims Mr. White made and despite my asking you to expplain why you agree with his, you evade being specific on anything. I have detailed several opinions here and you just pretend that you don't see them. I explained that Costella had his data wrong when he thought a 27 hour window of time was available to alter Moorman's Polaroid by pointing out the showing of Mary's photo on NBC TV within hours of the assassination, and you pretend that you cannot hear me. I pointed out that Costella's web page has the Zfilm playing at a higher speed than it was recorded, and you ignore it's importance when talking about people being seen moving too fast. I could go back and add all your replies together and not get one specific answer to anything out of it. So because the alterationists either cannot or choose not to defend their position, it, at the least, casts doubt on their thesis; at most for those who have carefully studied those claims, it substantiates their belief that the alterationists have created a deceitful work of fiction far surpassing anything that the Warren Commission accomplished. I thought the last major anything was the work of the alteration geniuses, not forgetting their major discovery of rain sensors with listening devices in them!

I should have stated it better than I did. What I was trying to say is that it made no sense to move the lunch from the 5th floor to the 6th floor with the intent of setting anyone up because it was done right in front of a non-police witness. At the time the Police were searching the building they would not have known who the shooter was. And what good would it do to plant a chicken lunch on the 6th floor when the person who claims to have eaten it is seen on the 5th floor in Dillard's photo of the TSBD just as the shooter has pulled his weapon back over the window sill. I am not sure what floor you are talking about when you say Williams made no mention of going back to it. What I gathered from reading what Williams said before the Commission was that he ate on the 6th floor. They asked about bones and he said he had placed them back into the sack, which means he must have removed the meat and placed it onto some bread to have eaten it as a sandwhich. Then Williams said he left for the 5th floor, leaving his lunch bag behind if I have understood him correctly. Mr. BALL. Finish your lunch? Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. No longer than it took me to finish the chicken sandwich. Mr. BALL. Did you eat the chicken? Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, I did. Mr. BALL. Where did you put the bones? Mr. WILLIAMS. I don't remember exactly, but I think I put some of them back in the sack. Just as I was ready to go I threw the sack down. Mr. BALL. What did you do with the sack? Mr. WILLIAMS. I think I just dropped it there. Mr. BALL. Your memory is that you left the Dr. Pepper bottle on top of some of the cartons? Mr. WILLIAMS. As I remember. I am not sure. Mr. BALL. It is shown there on the floor. Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. Where did you go when you left there? Mr. WILLIAMS. I went down to the fifth floor. Mr. BALL. How did you get down there? Mr. WILLIAMS. I took an elevator down. Mr. BALL. Well, you stopped on the fifth floor. Why? Mr. WILLIAMS. Beg pardon? Mr. BALL. Why did you stop on the fifth floor? Mr. WILLIAMS. To see if there was anyone there. Mr. BALL. Did you know there was anyone there before you started down? Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, I thought I heard somebody walking, the windows moving or something. I said maybe someone is down there, I said to myself. And I just went on down. Mr. BALL. Did you find anybody there? Mr. WILLIAMS. As I remember, when I was walking up, I think Harold Norman and James Jarman as I remember, they was down facing the Elm Street on the fifth floor, as I remember. Mr. BALL. Now, I want to call your attention to another report I have here. On the 23d of November 1963, the report of Mr. Odum and Mr. Griffin, FBI agents, is that you told them that you went from the sixth floor to the fifth floor using the stairs at the west end of the building. Did you tell them that? Mr. WILLIAMS. I didn't tell them I was using the stairs. I came back down to the fifth floor in the same elevator I came up to the sixth floor on. Mr. BALL. You did? Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. Mr. WILLIAMS. It was after I had left the sixth floor, after I had eaten the chicken sandwich. Photographer Tom Alyea wrote: Police officers who claim they were on the 6th floor when the assassin's window was found have reported that they saw chicken bones at or near the site. One officer reported that he saw chicken bones on the floor near the location. Another said he saw chicken bones on the barricade boxes, while another reported that he saw chicken bones on the box which was laying across the window sill. Some of these officers have given testimony as to the location of the shell casings. Their testimony differs and none of it is true. I have no idea why they are clinging to these statements. They must have a reason. Perhaps it is because they put it in a report and they must stick to it. One officer stated that he found the assassin's location at the 6th floor window. He went on to say that as he and his fellow officers were leaving the building, he passed Captain Fritz coming in. He said he stopped briefly to tell Captain Fritz that he had found the assassin's lair at the 6th floor window. This seems highly unlikely because Captain Fritz joined us on the 5th floor and aided in the search. The chances are great that this, or these officers heard the report, that stemmed from WFAA-TV's incorrect announcement that the chicken bones were found on the 6th floor. This officer or officers perhaps used this information to formulate their presence at the scene. There were no chicken bones found on the 6th floor. We covered every inch of it and I filmed everything that could possibly be suspected as evidence. There definitely were no chicken bones on or near the barricade or boxes at the window. I shot close-up shots of the entire area.

