Michael Walton

Hum, Dee Dum, Dee Dum, Dee Dum, Dee Dum, Dee Dum, Dee O !!! Uhh, your point, Chris? Just because you bought into what this surveyor wrote about in an interview written by Marrs doesn't make it so. Just like what Truly said about the "Oh, um, the limo almost rode up onto the curb" in his statement. Do you see that in the Towner film? I don't. As for the "matter exiting the rear," yes, I agree. It's the main reason why Mrs. Kennedy climbed onto the back of the car, to retrieve, in her shocked state, whatever was back there. And then Hill described what he saw, one of the best witnesses to observe things before any doctor touched the body or laid him flat in the trauma room: The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head... But as for this thread, you're all over the place, cutting and pasting quotes, adding geometric figures and math formulas. It's moving deeply into Fetzer way-out-in-left-field territory. Then David Josephs comes up with something else silly - "Right, right, Chris, I concur Chris and there's this, don't forget this..." - and then there's David Healy making snide remarks if someone like me disagrees. I made a point about how in the 70's, film technology was still cutting and taping like it was in the 60's and used Bob Fosse as an example when he was editing Cabaret. It doesn't mean I like Fosse. Then Healy comes in "Oh, we need to leave Fosse's crapola alone here, thank you very much, 'nuff said." I mean, WTF? Does he even have basic reading comprehension skills? You may think this thread is helping other researchers but it's not. It's moved into absurdist territory.

Tom here are my replies: Michael, I'm trying to follow your responses in this thread. In order to clarify your position, could you please state your opinion as to the following: What were the total number of shots fired in Dealy Plaza? By watching the Zapruder film, I believe that 6 shots were fired. I'll always believe that the first shot hit Kennedy in the throat around 225, when he then threw up his hands; second, right after this one, hit him in the back where you can see him lurch forward from the impact; then Connally took his shot; there had to be some kind of wild shot far down enough to hit the curb and causing the nick on Tague's face; then two almost simultaneous shots to Kennedy's head, the first hitting the back of his head and then the front shot pushing him violently backward. I've watched numerous video clips of people being shot in the back of the head, some from almost point blank range and I have not seen a one of them yet where the head and body are violently thrown backward. To me, the violent backward body throw as seen in the film is the single proof in my mind that there was a conspiracy. From what location was each shot fired? Pretty much explained above. In what sequence were these shots fired? As stated above. Do you believe LHO fired any shots, and if so, how many? No I do not. I put a lot of stock in Oswald's comment in the hall, "I'm nothing but a patsy." He almost said that out of earshot and if he had, we'd never have had that chance to hear this guy use that word. I think LHO was a smart guy, he was pissed off when they arrested him, and as the weekend went on, he knew he was being set up for the murder. Think about it. How many so-called blue collar people would know the meaning of that word? And yet he was aware enough to know his situation at the time. Plus, there is so much evidence showing he didn't do it - the faked gun bag; the Paines setting him up; the three wallets after the Tippit murder; the bus-to-cab-to-rooming- house movements; the fake back yard photos; the proof that he was at work all day at JCS when he was supposed to have dropped the order in the mail; and on and on. Which brings me back to the Z film. People see what they want to see. I just don't see what they see and they want to try to say they have "proof" by using math formulas and so on. As I'm sure others have, I've watched the film enough times and I just don't see missing frames, switched frames, warping sign poles, and so on. I've compared the Z film to other films taken earlier in the parade and Kennedy's movements look similar - he fluffs his hair, he's looking around waving, the ladies yell out and he looks over and waves, he starts dropping his hand from the wave, and then the shots started. All in all, he looks pretty relaxed from the time the car left the airport until the first shot. I see the best evidence of conspiracy in the film, which shows, to me, the sequence of shots as I described above. I believe despite what acoustics and witnesses say, no shots were fired until around Z 225. I think the film simply shows him looking over to the left quickly when those ladies yelled at him, he looked over to wave, and had dropped his arm down when the throat shot hit him: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxYXR5WWxkZ05QRkU Then people like David Josephs are actually using witness statements to try to prove this thread as correct. Like Truly's statement where he said the limo almost turned too wide. Oh really? Watch the Towner film and the stripes on the street. Looks like he made a pretty good turn to me. These people were not standing around saying, "OMG, here come the shots!" They were there to see the president and it happened very, very quickly - 6 seconds in fact - so memory is not going to be something these people could rely on 100%. Yet, there are people on this thread who are looking *everywhere* for conspiracy to bolster their claims. It's ridiculous. I remember working with 8mm back in 1985 for my college film class project. I actually attempted to make a stop motion animation sequence. Then I remember cutting the film and taping it during editing. It's silly to think that people were sitting around manipulating this film on Friday night of 11/22 when no one even knew what the game plan was going to be. The suppression this valuable piece of evidence started the night of 11/25 when Dan Rather completely left the violent backward and to the left movement out of his "objective" reporting of what he saw in the film. And then it goes on from there. Do you really think Dan Rather had left that out innocently? His further career record about this case speaks for itself. The more ridiculous this thread gets the more it makes the serious research community of the case look like kooks and crackpots. I think this thread should be closed for good but it won't because Chris Davidson keeps adding silly math formulas to it so the 10k views keeps it ranked high up. It's amazing to me that no one has taken the time to read my threads elsewhere - just because I don't believe in the silliness of this thread they make me out to be a Lone Nut believer. I've been a CT-er since 1975.

