Larry Peters

Are any of the witnesses who said they saw this guy in the coat running away from the depository still alive? What are their latest comments? Were they deposed by the WC, HS, ARRB?

John F Kennedy is dead and has been for many years. Why can't this topic be left in peace? I fail to see why such gruesome details should be so minutely and obsessively examined by apparently intelligent, grown men so many years after the event. This discussion is not going to change the outcome or the subsequent events in any way. I do not see how it actually contributes positively to this forum. Maggie - I can certainly understand someone not wanting to see some of the more graphic details of JFK's murder and what you said could be applied by someone concerning any murder case. However, understanding the evidence causes us to go into areas we may not particularly want to go, but it really is necessary. So far the inquisitions in Kennedy's death have been government run, but one day an independent inquiry may be conducted by the people and many of these points will need to be addressed at that time. A forum such as this allows us to study that evidence and to prepare it for the day it may be presented in that future inquiry I hope for. To be quite honest with you - I have never heard where a murder victim's loved ones ever told a prosecutor not to get into the graphics of the murder because the deceased party is now gone and justice or righting the record no longer matters. I personally think John Kennedy would want the record straight. Maybe Andy may want to put a warning up stating that some images and discussions of the evidence may be of a graphic nature so to warn readers ahead of time. In the future I will try and remember to warn the reader if an image attachment I post is graphic so they can know not to open it if they don't want to see it.

The avulsion to the back of JFK's head can be seen below. The bones were pushed outward to the rear and this tells us the direction that the bullet was traveling in my opinion.

the head shot seems to come from the front, many of the skull pieces and brain matter are sprayed to the back and to the left; the same direction as JFK's head (one of the motor cycle police officers, located behind and to the left of the limo, was sprayed with elements of the Presidents brain). Mrs. Kennedy picks up a piece of the Presidents brain off of the trunk of the car. Good points, Antti! The back spatter mist flies into a stiff wind which suspends it briefly and drives the quickly dissapating mist cloud backwards. This can be seen for several frames following the head shot. However, the bullet driving the debris out the back of the head is moving around 2000 feet per second. Now considering there is no damage in Z312 and by Z313 the flap is already in mid-air - much of the debris being pushed out the back of the head has already left the frame. Some of the finer matter is slightly seen coming off the back of the head where it avulsed open. In the clip below - watch how JFK's head tilts forward while his shoulder's move backwards. This motion comes from a downward frontal impact to the top mid to front part of the skull where the flap came from. A blow from the rear would move both the head and shoulders forward.

Connally's right shoulder get's shoved forward several inches in less than 1/18th of a second at Z223 and Z224. As has been pointed out already - Connally's face could become distorted in a delayed reaction, but the forward movement of his shoulder could only happen as the bullet is slamming into it. The Commission never studied the relevancy of the forward movement of the Governor's right shoulder that I recall.

Here is JFK coming from behind the road sign. He obviously has been hit. It appears his mouth is open as if to be possibly be trying to draw a breath of air. On the Zapruder film he immediately looks to be coughing into his hands as if trying to dislodge something from his airway.