Greg - It wouldn't seem to do much good to move the evidence to the sixth floor if you are letting witnesses like Tom Alyea see you doing it. From what I have gathered is this - The Police started searching the TSBD floor by floor. When they reached the 5th floor and while giving it the once over, they saw the chicken lunch and collected it as possible evidence. It was then taken up to the 6th floor as the Police continued their search upward. Someone who had come onto 6th floor after the search had begun must have seen the sack lunch that had been brought up from the 5th floor and they just assumed it had been found on 6th floor, thus the erroneous 'sack lunch being found on the 6th floor story' gets out into the media.

You have no work to offer, Mr. Healy. You just make references to alteration being possible, only to admit that you have no specific proof it was done. You certainly are a promoter and you have shown the JFK research community that you can do your job without any knowledge about what your promoting and why. While you like to use the excuse that someone hasn't done their own work even though you seem to like citing everyone elses yourself, I have given you ample opportunity to at least state why YOU believe any of the alteration claims are valid based on YOUR OWN interpretation of the evidence and not once have YOU been able to do so. You keep telling the members of this forum that Mr. Costella dealt with the critics. The "gang" that he refers to did not offer anywhere close to the detail of the rebuttal that was offered at Lancer. Here is a sample of 'the gangs" rebuttal ... "B is for Betzner…Zapruder & Sitzman" Jack’s claim of alteration is based on fuzzy blow-ups with inadequate illumination. Lack of detail is not proof of alteration."F is for Franzen…mystery woman" Jack is easily confused, by photos taken from different points of view. "M is for Moorman…in the street" Jack starts with the presumption that Mary is in the street when she takes her famous photo, and ignores all evidence to the contrary. dgh01: search on Mr. Peter's search on -- Dr. Costella clearly outlines and responds to ALL comments the best the non-alteration camp had to offer... What the non-alteration camp said that Costella refers to is shown in part above. Costella, like yourself, has never addressed the more detailed critique on Lancer. dgh01: ..... so I term the Lancer site 'newbie' JFK related Assassination education and basic CT propoganda - very little research - loads of criticism - zero debate So basically, you deem the Lancer site's approach to be the same one that you have been using here on the Education forum - propanganda - little research - loads of criticism - and zero debate. dgh01: you mean the one with the lines on the blank page, that one? Ah, maybe you can start with the exact *provenance* of the Z-frame image used as the template for your lines? That's just the point, Mr. Healy - you cannot follow the simplest of explanations. The illustration was said to be a theoretical example. The rotation of the limo is smooth in the Zapruder film and the distance of rotation between film frames can be plotted. The alteration page you mentioned didn't offer a shred of the evidence that you are asking me to now layout in rebuttal and they are the ones making the claims of alteration in the first place. And how do they do make those alteration claims that was apparently done to your satisfaction ... they show a clip that is played at an incorrect speed and say 'look, the people are moving to fast, thus something has been altered!' Those are the types of reasons that such ground breaking research will not be invited to speak at a major Dallas function ever again.