Thanks Robin and David for clarifying.

Does anyone know when this photo is from?

Wasn't the scope on that gun supposedly out of alignment?

what DF/NDF (drop frame/non drop frame) video is, Robin? Good luck! DF and NDF explained nicely here: http://www.bodenzord.com/archives/79 A tutorial I made three years for client use of time code:

The black bars are either artifacts from when the footage was transferred or the frames were jumping around during stabilization. Black and white? It stays color to me. I think Truly was wrong. Watch the Towner film of the car going by. There's no evidence the car took too wide of a turn in that clip. It looks pretty smooth to me. Keep in mind witnesses were not standing around extra alert and waiting for the shots to start.

Tom Neal sorry I overlooked your questions to me. I will definitely reply to them when I'm on a computer. I hate typing on a phone but I will definitely reply. Thanks.

David Josephs I think your eyes are just playing tricks on you. Or you're seeing what you want to see rather than what's actually there. There is a difference between the two.

Thank you Robin. Now if you can only convince the gang over on the Math Rules thread you'd make this forum a more enlightening one. I've given up trying to talk reason over there.

Yes, David Healey, I meant Bob Fosse. But more disturbingly if you had read my post up further, you wouldn't have had to ask for my confirmation. Back into the 1940s? It's obvious that you have no historical perspective of film technique. I'll let you guys think what you want and it's equally obvious that none of you have any understanding of the nitty gritty of film making.

No Chris your answer is to download the frames as described above. That's your answer. There are no extra frames and I clearly explained why above. If you don't want to think through it then I can't help you any further. Also go to the Math Rules thread at the end and read my post about why the film is not faked. There is no such thing as a French version of the film.

Chris, Go here: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/ Download all of the frames, open frame 220 (or whichever one you want to start with). Then with your left and right arrow keys, cycle through each frame. Pay close attention to 310 - 316. Note that the extra frame you see is not there. These frames you're cycling through are how the actual Z film was recorded and looks one frame at a time. Then go here: In essence, what you will see above is when you put the Z film frames on a video editing timeline and then export the timeline at 30 fps, more frames are going to be added to the exported movie. This is why it looks like there is an extra frame at 313.

The result of this alteration was to artificially move the first two frames westward and downward, and the third slightly eastward and upward. And you believe that the above could actually be done using 1960s technology, when I just described Fosse working with Hollywood film prints and the most they could do was cut and splice them...eight years *after* Zapruder's film was shot with a consumer camera? And you actually think that by moving a mere three frames in a film that it would drastically change the running sequence of it? We're getting into "Jackie shot JFK with the help of the limo driver" territory here, Chris. I mean, wow. We're getting into absolute and utter ridiculousness here.

