Chris Bristow

Hargis was seen at the north Elm lamppost about 16 seconds after the head shot. This makes it impossible for him to have run to the patio wall. 
 Hargis did say he ran uphill to get a better more elevated view of the knoll. The best Hargis could have done, imo, is continued his run for about 15 ft up the grass(Taking about one second and gaining about 3 ft of elevation.), before stopping and heading for the lamppost.
He also said he saw witnesses in that area and no one was acting suspiciously or "Running". But Hargis could have seen those patio witnesses upper torsos well before reaching the wall. He could have yelled to Roscoe White from  near the sidewalk as he ran.
 It is possible Hargis did see the witnesses on the patio and did talk to White and still ended up at the lamppost in 16 seconds. It comes down to a couple seconds and I don't think there is a record of the exact second LBJ's SS follow up car passed by and allowed Hargis to start across Elm. 

7 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Chris, If you read their accounts in Larry Sneed's, No More Silence, the motorcycle escort officers were in shock. 

If you look at Batchelor's Exhibit# 5002, on page 134, you will find all of these Solo Motorcyclists listed. They were in the Traffic Division, and their job title was Solo Motorcycle and Special Enforcement, Monthly Detail

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1136#relPageId=152

Their duties had ended and didn't know what they were supposed to do. Several of them wound up guarding the hallway up on the third floor of the DPD Headquarters among the swarm of newsmen.

I kind of felt sorry for them. They felt like their duty was to guard the President, and they had let him down, and then thy were thrown in this midst of this pushing, cursing mob. If you look at their faces in some of those pictures up on the third floor, they look kind of lost. (I think).

Steve Thomas

Thanks Steve. "In shock" makes perfect sense.

Hargis dismounted and immediately ran across Elm St looking for a shooter. Martin, Chaney and Jackson did not attempt to keep pace with the limo and none of them dismounted to search for a shooter. Martin just putted along slowly to the underpass and then rode out of the plaza. The films and photos suggest Chaney and Jackson just stopped and sat there for a few seconds before following far behind the limo. What were they supposed to be doing once shots were fired? 

1 hour ago, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGmrbMEGEPc

HOFFMAN.

40:10 and at that time the police were just standing there they had not moved and you know we were all trying to motion to the police

40:16 to i was trying to motion to the police to go after the man that had run away and uh

40:24 there were other special services

40:29 the other car was coming along behind them

40:38 and the secret service noticed my hands

40:44 they noticed you know they stopped they turned their lights out

40:50 i thought maybe they were trying to um motion to me

40:57 but they all got out of there very quickly of course and uh that man had already gone

41:02 down the tracks by this time you know so um there was no time to let anyone know so

41:08 i ran and got in my car and i drove down towards that direction and i kept looking for where the man had

41:14 gone i and he had disappeared completely no one ever found him so um

41:21 i went to the police department at that time i hurried very quickly to get there and i went into the police department and i

Thanks for that. He does say the SS car stopped and it sounds like it was when he was looking down to the onramp. Only mentioning the SS car stopping there is a bit strange though. His timeline takes some sudden jumps like when he starts to say he watched the limo go under the bridge then suddenly jumps back to the plaza.
It does make me wonder because he was able to see the limo enter and exit the triple overpass bridge as well. Still his account is pretty strong support for the SS car stopping on the onramp.  

On 2/24/2024 at 3:33 AM, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

Earle Brown's statement was to Mack i think. Any  search will find it.

Hoffman said that Queen Mary stopped below him & turned its light signals off.

I would not trust anything Gary Mack had to say after seeing the lie he perpetrated in the "Inside The Target Car" documentary in which he completely misrepresented the position of JFK's head as being firmly tucked up against Jackies left shoulder at the head shot. That lie allowed him to claim Jackie would also have been hit by a knoll shot. We know for a fact his head was at her right shoulder and a good 8 to 10 inches away from her head as seen in Z 312 and the Muchmore film. I don't believe he was so ignorant as to make such a blatant mistake.
 I also don't get how the Queen Mary would come to a stop on the ramp below unless the limo also came to a stop in front of it. I'm sure there are a lot of search results for Hoffman's statements, can you point me to his story about the Q.M. coming to a stop?