You sir are a xxxx! I have spent considerable time detailing the mistakes the alteration crowd as made and so far you have not offered a single sentence rebutting anything specific. All you have done is make general replies that don't address anything. Now you mention optical printers and mattes. All you are doing and have admitted to doing is prmoting the idea that alteraion was possible and then tell us you have no proof that it was actually done. Let me give you an example how silly you sound by me saying something equally absurd. Here goes - It is possible that a deer hunter was shooting at a trophy buck on 11/22/63 at 12:30 p.m. CST and his shot went astray and hit JFK in the head at Z313. I have no proof, but it is possible. And for your information - we are not on Lancer - part of the evidence has been detailed before you and I cannot find one specific rebuttal of yours on this site to date. I might also add that this so-called work being done by your scientist and researchers has made them the laughing stock of the JFK assassination community, thus causing several of them to not even be allowed to speak again in the two main Dallas conferences each year. There was a name going around Lancer for a researcher who continually misquoted the facts and the name given to him was "Baghdad Bob". Because of your constant replies about how nothing is being offered to disprove alteration claims as if you cannot see the post before you, are starting to remind me of that very man who kept telling how the Iraqis were winning the war.

Tom Alyea is said to have seen the lunch bag being found on the fifth floor and it was taken up to the 6th floor during the search. I also believe Williams said he had a chicken sandwhich which makes me think there were no chicken bones found at all. Sometimes newspaper reporters add their own slant to things and history gets distorted.

Mr. Healy - I explained my use of the medium sized print in an earlier post to Bernice Moore. I also think you meant the word "Polly" for that is the spelling and word phrasing attributed to parrots. Now back to business. As I stated in an earlier post, which you didn't seem to be able to follow, I mentioned the even rotation of the limo as it passed from left to right across Abraham Zapruder's field of view and how that applied to there being no sign of missing frames in the clip I posted. Below is another simple example of the point I was trying to make and I trust that you will be able to follow it OK. Each line is theoretically placed to match any side to side item inside the limo. For instance we can use the cross bar to replicate the angle of each line. Between frames when the car is traveling at a steady speed, the distance between each forward rotation of the line is basically equal. (See example "A") In the event that a frame is removed, the distance between lines will be greater - double what it was before. (See example "B") We don't see this sudden doubled up jump in time in the clip I referenced earlier. I don't know how to make this point any simpler, so I hope you got it this time around. Feel free to take this post back to your alleged scientist and see what they think.

Mr. Healy - John Simkin asked that I explain things in a way that the students can understand. As far as Bill Miller goes - I believe he won the Mary Ferrell award last year for his work and has been invited to speak in Dallas the past several years, I cannot say that about you. You and the alteration crowd don't have any experts to support your photo and film alteration claims, nor do you have one that has denounced Miller's crituque of the photo and film alteraion claims. The reason being in my opinion is that they'd probably feel embarrassed to have someone say they even considered the alteration claims seen so far. By the way - the film clip used on the Hoax site that I copied and pasted here is played too fast. If one is going to say that people within a film are moving to fast, then they should at least show the film at it's correct speed. Common sense should tell someone that if a film clip is going to be shown faster than what it was recorded at, then the images in motion within it will be speeded up as well. Could it be that everyone but you are able to follow the posting examples I have shared and that's why they have no questions!