We're still waiting. Yes, I agree that it's taking me longer to get this done. I do have a full-time job and I'm rarely at home. It will be ready when it's ready, Quote from MW: I wrote my recent reply to this thread not for you and Chris but for new people who are curious about this case. If you do a search, McAdams is always going to come up first. If they arrive here to EF, they're obviously going to look through it and when they see this thread, it's really going to cause a lot of head shaking and browser closing. This thread is really falling into Jim Fetzer territory. Why don't you start your new thread and reply there? You can then get into another fruitless discussion about the validity of the film. There was a shot around the extant z207 location, there is a splice at 208, where are the sprocket holes in Groden's version for those frames? Most newbies can understand that correlation. Please don't answer here!!! Do it on your own dime!!! Chris, you don't seem to understand that this is a free and open forum. Meaning when people post theories and such like you have here, you can't just give yourself a pat on the back every time someone agrees with you, then use large text to shout someone down in anger when they disagree. The whole point of a forum is to present theories and then open it up for debate. Your whole Math Rules thread is deeply flawed. There is absolutely no evidence that the film was tampered with. Look on the FBI reenactment film and you'll see a BW version of it that looks exactly like the one we see all over the internet. There were no shots at 207 and 208. Just as JFK reappears from behind the sign, he's dropping his arm from waving - that's all. Then you can see the first shot - the throat shot that he starts reacting to followed immediately after by the back shot when his body lurches forward from the force of it. Take a look at this animated GIF. Notice how they look almost identical. That was all that was happening just as he reappears from the sign until in the very next frame you start to see him reach for his throat. His arm was just coming down after those ladies on the sidewalk had yelled out to look over at them. Which is what he did as can clearly be seen in the Z film. Photo comparison Do you really think that they would have just started firing whenever they wanted to? They had this timed down to as close to the last possible moment as they could but no organic shooting sequence could be absolutely 100% fool proof, which is why the Z film is a treasure trove of conspiracy. But back to the film, there are no splices, frame removals and that kind of thing. As I've said over and over again, there was no need to fake the film because it was not going to be seen by the public anyway. There was no need to speed up the film to 48 FPS or whatever it is you and others have said here. What difference would that make anyway? And besides, if they had sped it up, I and many others would have noticed this immediately. This would be a glaring change of motion during the running sequence of the film. I'm reading the bio of Bob Fosse and in it, there are chapters talking about when he was working on his films like Cabaret. This was around 1971, eight years after 11/22/63. It talks about how he was in the editing room while his editor was working on the film with a Steenbeck while Fosse watched it using a Moviola. Here's a trivia question for you - what film format were they using? (Hint: it was not 8mm). It talks about how they were pulling film, using the cutter, splicing it together, watching it, re-cutting it, and so on. This is eight years *after* Zapruder shot his home movie on 8mm film. Really, Chris. Do you really think people were sitting around doing this with an 8mm film mere hours after it was shot? How did they even know what to take out or keep in that early after the shooting? Why would they even speed it up, slow it down - what would doing that even show? Then you have Dan Rather on 11/25 "describing" what he saw in the film, completely eliminating in his description the violent back and to the left movement from the head shot. Then, several months later, in the "eyes only" FBI film that includes the Z film, you see the exact same film you see today; nothing has been removed, including the back and to the left movement. I don't know about you, but this all shows me that they didn't edit the film and they sure as heck were *not* going to tell the public what was in the film, and they didn't have to worry about that because the plan was not to show it to the public in the first place. So you can continue to post math formulas and measurements and animated GIFs here and continue to pile them on one after another but it's all deeply flawed and really proves nothing. I'll say it again - the film was not edited because there was no need to and the technical capabilities back then would not have allowed them to anyway. And it was also not edited or faked because the whole plan was to keep it from the public.