Notice how often "Larry Peters" either parrots the arrogant Miller or uses Miller scans in "Peters" posts? Miller can be short at times and I am sure that Zapruder film alterationist do find him arrogant although they didn't seem to think so when Fetzer praised Miller's work before asking him to speak at a Lancer conference. Once Miller started pointing out Jack White's mistakes in his film alteration claims, the attitude toward Miller changed, but the same has occurred with anyone who speaks up against White and his film alteration followers. If you go over to Lancer and look at the animation work with overlays that is been done there - you will find that Miller has done nearly all of it, so that makes it hard to refer to someone else's work if no one else is doing these sorts of things. It might also explain why Debra Conway posted that Bill Miller was awarded the Mary Ferrell award this past year. The JFK assassination community is full of highly emotional people, some apparently with too much time on their hands, who either are on one side of the fence or the other when it comes to a conspiracy or not in the muder of JFK. There are very few people who will weigh the evidence without bias and test it for both sides. Unlike other researchers who complain about their work being used, Miller has said that anyone can use his work in anyway that helps them with researching the JFK assassination. Because of that and the forum rules here on copyrighted material - I have and will continue to use Miller's images as much as possible. As far as who I am - I'm the same person who was a member of JFK Research a short while ago when Miller was no longer a member there. I am the guy who raised an issue about the timing of when Jean Hill said she stepped onto the street and back out of it, which didn't agree with the things Jack White was saying, so now I, like Miller cannot use that site anymore. As far as who is and is not a member at Lancer - Ed Ohagen has been and still is a member at Lancer and his name will not come up anywhere since Lancer's latest site problem occurred a week or so ago. Maybe you and your computer skills can help Lancer get their missing members profiles back up and running so Ed and others like myself can possibly be seen and the world can rest peacefully once again. But then there are those people who are not using their real names, some with the administrator's approval and by the way - maybe I am one of them. Does it really matter? So the point is - why not use your computer skills to create stabilized overlays and other photographical work and allow anyone to use them as they see fit so I can use your images instead of Miller's? I had trouble just figuring out how to post a photo here, so I don't mind admitting that I need to use other peoples images to make my points, but then I don't claim to have your computer skills. If there is anything about my point of view or wrong about the images I have chosen to pull from another forum, please tell me and I'll be happy to look at that evidence again with anyone here. So far you have seemed to only be concerned in why my name, I assume Ed's and others as well, are missing from Lancer's profile data base. I take it you have a little interest in the JFK assassination evidence too - don't you? I might also add that Miller is the only one who has an extensive critique of the claims made in Fetzer's new book about the Zapruder film being a hoax and seeing how that covers a wide range of subjects pertaining to the assassination, I will have to go to that well again and again. Josiah Thompson has a critique on a web page that I have seen, but it was pretty generic and lacked depth, so I don't use it. Whether it will be Groden, Marsh, Mack, Miller or another researchers name that I use in a post, if I am referring to something their work has covered, then I think it is appropriate to reference them so people do not think the work is mine. I believe in credit going where credit is due. I hope I have made myself clear so anyone who has nothing better to do than to worry about why someone's name isn't being seen on another forum presently under reconstruction rather than concerning themselves with the data being presented here, will at least know where I am coming from and why I do the things that I do. Please allow me to end with a question: What is the difference if someone's profile is missing off of a forum that recently went down compared to someone's profile that reads as follows ??? COMPUTERMULTIMILLIONAIRE Active Stats Total Cumulative Posts 5 ( 0.10% of total forum posts ) Posts per day 5 Joined 21-May 04 Most active in JFK Assassination Debate 5 posts in this forum ( 100% of this member's active posts ) User's local time May 21 2004, 04:34 PM Communicate Email Click Here Integrity Messenger No Information AIM Name No Information ICQ Number No Information Yahoo Identity No Information MSN Identity No Information Personal Message Click Here Information Home Page No Information Birthday No Information Location No Information Interests No Information Posting Details Member Group Members Member Title No Information Avatar Signature