10 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

Curry, Chaney and Jackson all saying the same thing;

https://o/t50-chaney-talks-to-curry

 

Another discrepancy in the record is the McIntyre photo that shows Ellis, Lumpkin and another cop identified as Grey, leading the limo onto the Stemmons. Where is Chaney?
The official story is that Chaney is seen on the left underneath the overpass which contradicts Curry's telling Chaney to escort the them to Parkland while still in the plaza.
The Bell film shows those 3 cops well out in front of the limo as it exited the underpass. Too early for Chaney to have gotten ahead of them and he is not seen in between Curry and those 3 cops.
The account you posted has Chaney clearing the other bike cops from in front of the limo which the McIntyre photo also contradicts. 
 I don't get why Chaney would clear the other bikes from in front of the limo if he is just going to replace them and lead the motorcade to Parkland by himself. Those bikes were not fast but speed wise they accelerate as fast as a modern Lincoln with a top speed of 100mph+. The limo engine was not stock but the limo was heavy.  How fast JFK's limo could accelerate was not publicized.
   If the Curry/Chaney meeting happened on the onramp those discrepancies would make sense but then Chaney, Jackson, Curry and Hargis all made the same mistake. I would add Lawson and Sorrels but I still have to find those statements again.
  I have some CT minded suspicions about the McIntyre photo which was said to have been given to Gary Mack in the 80'S. It is just weird that the limo must be doing 50 mph at that point but the bike cops look as if they are moving along very slowly. Lumpkin is riding the middle position which is slightly tricky when going around a curve at speed, yet he is riding with one hand as if moving at a slower speed. Secondly the camera shows a diagonal camera jiggle blur on everything in the photo from the bikes under the pass, the billboard and the white posts with the red lines. But the 3 bike cops are in nearly perfect focus with the front tire tread of Ellis' bike being sharply in focus. You can see the tiny light bulbs in the cops red lights and their blur does not match the camera jiggle direction. 
   

5 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

The photo I found in Groden's book is actually Altgens 7.  It's clear the limo has taken off after it's stop or near stop.  Hill is all the way on the bumper step and Jackie is starting to climb onto the trunk.  It does appear the brake lights on the lead car are on, compared to the darkness of those on the limo.  It seems they stopped or slowed way down.  After they heard shots?  Or a radio report by Kellerman?  Probably trying to see what was going on behind them before going under the RR overpass/starting into the curve of the entrance ramp?  IDK, make sense?

If the Z film is unaltered then the limo position in Altgens 7 shows it was taken 4 to 5 seconds after the head shot. The limo would only be 4 seconds away from the overpass in Altgens 7. If all that is correct where is Chaney?   Chaney would not have enough time to catch Curry and then disappear in 4 seconds and he would not have enough time to have his meeting with Curry after Altgens 7.
   Maybe the limo really did stop on the onramp but that is hard to believe unless it was because Jackie did try to jump out. Maybe Mack's version of them stopping because Greer needed directions and to verify if there were injuries was coverup for Jackie's sake.  
  

23 minutes ago, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

Did Ellis say that the motorcade stopped briefly on the on-ramp? 

If yes then he is witness No4 to say so.

I don't remember Ellis saying that. Do you have a reference for Earle Browns statement? I do remember Hoffman saying the limo saying took a long time to appear on the onramp below him indicating it might have stopped.

On 2/22/2024 at 9:17 AM, Pat Speer said:

You are correct in that no way in heck did the limo stop on the on-ramp. My understanding of the story was that the limo raced past Curry and he wasn't sure what happened. And that Chaney caught up to him on the on-ramp and told him for a fact that the President was shot, and that Chaney, along with Jackson and I believe Martin then raced on up ahead and led the limo to Parkland. To my understanding this exchange between Chaney and Curry took but a few seconds. (I don't think they even stopped.) 

But if you have exact quotes from Mack claiming the limo came to a dead stop, and exact quotes from Curry claiming they stopped before they even reached the underpass, now that would be interesting. (I'm not sure this would even make sense seeing as Curry was already past the grassy knoll when the shots rang out and but a few seconds from the railroad bridge." 

The thought occurs that some witnesses used words like "plaza" and people assumed this meant east of the railroad bridge, while they may have meant east of the freeway. This kind of imprecision is evident all throughout this case. Such as when people say "occipital" or "firecracker."

I tend to agree the limo probably did not stop on the onramp. But if it didn't there is no way for Chaney to catch up to it unless he chased it down the freeway for quite  a ways. The McIntyre photo supposedly shows Chaney in the underpass some 800 ft behind the limo as it approaches the onramp. The Bell film shows the LBJ's car and his SS car moving towards the underpass and Chaney is not in the picture.  Chaney either spoke to Curry in the plaza or he pulled up to Curry well after they entered the Stemmons. The latter does not make much sense to me.
  I don't think Curry said they completely stopped in the plaza. If Chaney caught up to him in the plaza maybe they were both just going very slow. If Curry was about 125 ft in front of the limo at the head shot then he was 100 ft away from the underpass. If Curry was crawling along very slowly it might all make sense. But then again Altgens 7 is about 4 seconds after the head shot and does not show Chaney. It is all very weird.
Curry's timeline puts the Chaney event east of the underpass. The Bell film and McIntyre photo make it impossible for the meeting to have happened west of the underpass, unless it happened way down the Stemons freeway I have to look again at Lawsons and Sorrels accounts but I think their timelines also put the event east of the underpass. 
 