For David Josephs: 1. Did you actually see the film prior to 1975? prior to it leaving Dallas? Here is the timeline of the film: http://www.jfklancer.com/zapruder/Tabular_Z%20Film_Chronology.html None of us had seen the film prior to 1975, so that cancels out your statement of you and others knowing better than me. You seem to think that the government had an army of film editors at the ready splicing, removing and rotoscoping. The timeline shows that the film was being moved from one place to another to get it developed, then to make copies, and so on. 2. That's a joke right? According to the above timeline, there was no time to alter the film. How did anyone even know what to "alter?" No one knew what the official story was going to be that early in the game. Just like during the autopsy that night, no one told Humes about the front throat wound. The same for this film. 3. Again Mike... Again, none of us had seen the film prior to 1975, so that cancels out your statement of you and others knowing better than me. This was back in the early 60s when film technology was organic. Even Hollywood couldn't always produce clean film dissolves for their million dollar movies. So the best they could do is bury the film until '75. 4. The briefing boards from Sunday night also exactly match You just confirmed it all for me with this statement. Did you even bother to watch this reenactment film with the Z-film in it? 5. And yet again, your opinions backed by anecdotes. Did you even bother to watch Rather's live presentation? If the briefing boards match the BW version of the film from the reenactment film, and then if the current copies of the Z film match the BW film, then yes, Rather was fudging the film and, thus, it's not an anecdote. For those actually giving an effort to understand the math and how the Zfilm was taken at 48fps for long stretches - or how the anomalies in the film cannot be explained except for such cutting of frames, it all makes perfect sense. Oh my goodness, so you think some how, some way either a 1960s off-the-shelf consumer camera was filming at either 18 fps and then bumped up to 48 fps, that some frames were then removed or altered, or whatever you think - and *that's* your theory of the film being altered? And what was taken out or put in? And why do you think bumping up the film speed to 48 fps would matter? And then to top it off, you think math - the discipline of science - is going to help you prove all of this? Have you taken a step back to just think about how absurd all of this sounds? Claiming the Zfilm is unaltered is as misinformed as claiming Oswald was in the 6th floor window. But then again you aint gonna learn what you don't wanna know... Funny you say this. Again, you know nothing about me and for that matter, you haven't even bothered to look me up elsewhere on EF to see where I really stand on the JFK case. If the Zfilm was a record of what occurred - why do you suppose it was reduced to photos and not shown as a film for 12 years? I explained this above and previously. Because they knew they had a very hot potato on their hands. The violent back and to the left movement is proof enough that a shot came from the front of the limo. Further, it also proves that the Single Bullet Theory is just that - a joke, a theory dreamed up by lawyers. The Zfilm has been the government's ace-in-the-hole... I'll let you think what you want, but it's really not. It's the opposite. That's why Rather (government mouthpiece) fudged his description of it, not once mentioning the back and to the left movement, on live TV. And that's why it took an ordinary citizen like Groden to sneak a copy of it on broadcast TV for the public to finally get a chance to see it in '75. And because of the outrage of what they saw, the hornet's nest was kicked hard enough for the government to finally do something about it, which led to the Church hearings. This is all documented and not dreamed up ideas by me. I'm not going to put the links here though - you need to take a step back from this math silliness and do the research. MEMO Our intention is not to establish the point with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin. Exactly. You've just proven many of my points with this blurb from the memo. They knew the hot potato they had on their hands was going to be suppressed from public view; they knew that the most the public would see of the film are still images (like in Life). So there was no need to vigorously pursue the truth of what really happened. The Katzenbach memo, too, is almost a copy of the above memo's blurb you highlighted in red. I wrote my recent reply to this thread not for you and Chris but for new people who are curious about this case. If you do a search, McAdams is always going to come up first. If they arrive here to EF, they're obviously going to look through it and when they see this thread, it's really going to cause a lot of head shaking and browser closing. This thread is really falling into Jim Fetzer territory. And even if I believed in this thread's theories, which I do not, it's presented in a convoluted way. I mean even the title "Swan Song - Math Rules" sounds like a grunge rock band's name instead of a serious analysis of the Z-film. And then the very first thread of "Zfilm alteration equation coming up" makes no sense. You should present your theories in a clear concise manner at the very top but then you get "...coming up" on the first post and then it just gets more confusing with animated GIFs, photos, math formulas, more math formulas, and so on. For a JFK case newbie, they're just going to walk away shaking their heads and this thread does nothing for serious researchers of the case. But it just keeps going on and on, with a post of: "See Post #413 per 45fps to nth degree" ...and so on. I highly encourage you to read the analysis written by Tony Marsh and Clint Bradford about the film. No amount of math is going to prove the film was faked, because it didn't need to be faked. Once the film was in the government's hands and out of public view, they could say and do anything they wanted about the film - and the case - to cover up the truth. Ask yourself this. If the government had really wanted to vigorously pursue the truth of this case, they most probably would have shown the film to the public that very weekend. If Kennedy had been beloved or best buddies with Johnson, Hoover, Dulles and all the rest, and if he had really been cut down by a crazy lone nut like Oswald, they would have been hell-bent on finding out the truth. They would have grabbed the Z film, taken a look at it, and then told the networks to pool it and show it to the public on all three networks like they used to do on the Apollo space shots. The back and to the left movement would have immediately raised suspicion, triggering further vigorous investigation. The above scenario is the essence of why the Z film was *not* altered. There were many people in high places who wanted the Kennedys out. And when he was out, the higher ups could easily suppress dangerous evidence or just sweep everything under the rug, which is what happened to the Z film. It showed way too much - the timing of the shots from different directions didn't match up a single person on the 6th floor of the building doing it all by himself; and the back and to the left movement showed conspiracy even more. So it was suppressed, but *not* altered. And the whole plan was probably never to reveal it to the public anyway if Groden hadn't sneaked a copy of it on TV in '75.