This is the great evidence the Hoax site was supposed to offer? This has been addressed on Lancer on several occasions and while I am not surprised that these assertions on the 'Hoax' link are not specific in detail, I am surprised that people with credentials would consistently make such silly errors. To start with ... there is no reference that I could find to tell the reader how fast the clip is playing. All that is said is that Mrs. Connally turns her head too fast. There is nothing seen on the Zfilm with Mrs. Connally's head turn that cannot be duplicated while mimicking her actions. Another matter was the attempt to break down the peoples movements by judging the running speed of the Zapruder camera. The running speed of the camera frames have a variance of 5 -10%. Trying to compute movement in such minute detail against an average 18.3 fps approach is fruitless. Certainly no photo expert that I am aware of has ever said that Nellie Connally moved her head too fast. Personally, I wish the limo had been moving as fast as the clip shown below, then it may have been harder to have hit JFK. I also notice that Jackie seems to turn her head towards Connally in much the same way and speed at which Nellie moved her head. Nothing seems out of line when considering the running speed of the film that's being shown. In another area on the 'Hoax' page it was said that frames from the Zapruder film were simply removed - no reference to which ones, but just removed! The author doesn't take into consideration that the car is constantly rotating away from Zapruder's camera, thus if a frame was removed ... then the rotation of the limo would become sporadic and uneven. As one watches the Zapruder film, the rotation of the limo is smooth from frame to frame. Below is some general references that this link tells it's readers about the Zapruder film being hoaxed. To cover up the mistakes, the forgers, and those directing them, did three things: 1. They made it look like Abraham Zapruder jiggled his camera around a lot when he was filming. Whenever someone moves in a way that is too jerky, the whole (pretend) camera was made to jiggle. This makes it impossible to follow the detail if it is being projected at full speed. 2. They made sure that the moving film was not shown publicly. It was 12 years before it was shown on TV! 3. They made sure that the film frames published in November 1964 were black and white, and not great quality. Abraham Zapruder suffered from Vertigo and is why he had to have Sitzman stand on the pedestal with him so to help him keep his balance. If one correlates the frames of the Zapruder film to that of the Nix film, they will see that each movement of Zapruder as seen from the Nix film can be tracked on the Zapruder film. The claim that "they made it look like Abraham Zapruder jiggled his camera" is utter nonsense. A negative clip from the Nix film is attachment below and one can watch Zapruder's camera move around. Each up, down and sideways movement can be followed on the Zapruder film, but in reverse. Accompanying point two above was this statement made a short time later, "To avoid this danger, they made sure that any “stabilized” film was only ever shown in slow motion. This is how it was shown on TV, in 1975." It was the lead conspiracy guru of them all (Robert Groden) who had slowed the film down when presented on Goodnite America in 1975. Robert had done this to allow the viewers to better follow some specific reactions of those inside the limo. This assertion that "THEY" slowed the film down is erroneous for "THEY" had nothing to do with the film being shown by Groden. It was the November 29th 1963 issue that showed the Zapruder frames in B&W. The memorial issue of December 1963 had them in color. The reason for this is because there was not enough time to have the color images processed so to be ready for the 11/29/63 issue. If there is a November 64' issue showing B&W images of the Zapruder frames, then I have never seen it, nor did the 'Hoax' site offer it's readers to know what particular issue it was. And even if there was such an issue, the frames were already being printed in color by the first week December 1963. So once again the paranoid message being delivered was based on misinformation once again. A Nix film clip in negative form has been added below. The movement of the Zapruder camera on the Nix film can be correlated to the background shifts on the Zapruder film.

Mr. White - Robert Groden did place the sound of shots onto the silent Zapruder film, but did so starting back at the time of the splice as I recall. Groden did not create his version with any correlation to the witnesses statements and what is seen on the Zapruder film, but rather his work was in correlation to the sounds on the dictabelt. Groden did two versions - one with the first shot missing the limo and the last shot hitting the President in the head and another version where the third shot out of the known four shot sequence had hit the President in the head. What Bill Miller did was correlate the sounds of gunfire with when the witnesses said they heard them, along with when the people inside the car appeared to have been reacting to being struck and there lies the difference.

The photo and film alteration site refers to film experts and scientist, but I didn't see any references to their names. Hopefully they are not the same experts who took that Moorman recreation photo with the transit! The first thing they do wrong is refer to the matter coming from JFK's head as blood. It is a watery fluid that is inside the cranium that has a small amount of blood mixed with it. I am offering a link to a page that discusses blood spatter by someone who not only believes there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, but who also a blood spatter expert. Her name is Sherry Gutierrez and her opinions can be seen throughout the site by typing the words 'blood spatter' or 'blood spray' into the sites search engine. http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p..._topics&forum=8 As I said, the debris coming off the top of JFK's head was a watery substance that was thrown into the air as a type of mist for a better term. The assassination films show us that the wind was gusting at the time that the head shot occurred and this can be seen by observing Hill and Moorman's coats blowing eastward. A Marie Muchmore film frame is shown below to make this point. (see the first attachment) This mist was thrown up and forward into the air and the air flow going over the car caught this watery mist - held it for a spilt second and drove it backwards, thus causing it to dissipate rather quickly. The actual bone and debris moved much faster and was thrown throughout the car, as well as onto the trunk. A large piece of bone/debris is seen sitting on the upper back of Connally's jump seat before falling off into the floor and being found later and sent to Bethesda. (Click on attachment #2) The last attachment shows the mist being thrown into the air and driven backward by the air flow going over the car. The film is slowed and debris moving forward past Jackie's shoulder is partially visible. (See clip #3) All the images shown here have been pulled from Lancer's site.