Marcel - I am glad you attempted to try and duplicate Moorman's photo and it is unfortunate that you could not be there with Rick Janowitz to oversee the job. I was in the Plaza when Bill Miller and Robert Groden did a similar study. You may also recall that Unsolved History duplicated the photo, as well and they nailed it. Let me make a recommendation and repeat what Miller and Lamson (a photographer by profession) posted about Moorman's photo in the past on other forums. When a camera is pointed on a downward angle - the vertical lines of walls and such will lean to one direction. When the camera is on the horizontal plane those same lines will truly be vertical. When the camera is pointed upward over the horizontal plane - the vertical lines will then lean the opposite direction of what they were when the camera was pointed downward. Aside from the obvious point Miller raised about Mary's 54" lens height looking well "over" the tops of 58" tall motorcycle windscreens which White and Fetzer failed to see or understand, the vast height difference from being on the grass and then in the street will cause the wall above the knoll to rise and lower against the fence in the background. So one not only needs to have their camera tilted slightly downward as Moorman's was postured when looking at JFK, but they need to have the top of the wall exactly where it is seen against the stockade fence in Mary's photograph. That will only be achieved by being up in the grass at the curb as Mary was if they are using her camera lens height. If one is standing a camera back from the street on a tripod and only a few feet off the ground, the same line of sight (LOS) can be obtained, but it doesn't depict where Moorman stood. One can lay their camera on the ground and move even further up the sloping south pasture and probably find that same LOS and that wouldn't mean Moorman was laying on the ground up in the south pasture somewhere. What one should do is adjust their camera tripod height to 54" and move the camera around until all those things are aligned correctly. Groden and Miller started at the curb where Mary is seen in all the assassination films and it took those two guys about two minutes to get things aligned right. One other thing - The fence has been moved since the time of the assassination. The details can be obtained through Gary Mack at the 6th floor Museum. It is important to have all these little intracacies worked out when wanting to do such experiments. I hope the information oofered here has been helpful. Good luck!

As Lee has done at home, the best way to see what I saw,... It is enough to watch closer the MPI-DVD (while looping between Zf-467 to Zf-476). Maybe I didn't say it correctly and I apologize for that. The ghost images are what has been seen prior on the film and has nothing to do with the actual film frame now being viewed. It's little different than getting some printed papers wet and having one bleed ink onto the other. This was never more apparent than when you showed faded ghost images of the TSBD in frames where the TSBD was not even where Zapruder (Z069) was aiming his camera at that moment in time. At that time we seen people along Elm Street right up to the point they went off the screen and there was no X-Crew, as you called them. Then as the camera pans towards the fence - you apparently are taking ghost images that have nothing to do with the actual film frame(s) currently being seen nor the location on the knoll that we are currently looking at and claiming that you see a possible X-Crew of assassins out in front of the camera. At best - the images, if real people, can only be those individuals the camera passed over 60+ frames ago, just as the frame difference between when Zapruder filmed towards the TSBD as he looked in the direction of Sitzman near the Hester's - right up to Z069 or so when the ghost image showed the upper floors of the TSBD. The issue at hand: The question isn't whether you think you see something when a ghost image is overlaid onto a film frame because you probably do. Someone can really think they see something in the dark because of dim lighting and shadows, but once the light is turned on and there is nothing there to be seen, then that should tell them that it was just an illusion. Another example would be like overlaying an image of a cat onto a bird and then seeing the shape of a new species of animal. The later product would be an illusion created by overlaying two known animals together which would have nothing to do with reality. I am certainly not saying to not search for shapes and what not. I am only saying that one should try and consider the most possible explanation first. I seen it posted on another forum that the best approach to an investigation is by following a term called "Occams Razor." It's one that I try to live by, as other investigators do. I offer the definition below - Main Entry: Oc·cam's razor Pronunciation: 'ä-k&mz- Function: noun Etymology: William of Occam Date: circa 1837 : a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities Sorry, I dont want to waste more time on this topic! I understand and hope you do not stop searching the assassination images for new evidence.

I think I'm getting the hang of it. The lower spot looks like a piece of bloody matter stuck onto the skin to me.