Mark your calendar to attend "Don't Forget about Jack: The JFK Assassination" scheduled for November 13, 2016, at Fletcher Free library in Burlington, Vermont Speakers, more information, and RSVP here: http://ctka.net/VT11-2016/rsvp.html

I'm posting this here for new people that visit this site. If you have made it this far into this thread called "Swan Song" (meaning the original author of this post thinks that he's found all of the answers to the case) and "Math Rules" (meaning he thinks math is the best and ultimate way to solve the case) and you're as confused as I am, you're not alone. To give you some background, there is a clique of JFK assassination researchers who think that the film shot by Abraham Zapruder has been somehow, some way altered. For some reason these people (including the original author of this thread) think the film needed to be altered in some way to show or prove that President Kennedy was assassinated by a single assassin named Lee Harvey Oswald. In other words, the film needed to be altered to remove the elements showing a conspiracy. I'm here to tell you that despite this thread receiving over 10,000 views, all of the math formulas, pictures, and so on prove nothing. Here are the reasons why this is true: There was *no need* for the government to alter this film; The government had no time to alter the film; Because the film does show evidence of a frontal shot hitting President Kennedy in the head and, thus, a conspiracy, the film was kept from public view by the government for 12 long years; The government made a reenactment film sometime in 1964. This film was an "eyes only" film, meaning it was only for high government officials. In this film, the government included a black and white copy of the Zapruder film. If you watch this film and compare it with the Z film widely available on the internet, you will note that both films look exactly alike; Once the government had complete control of the film, they could easily control the message seen in the film. Two instances of this were when CBS reporter Dan Rather described what he saw in the film (but not actually showing it to the public) and completely eliminating the President's violent "back and to the left" movement; and when Life magazine fudged the description of some of the frames printed in their special edition on the assassination. The points I've outlined above are far more solid evidence of a conspiracy than the math formulas, photos, and drawings posted on this thread. Yet, you will notice that the original author of this thread keeps it alive by continuing to post "updates" to the thread like: "From extant to exant: 23.4 ft per sec rounded off to the nth degree" and then a few days later: "Height of slope in wall x 192 ft. and then rounded to 12.4 mph of the limo" ...and so on. How many versions of a math formula can someone come up with to try to prove the same result over and over again? It's not solving anything and it's being done to keep the thread high up in the HOT rankings of this forum's home page. It all means nothing and I encourage new readers to read elsewhere to learn about the assassination.

I think what people like Judy Baker and Bev Oliver do is shameful to the memory of President Kennedy. Where were these people right after 11/22? Why were neither interviewed by the government immediately afterward? In Baker's case, you'd think the government would have tracked her down to see what she knows. Neither are heard from until 20 years after the fact. And yet, here they are today. And here *we* are today. It's amazing to me that any serious researcher of this case would even think to go to this Oswald NO conference. It's purely a money grab and you can count on it in dollar bills that there will be plenty of tables around with the "distinguished authors" manning them, signing their books, smiling for photos and grabbing cash, too. I've always known there are some pretty flaky people out there who call themselves experts about this case, and I'm talking about the people who think the limo driver shot Kennedy, or the poison dart from the umbrella, and other nonsense. What's even sadder though are those who actually fall for this stuff, who can't see the forest from the trees, who lack the ability to just have the common sense flag fly up just a little bit, to question, poke and prod. It reminds me of the Simpsons episode about how Halloween began back in the times of the Pilgrims. The premise was, all you had to do was point to someone and yell, "Witch!" and everyone falls into line. A funny episode but sadly true in this case when a fake like Baker comes along and a thousand people are going to trod down to NO to hear her speak and buy her book.

Thanks for clarifying, Vanessa.