Lifton or whoever posted the above quotes on the alteration site made a poor interpretation of the images. The skull flap came off the top of the head and unless someone uses a film version that shows the front part of JFK's head as washed it because of contrasting - the front top portion of the head will not be shown as missing. Below is a clip showing the area where the skull flap became dislodged from. The hair to the front side of the now missing scalp is still visible. On the way to Parkland, Jackie Kennedy tried holding her husbands head together and in doing so, the skull flap was placed back into position and held there as the blood clotted. Many of the Parkland doctors said they didn't notice the large flap wound, but at the same time they claimed they were trying to save the President's life and just hadn't bothered to examine the head wound more closely. There were however a couple of doctors at Parkland who did examine the head wound more closely and the reason I believe most researchers missed their observation is because the doctors didn't refer nto the wound as the skull flap, but rather they called it the bone plate. Dr. Baxter said at his Commission deposition: Mr. Specter - Now, will you describe in as much particularity as you can the nature of the head wound Dr. Baxter - The only wound that I actually saw--Dr. Clark examined this above the manubrium of the sternum, the sternal notch. This wound was in temporal parietal plate of bone laid outward to the side and there was a large area, oh, I would say 6 by 8 or 10 cm. of lacerated brain oozing from this wound, part of which was on the table and made a rather massive blood loss mixed with it and around it. Further proof that the Zapruder film doesn't show the front part of JFK's head missing is seen in the last two attachments below. I have seen where if frame Z335 is contrasted in a way that it washes out JFK's hair - the front part of the head will appear to be missing. The last example shows this illusion

I don't know if this has been pointed out to you before, but it is rather interesting when viewing two places in the same book that when combined they actually show the lack of thought that went into some of these photo and film alteration claims. In TGZFH it was said that Moorman and Hill were standing in the street in the Bronson slide (Z225/26) and also in the Muchmore frame. Yet in TGZFH there is a reference to Altgens 6 that says that Altgens photo is genuine. Now if TGZFH says Altgens 6 is genuine, then how can Moorman and Hill be in the street less than 1.5 seconds earlier when Bronson took his photo and also throughout the Muchmore film as the alteration believers had claimed? These are two different claims (one supportive of fakery and the other of authenticity) that dispute one another. I find it amazing that not one photo and film alteration believer (whether they be a Ph.D or not) didn't catch this contradiction. Any questions, Mr. Healy?

Miller took the Zapruder film and placed the sounds of rifle shots at four places that were supported by the photographical evidence alone. The first shot between the Betzner and Willis photo when JFK immediately starts his right hand coming down to a defensive position (Z193/94/95), again at Z223/24 when Connally grimaces in pain, again at Z312/313 when the head explodes, and once again when Moorman takes her photo at Z315/16 capturing the flash of the Badge Man's rifle. He has said he'll email anyone the clip if they ask him for it. You can contact him at IMSJLE@AOL.Com. It's interesting that the last two shots are so close together that they could be thought of as one shot during one playing of the film or the sonic boom effect that Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman described hearing when listening to it another time.

I'm sure a few of you are still trying to figure out how in the heck you thought the pedestal was the same distance from the window in the White, Fetzer and Mantik replica photo as Moorman's, how Moorman (if in the street) got her camera above the cycles windscreens to take her photo without holding her camera over her head, or how the Altgens 6 photo could have been altered when it hit the news wire within 20 minutes after Altgens film was taken for developing at 12:39 p.m. CST ... so I imagine that a lot of things surprise you. What surprises me is that you took almost a week this time to come up with another non-direct response that dealt with any specific observation. I have presented several alteration claims and detailed why they were in error and the Bond/Skaggs claim was one I never heard before and caused me to create the examples myself. I have offered for you to make an alteration point and I'll be happy to address it, but what is the sense of me addressing anything if you don't understand the claim well enough to even be able to give a brief description as to why you believe it shows alteration. But seeing how you brought it back up again, I'll oblige you. Below is another alteration claim and an attachment that shows why it was erroneous. The claim was that a distant train car sitting back in the RR yard could be seen in the Willis photo, but not in Bond's photograph, thus someone alteration of the photos must have taken place. The author of this claim had the impression that both photographers had the same basis view point, thus both photos should show the train car sitting back in the RR yard. A simple check of an overhead view of the plaza and by plotting the field of view of each photographer shows us that these views were not similar at all. When lines matching the right side of each photographers line of sight is plotted on the overhead view it because quite obvious why the RR car is seen in one photo and not the other. This observation was made and the error pointed out to the photo and film alteration believers years before TGZFH was writtern, but yet it still went into print as promoting photo and film fakery. One would think that once this error had been pointed out - that this would have been the end of it, but it obviously wasn't. The only question that should be remaining for anyone looking at this issue now is whether the alteration believers didn't have the skills to ever understand the flaw in their claim or whether they did realize the flaw and still tried to use that claim to mislead unsuspecting readers. Any questions, Mr. Healy?