I am very interested to see what Marcel has to offer. As per the photos I have seen thus far, and from zooming in on the full screen version [with sprockets] of my copy of "Image of an Assassin," there is definitely something worth analyzing. Perhaps it is only the reaction of some individuals in the street directly following the assassination, or perhaps it is something more. I read an exchange Marcel had with Miller on Lancer over this and what Marcel appears to be doing is taking two images (one Zframe - one ghost image) that don't show anything and then seeing something when they are overlaid, thus forming new shapes. That's like pouring gas in water and stirring it so to see what funny shapes show up in it. The area Marcel is seeing things is out over the knoll and elevated above the street. I personally think he is wasting time on it, but it's his time to waste, I guess. See the attachment below. I can't find the reference, but there's an analysis performed on the Bell & Howard possessed by Zapruder and how the plate captures light. IMO it would be interesting to understand where [location] these ghost images [located between the sprocket holes] come from. Anthony Marsh has written about this and explains the ghost images quite well. A "Google" search will probably get his study on the ghost images to come up for anyone wanting to see it. Also, as per the NPIC testimony, citing Murder in Dealey Plaza, page 315, the individual, Ben Hunter, performing the blow-up of certain frames doesn't recall seeing the sprocket holes. The geniuses leading any type of cover-up weren't photography experts. MPI put out four views of the Zapruder film and I believe only the full frame view shows the entire sprocket holes. Naturally the zoom versions will not show the sprocket holes for they have been pushed out of the photograph, which is what each MPI film frame was - just a photograph of a single Zapruder frame. The four types of view of the Zapruder frames are Close-Up, Medium Frame, Full Frame and Wide Frame Here's some questions - if the film was not compromised in any way - what was the purpose of engaging the NPIC to blow-up certain main frames of the Zapruder film to 8 x 10s, and where are these now? Why were frames 208 - 210 originally spliced out? You can see them now in detail on Fetzers Assassination Science page, the work of Costella. The original film had been damaged in a couple of places if I remember correctly and it was those frames that were removed although I think it was Z208 to Z211. I believe what Costella has done is take the SS copy that Groden brought us that had the undamaged frames copied on it. Groden didn't have the means at the time he worked on the film to capture the entire frame and this is why we only see a partial image. Also, why does Ben Hunter recall 2 - 3 frames detailing the head explosion? I only see this in frame 313, and there's no 'halo' of material exiting the back of the head, as referenced by multiple witnesses. I forget what the speed is for one frame, 1/6th of a second? Is that really sufficient for the impact we see in the film, the knowledge of the scope of the wound, the witness accounts and the trauma that resulted? Where's the brain matter and the blood? MPI created Z313 from two frames. I recall hearing this from Robert Groden. There is debris coming off the back of the head - If I can find the enlargement Miller had posted on Lancer - I will try and show it here in another reply. I'm on the fence as to whether the Z-film is a cartoon, but it certainly appears to be missing frames, and it bothers me a great deal that Zapruder, an amateur or a novice, fails to keep his subject in center. That strikes me as very odd. I take it that most people have not met anyone with Vertigo. It's a wonder Zapruder didn't fall of the pedestal even with Sitzman trying to steady him. I saw a recreation film shot by researcher who used a camera and film just like Zapruders and without the sounds of gunfire, with having Vertigo, and without seeing an assassination folding before his eyes he didn't do any better than Abraham did as far as keeping the street in the center of the frame. I think Zapruder was panning OK, but forgetting that the street was going down hill. His constant adjusting of the camera just lead to more blur and jiggles, but what the heck - he did get the job done. James Altgens froze when he seen Kennedy's head explode and he was a professional. Last, I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it. We can put the entire matter of the Z-film's having been compromised to a final resting place if someone can figure out a way to get their hands on the copy that 'allegedly' HL Hunt received day one [citing Murder in Dealey Plaza again, pg 33], or one of the copies that several individuals claim to have seen that demonstrate additional footage and a different sequence of events. Let me say something here. Those who claim to have seen this so-called other film can't even get it straight amongst themselves what they seen. One person claiming to see the other film said JFK was reacting to being shot as he came around the corner and according to people who were there the shots didn't occur until after Betzner took his photo at Z186. Alleged other film witnesses failed to mention this in their recanting. Look at the Bell film - Kennedy looks OK to me as he starts doen Elm Street. Another person said the other film he showed had the limo running close or over the north curbstone on Elm Street. (I wish I could recall which was said exactly?)But when we watch Tina Towner's film of the car turning off Houston Street and onto Elm, the car doesn't do what this person had said he witnessed on the other film. Other witnesses to the other film didn't mention the limo coming close to the curb or hitting it. The same can be said about the limo stop, which also has been attributed to some versions of this other film. I read where Miller once blasted these other film people by asking just how many other film versions are there supposed to be? Miller said they are lumping all these different versions into one film so to make it appear that others have all seen the same thing. Miller believed as I do now - these people made up a tale about another film to add support to their desire to say the Zapruder film must be a fabrication.