Vanessa - This thread is now approaching 350,000 views. Isn't it time for it to be pinned on the front page? I'd argue it is far more fact-based than the so-called "Prayer Person" thread that is already there. How about it, James? Vanessa, hmm, why would you think this thread of "Oswald Leaving the Building" would be any more factual than PM? The people who worked on PM have really backed up their work with their "where everyone was" spreadsheet. Further, this thread is showing pretty much the same guy you see in the PM film footage but what appears to be at a much later time. In my mind, it seems like this thread's image and PM's image are the same person. That seems to cancel out one thread being more important than the other.

Hi Ramon, The work your team and you have done with the animations is great. I have some questions and comments. Regarding the animations of bullet from behind hitting the skull, it seems like it's moving way too slow. The reason why I say that is because when you watch the fragments fly, their momentum is very slow and they just kind of fall a few inches away from the skull. My hunch is that a high-speed bullet would have thrown the fragments much farther away. You may want to speed up the bullet speed so the fragments fly farther. Unless I'm overlooking it, I don't see a bullet animation with a bullet fired from the front. Do you plan to do this? I've always suspected that the hole in the back of the head could be a depiction of a wound of exit. The reason why I think that is because there is beveling around the hole. I made an animation of this a while seen here: Outshoot Animated GIF If and when you make a frontal bullet strike animation, perhaps you could use this trajectory? I'm impressed with the soccer ball bouncing off the head animation. My hunch is that Kennedy was either very relaxed or not feeling all that hot that day because if you watch him throughout the motorcade, he's really leaning hard on that right side of the car. When he first gets in, he sits up but as it progresses, he really leans. What does that have to do with the soccer ball? I think because he was so relaxed when the bullets hit that you can really see his body react to them from their momentum. After the front throat shot hits, you can obviously see his body be pushed forward when the back shot hits almost immediately afterward. His head also bobs back and then forward. Then of course when the front head shot hits, it violently throws his entire body backward. So seeing this, and your soccer ball animation is quite telling, at least it is to me. Further, if you watch Connally, he seems friendly but nervous throughout the motorcade. He's constantly sitting up and I'm thinking maybe stiff and tense. When the bullets hit him, his body does not appear to react from the momentum. One final comment is during my research of the case, I've watched dozens and dozens of people take gunshots to the head from both behind and in front. Amazingly, and especially the shots from behind, I've yet to see "back and to the left" body reactions. Not a one. Ironically, I've seen frontal head shots and sometimes they push the head backward and sometimes they don't. There was one quick video I found on this forum showing a frontal head shot and the head flies violently backward. But I think it's quite telling that *no* footage I've seen of a bullet hitting the back of the head has ever shown the type of reaction that you see in the Z film. That, to me, is why I've always believed that the Z film is authentic and was suppressed for many years before being allowed to be shown to the public at large. Again, great job on your research and the animations and I look forward to seeing more as they become available.

The comments on that link are far, far worst than the BS story on it and I'm kicking myself now for even going down there to read the rabble. I think it's safe to say, here, that if you're a real scholar of Kennedy (I like to think I am), you'll know what the man was about. If that note is genuine, then so what? The guy was human like everyone else. Not to get into it too much but his Vice President, in my opinion, was a far scarier person than Kennedy ever was. So where does the character judgement end? It never will. Further, it's not been enough over the past 50 years for there to still be supporters of the official story of his assassination constantly defending that very flawed and shaky report. They figure that dragging him through the mud is part and parcel. One final thought - the more you read comments on the blogosphere, the more you realize that what it all boils down to is this - if you "like" someone, you'll write great things about them. If you "hate" them, then you won't. I really believe this colors people's opinions about someone without them really knowing what the h&&& they're talking about.

Chris, there was a recent reenactment made (and I terrible one at that) in 2015 for the King 11-22-63 miniseries you can see on this page: Terrible Z Film Reenactment The one you're wondering about, I believe, was made for a miniseries in the 1980s as I recall reading about it and your clip looks very similar to that one.

For those who seriously want to get to the bottom of what really took place in Dealey Plaza, it's absolutely critical to go back, once again, to that very day. To Dan Rather. To CBS. And to KRLD. That much needed, necessary hard evidence Gary Mack often called out for has actually been waiting right there, for all of you, for over fifty-two years. The popcorn's popped. Candy bars are at the ready. Freshly brewed iced tea with a lemon wedge awaits my first cooling sip. The lights are dimmed. Now, Ken, tell me what it's all about. I'm absolutely dying to know.