Jack - Ed Hoffman never climbed up to the Rail Road Bridge. Two police officers stood on that bridge, but not Ed Hoffman. Ed parked his car just north of the bridge and walked under the RR bridge up Stemmons Freeway to a spot where he was able to see JFK's limo pass under him as the motorcade traveled the Elm Street off ramp. The diagram shown below is from page 6 of Ed Hoffman's book "Eye Witness". The red wording and locators are what I have added. The letter "e" seen on the RR bridge in the diagram does not stand for "Ed", but rather it is a reference that was made on page 7 of Hoffman's book to where Officer J.W. Foster was located. There were six references made that stared with the letter "a" and ended with the letter "e".

Martin is right - it would have been impossible for the Secret Service to have checked every building along the parade route or prevented every window from opening. As long as the limo kept its 35mph speed up, then opened windows might not have been such a concern, but allowing the car to go under open windows of speeds less than a crawl should have gotten more attention in my view. Even more unbelievable to me is they didn't make sure that the police would have a guard in the RR yard directly above the knoll. To allow the potential for an assassin with a rifle take up cover from less than 90 feet to the street was a total collapse of security any way one looks at it. That one small obvious detail may have changed the outcome of the assassination. In photos of JFK addressing the crowd outside his hotel on the morning of the assassination ... there are open windows all around that parkinglot.

Anthony is right because even if it was an official photo - it doesn't even show the skull flap, so it has obviously been faked in some way. Poor quality B&W photos can be so misleading. FBI Agent Francis O'Neil and many other Bethesda witnesses said there was no wound to the front part of JFK's head. O'Neil said there were two wounds to JFK's head - the bone plate/skull flap wound and the large hole in the back of JFK's head. He also says it was FBI Agent James Sibert who first drew everyone's attention to the hole in JFK's back. Franicis O'Neil does not support the SBT and has said in public that Arlen Specter tried to get he and Sibert to alter their report to help make Specter's SBT appear plausible.

There were two RR bridges and they are seen in Jack's picture. The one Ed refers to is the one that the RR workers were standing on, Sam Holland being one of them. I have attached a photo from Ed Hoffman's book called "Eye Witness" to help you better understand where he meant.

The House Select Committee of Assassinations set up a panel of forensic pathologists to examine the autopsy materials and other medical evidence. Most of the members concluded that two bullets, both fired from the rear, struck Kennedy. However, one member, Cyril H. Wecht, rejected this theory claiming it was medically impossible, and suggested that at least one bullet had been fired from the right front. Robert Tanabaum, who replaced Richard Sprague for a brief period, has said that the HSCA were given a false report concerning the rear head wound to President Kennedy. The report said that no Bethesda witness claimed to have seen a large wound on the back of JFK's head and as Robert Groden put it, "The photo panel never knew what to look for." Had the panel of known that each and every person at the autopsy did in fact see the large hole on the back of Kennedy's head while having the autopsy photos in front of them showing no such wound, then they would have been forced to denounce the offical autopsy photos and not been able to say from which direction the President had been shot. The bigger question would then be - Why was there a need to alter the photographs?