Robert Groden should have known better than to think there may have been a second bullet wound to JFK's back, if that is what he ever thought to start with. When one looks at the contrasted B&W autopsy photo of JFK's back it will appear there are two dark holes on it. When some of the contrast is removed, the second smaller dark spot changes and looks more like a blood drop or some other piece of matter. It is JFK's actual shirt that tells the story for it only has one hole in it. FBI Agent Francis O'Neil said that when they raised the President's body up to look at his back - it was FBI Agent James Sibert that first noticed the bullet wound in the body. He describes one wound that James Humes probed with his finger. I might also add that others who attended the President's autopsy and who have come forward to expose a cover-up have never said there was two holes in JFK's back. Even O'Neil who believes Oswald acted alone has said that the Single Bullet Theory is in error. He went as far as to say that Arlene Specter had called him and wanted he and Sibert to alter their report so to fit his SBT, but the agents refused. O'Neil also admits to the large wound in the back of JFK's head. So it seems that if these people are willing to expose the truth about the head wound or being asked to alter reports, they are most likely being honest about the number of wounds to JFK's back and JFK's suit and shirt seem to support this conclusion. I am sorry that I could not load a larger image of the back wound due to the file size restriction. I will try and see if I cannot find a way to post better images without losing their quality.

JFK Researcher Bill Miller had used this overhead image of the actial plaza as seen from the Reccords Building and had drawn lines over the wall where the Arnold/Black Dog Man figure is seen in the Betzner, Willis and Moorman's photos. I cannot speak about Don's maps because I have heard it said that his map isn't drawn to scale but the location where the lines cross on this actual photograph seem indisputable to me.

Although the limousine slowed considerably, it didn't stop. Witnesses alongside the limousine mostly support this - and most witnesses who report a stop were viewing the limo from behind. I don't recall any early statement by Moorman, Hill or the motorcycle officers that the limo stopped. You are correct in what you have stated, Martin. Slow moving vehicles to appear to be stopped when viewed from behind or from in front. Many of the witnesses who mentioned anything stopping was referring to the motorcade and not the limo from what I have read. As the limo slowed to a near crawl, the follow-up traffic had a delayed reaction time which did cause the traffic further back to be held up for several seconds. So it is very reasonable that witnesses were either assuming the limo also stopped for several seconds as well - or they were just talking about the motorcade alone and the limo somehow was thrown into the mix by someone else at a later time. How many of us have come up on a line of very slow moving traffic and because we were several cars back in the line - we actually had come to a halt for a brief period of time. Then as with what happens at a stop light - the lead car takes off and then after a delayed reaction - the next car goes and so on. The further back you are - the more the delayed reaction time has built up, thus making others cars wait even longer before being able to move forward. UPI White House Reporter said this: I was riding in the so-called White House pool car " " " " " . The President's car, possibly as much as 150 or 200 yards ahead, seemed to falter briefly " " " " . Our car stood still for probably only a few seconds, but it seemed likie a lifetime."

But, at your request, I will send some highlighted pictures of the "X-Crew" (in the next 36 hours) I cannot wait to see them, Marcel. I am intrigued that the alleged Zapruder film alteration tech people would take out frames from place in the film at a time when there was nothing to see, but would leave in an entire "X-Crew" of assassins as you call them on the same film. Very interesting indeed.

But, as I wrote above, I cannot precisely tell you now, from where this activity comes. I am just sincerely convinced than there is a human activity captured between the Zf-467 to Zf-476 (MPI-DVD). I know you have said this, but where on the film are you seeing it so I can look for it?