The number of shots is about anyone's guess and here is why ... From what I have gathered by what some other people who have considered the evidence in any depth - there seems to be several possibilites. During the making of Oliver Stone's movie it has been reported that over 30+ takes of shots being fired were conducted. Each take consisted of 7 shots each. It was discovered that depending on where you were standing in the plaza would determine on how many shots you had heard. Some shots were fired close enough together to sound like one shot, while other shots were just not heard at all by people at the other end of Elm Street. If we consider the evidence by going by what the witnesses said and by considering every wound, spark and dent was caused by a separate bullet, then we have ----- 1) Bullet strike to JFK's throat 2) Bullet strike to JFK's back 3) Bullet strike to JFK's head 4) Bullet strike to John Connally's back 5) Bullet strike to John Connally's wrist 6) Bullet strike that witnesses saw spark off the asphalt 7) Bullet strike to the chrome molding atop of the windshield 8) Bullet strike to the windshield 9) Bullet strike to the Main Street curb by the Triple Underpass *Then there is the alleged furrow where a bullet hit the turf on the South side of Elm. *There is the alleged bullet strike near the manhole cover on the South pasture. *There is the alleged bullet strike to the sidewalk on the north side of Elm. The official version is now up to four shots being fired.

Jack - Ed Hoffman parked his car atop of the Stemmons Freeway overpass, not the RR bridge. You are off about 250 to 300 feet or so. From on top of the Stemmons Freeway overpass ... Ed could look over onto the 'on ramp' to watch the President's limo pass beneath him. I corrected your attachment photo and placed it below. Two Police Officers, one named Earle V. Brown, were on the RR bridge that crossed over Stemmons Freeway. Mr. BALL. On November , 1964, were you assigned to a certain post on duty? Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. Where? Mr. BROWN. That would be the railroad overpass over Stemmons Expressway service road. Mr. BALL. Is that the one that leads of Elm? Mr. BROWN. You mean that crosses Elm? Mr. BALL. That crosses Elm, yes; the overpass across Elm. Mr. BROWN. No, sir. Mr. BALL. What does it cross? Mr. BROWN. It's over Stemmons Expressway; in other words, they make that turn of Elm and go up. Mr. BALL. You know where Elm, the corner of Elm and Houston is? Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir. 231 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. BALL. Then there Is a road, the highway continues on to the west, a little south, is that what you call the Stemmons Expressway? Mr. BROWN. There's one there, too, but that overpass is actually a road. Where I was was the railroad overpass. Mr. BALL. The railroad overpass Itself? Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. How far were you from the place where the continuation of Elm goes under the overpass? Mr. BROWN. Oh, approximately 100 yards.

Does anyone have any JFK assassination photo and film related hoax things to talk about? We appear to be getting away from the topic of this thread and it won't be long I expect we'll be seeing postings going back and forth about how the family pets are doing, if little Josh is potty trained yet, that one of you just had a root canal, or some other non-related event that has nothing to do with this topic. It just seems like a separate topic maybe called "General JFK related News" might be in order.

There are also intelligent people in this world who because they didn't have the all the correct information to start with to make an accurate inquiry - that some of them wrote about JFK assassination film and photo alteration claims that were easily shown to be in error.

I particulary like the silly claim that the limo stopped and the mentioning of so many people seeing this other film. Let's address the last thing first. It's kind of comical hearing how there are all these witnesses who have seen this so-called other film when these witnesses don't even agree on what they say was on the film. One of these who people who have claimed to see the alleged "other film" said the version he saw showed JFK being hit as he rounded the corner. No witness to the assassiation has ever said what this person claims to have seen on his so-called "other film'. Just how many "other films" versions are there supposed to be! The web page listed says, "Eyewitnesses overwhelmingly reported that, during the assassination, the limousine braked suddenly and came to a stop, before accelerating away again. Some people have also seen another film of the assassination—not yet seen by the public—which shows this stop very clearly. But Zapruder’s film doesn’t show the limousine stopping at all! It just keeps on driving down Elm Street the entire time." That statement is fasle! Many witnesses said that the motorcade came to a stop, not necessarily meaning that the limo in which the President was riding had stopped. A very very small amount of people said it looked like the limo had stopped, but keep in mind that they were behind the car and we all know that slow rolling objects coming directly at or going away from us will appear to not be moving at all. Witnesses who were off to the side of Elm Street did not see the limo as completely stopping. White House Reporter Merriman Smith said it best when he wrote: The President's car, possibly as much as 150 or 200 yards ahead, seemed to falter breifly ......... Our car stood still for probably only a few seconds. UPI White House Reporter/Merriman Smith/ Four Days/page32 and 33