But I continue to say that there is a strange activity in this area... ...Where I see perfectly three or four guys! I prefer not to increase the controversy on this topic! I am still working on, and I promise that if I am wrong, I will admit publicly my mistake I can certainly respect that, Marcel. I am somewhat confused about one things and maybe I misunderstood something. If the things you saw were in the ghost images and you know they came at an earlier time in the film, then how can that be referred to as suspicious activity in the area of the RR yard? Did I miss something here?

Makes one wonder, WHY can't this simple (with today's software and computer) demonstration be done? In today's 'lingo' the technique is called (matte - special effects terminology) "quad split". Maybe the films aren't quite as seamless as were being led to believe, or at least TOLD to believe. I am curious about two things. Are you saying that technology was better for altering films back in 63' than it is today? And why is it someone should show how something wasn't altered - should not the claimant instead show how it was altered? That's like saying little fairies exist - now prove to me they they don't!

I have to agree with your last statement. Although I haven't analysed any of the films in depth, I have seen (all??) of them several times. I also seriously doubt that each film and just about each photo has been doctored with. I do agree that some frames may have been deleted in the Zapruder film due to skips and jumps and unnatural movements etc. There is no doubt that frames are missing from the damage Zapruder film, but as I said before - three additional copies were made the very afternoon of the assassination. Some assassination photos were on the news wire within the hour, such as Altgens #6 photograph. Other assassinations images were unknown. There was no way anyone could think that all the images were turned in within days of the assassination so to know what to alter, if anything. I know a lot has been made out of the splice at about Z155/156/157 or so. What would be the purpose Life could have had for damaging the film at that spot? According to Betzner - the first shot wasn't fired until after he took his photograph which correlates with Z186. Any frames of the limo before that time are of little value if the shooting hasn't commenced yet. I know the Commission needed an earlier time for the first shot to make the lone assassin theory work and it appears to counter this - some CT's went after the first splice on the Zapruder film and raised suspicion for its occurrence. The fact is it had no real value anymore than if the film had been spliced when Zapruder was filming Sitzman's backside before the motorcade rolled into the Plaza. Thank goodness there were copies made. If the Feds wanted to do anything to Zapruder's film - they would have seized it as evidence, not allowed copies to be made, and then destroyed the film in some freak accident. The best the film alterationist can do is say they believe it was possible. They should have left it at that for in Fetzer's new book - each and every mistake they made concerning film alteration of the Zapruder film just cast more doubt about their claims of film alteration having any merit because of their past poorly thought out observations. Below is another example of a claim of Zapruder film alteration that was a result of poor research. The author of this claim took a photo from the pedestal that Zapruder filmed from. Then he overlaid a known 5' tall Toni Foster taken from the Zapruder film onto his photograpgh. Considering Jean Hill's large size next to the man at the lampost nearest the street - one might question his scaling methods before ever getting started. But even if the author of this claim had scaled Toni Foster correctly, he never considered how one will look against objects when seen from an elevated position as Zapruder had filmed from. To this day I have never read where Fetzer or any of the alteraionist ever pointed out this error to the author of this erronious claim and certainly not before it went right into a book that was to tell the world that this observation was part of the proof that showed Zapruder film to be altered. I mean, how hard was it for these guys to miss this point? If we stand on top of a building and look down and across the street at someone standing next to a 14 foot lampost and from that view the top of the lampost is almost the same height as the person next to it - are we to believe that person is about 14 feet tall! It obviously was how those who praised the Toni Foster alteraion claim were seeing it or else they knew it was wrong, but didn't care to say so.

As to a shot hitting Connally's thigh, his Doctor stated they were fragments not a whole bullet...but right now, I cannot recall where I have read this.. Thanks, Larry for Mr & Mrs. Hartman's id...and the photo, now how did you do that.?.....and as you quote Mark Oates,their being furious that their statement had been altered, not surprised... Too many people were misstated in the FBI reports, could you please tell me where I might find this? I would appreciate the information.... Groden has a taped interview of Connally's doctor saying that is WAS a bullet still left in the Governor's thight at the time of the Parkland interview. I suspect he had his reasons for saying otherwise as the pressure over the sole assassin scenario started mounting, but he said it at the Parkland conference and again to Groden not long before he died. Anyone wanting the Hartman interview and to learn about the FBI report that misstated Mrs. Hartman concerning the path direction of the furrow - contact Mark Oakes at realjfkfacts@hotmail.com Mark has Mrs Hartman's interview, as well as other key witnesses he interviewed on a VHS tape and I believe it's now on DVD, as well.

JFK Researcher James Gordon of Scotland pointed out long ago some color formations in that white clump on the limo seat being discussed here and he found that it was consistant with a small bouquet Jackie had in her hands along with her roses at Love Field. His images were very convincing. Of Course that doesn't mean that Jackie's didn't have a white 'lamb chop' doll with her on the back seat either. Gordon was just pointing out that it wasn't what was being seen on the rear limo seat in the post assassination photos.

Bernice - Referring to Lancer as an information source is necessary because there are huge amounts of data already covered there and much bigger files than one can post here. That is no different than posting a link to a web page or advising someone to read the 26 volumes. Not everything at Lancer would be worth reading, but relevant work already done on any forum concerning a said issue is something I intend on referring to if I feel it will benefit someone. Also, I really do not see how mentioning a forum (without using its name) as the 'looney forum' is any worse than using a forum's real name and saying derogatory remarks about it. Is that really any different than talking about "CT's" or "LNr's" ... I don't think so. While I am concerned that your only comments that arose out of all the data that was posted about a said claim concerning Zapruder film alteration was focused on my using the term "looney Forum" - I will try in the future to limit my usage of that term to satisfy you.

Knowing when Moorman took her photograph isn't so hard. The key is watching when Hargis reaches a certain point past Moorman in the Zapruder film. It is between Z315 and Z316 that Matches his position in Moorman's photograph. I believe it was when Anthony Marsh did the math calculating the forward movement of the Hargis cycle that he found the correct position for Hargis to match the Zapruder film to Moorman's photo came at Z315.6. Below is Zframe 313. Moorman's photo clearly shows Hargis to be on the underpass side of her when looking at Zapruder. In Z313 with Zapruder looking back at Moorman - Hargis is on the Houston Street side of Moorman. Hargis has not traveled west far enough at Z313 to get him on the underpass side of the line from Zapruder's camera to Moorman's. I really do not see why researchers should have trouble following this observation.

One of the interesting points that some researchers have made in the past is that all the assassination films seem to be in sinc with one another. Cutting a removing frames is one thing, but making them all show the same things at the same time is another thing altogether. Those who say the Zapruder film was a product of putting two films together have not considered that the other assassination films would also have to have been dubbed and edited from similar films as well. The whole idea gets a little too far out there to be taken seriously IMO.

It is proven that X-rays are fabricated, it is quite resonable to hold serious doubt as to all films in this case. Those are proven FACTS. Now PROVE THESE STATEMENTS ARE INCORRECT. I'll address the only part of your last rant that mentions a JFK assassination related issue. Yes, I too believe the Xrays were fabricated. That is obvious when the man who took them say they do not show the damage to the rear of JFK's head that he seen when taking the photos. It's obvious they are fabricated when they do not show the large wound in the back of the head that each and every person at Bethesda who saw Kennedy had mentioned seeing, despite the false report on those statements that was given to the HSCA. It is also reasonable to have doubts about other films and photographs, but not after gaining the history of the suspected films and photos. Moorman's instant picture of the knoll was shown on TV within 3 hrs of the assassination. Muchmore kept her film in her possession until turning it over to UPI. Zapruder only turned over two copies of his film and kept the original and the 1st genneration copy with him. If I remember right, that film was projected and viewed before Life damaged it. I wish there was proof that an assassination film was altered to hide a conspiracy, but the fact is the allegations that are being said to prove Zapruder film alteration cannot support their own weight. Below is a link to a critique on the claims made in Jim Fetzer's new book concerning the Zapruder film being altered. Go look at the critique and bring back any point that you think is in error and I'll be happy to discuss my view on it. http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...sg_id=276&page=