On 2/22/2024 at 11:07 AM, Denise Hazelwood said:

Sources for the Hargis, Sorrels, Lawson, Ellis, and Chaney statements, please.llk

The problem is, you can't "put alteration aside." 

I believe it was in JFK Horsemen (sorry, I don't have the link offhand) where one of the motorcycle officers described Hargis as running between the stoppedkkk limo and the follow-up car. The limo may have taken off in that space, but it would have delayed the follow-up car another second or two. (I wonder if anyone who saw the "other" Z film ever described this?)

I put alteration aside just to make a point about the, imo, impossible timing of Chaney's ride forward. If there was no limo stop removed the timing is even more problematic.
   While taking out a limo stop is the hardest and most difficult alteration to achieve I still think it was done based on the 4 cops testimony about it fully stopping or almost  stopping.
 I have to search for all the relevant statements again because it has been some years since I researched the issue. Several of them testified to the WC more than once and some gave interviews to journalists. I have found testimony in volumes 3,4 and 7 So far. I found Sorrels saying "Get out of here" but not specifically about going to Parkland.
  Starves Ellis made his comment in an interview. He said the motorcade came to a full stop and he turned around and rode back and became part of the Chaney Curry exchange. But he tended to put himself at the center of his stories which makes me have some doubt about the details of his account. I will look for the interview.
   Hargis' account is in his WC testimony. He mentions Chaney's ride forward in his testimony in vol 4 pg 294.

Lawson says in vol 4 pg 353 that he heard a radio message saying "We should get to the nearest hospital" as he saw Clint Hill on the back of the limo. A few sentences later he is asked what the lead car was doing at the time and he mentions the bike cop who pulled forward to inform them. He  seems to be giving a timeline and then says the limo jumped forward while still a good distance behind them. That would be in the plaza before the limo caught them in the underpass.  
 That is all I have found so far. 
  I have heard the version where Hargis runs between the limo and follow up car. Only If the limo stopped would this be possible. Other wise I doubt Hargis would step in front of the follow up car and cause a delay for the SS officers trying to get LBJ out of the plaza as quickly as they could.
 

19 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Dr. Jones does not believe the photos were faked. He isn't even a conspiracy theorist.

From Chapter 18c:

Dr. Ronald Jones, as Peters, has claimed many times over the years that the wound was on the back of Kennedy's head. In the photo in Groden's book, however, he points to a wound location slightly to the side of the wound on the "McClelland" drawing. In 1992, even stranger, he described the wound as a "side wound." In 1997, in a letter to researcher Francois Carlier, Jones tried to explain his confusion; he insisted that although he observed a wound on the "posterior aspect of the skull," he was "unable to observe the exact extent or dimensions of this wound" because of his "position at the table on the left side of the President below his arm" while the President was lying "flat on his back." When interviewed by the ARRB in 1998, for what's worse, he offered more excuses, insisting "it was difficult to see down through the hair," and admitting "All my view was from the President's left side." He then clarified this position to researcher Vincent Palamara, first admitting that he really didn't have "a clear view of the back side of the head wound. President Kennedy had very thick dark hair that covered the injured area" and then offering "In my opinion it was in the occipital area in the back of the head." He had thereby confirmed that he'd failed to see the large hole missing scalp and bone depicted in the "McClelland"drawing.

 

From Chapter 18d: 

When Dr. Ronald Jones testified on 3-24-64 he said Kennedy had "a large wound in the right posterior side of the head" and then further described "There was a large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood." He later discussed "what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull." . 

As discussed, Jones would later defer to the accuracy of the autopsy photos, and tell the ARRB that "it was difficult to see down through the hair." He then clarified his position to researcher Vincent Palamara, first admitting that he really didn't have "a clear view of the back side of the head wound. President Kennedy had very thick dark hair that covered the injured area" and then offering "In my opinion it was in the occipital area in the back of the head." And should that not make his position clear, one should view this 9-24-13 interview of McClelland and Jones, in which Jones counters Dr. McClelland's claim the head shot came from the front, and cites the studies of Dr. John Lattimer as evidence the shot actually came from behind. He also pushes that the back wound was an entrance for a bullet exiting the throat. Dr. Jones is not a "back-of-the-head witness," nor is he a conspiracy theorist.

As usual you cherry pick statements and then see them through the lens of your own bias interpretation.
"he points to a wound location slightly to the side of the wound on the "McClelland" drawing." "slightly to the side" means what exactly?  What does "side wound" mean exactly? In this case it means what you want it to mean. Your interpretation of those statements completely ignores the photographic evidence of Jones demonstrating the wound location, and I think most would agree photos trump written and verbal comments. 
 As I mentioned in my post the Parkland witnesses vary some when they define the occipital wound, that is to be expected.

"he was unable to observe the EXACT extent or dimensions of this wound". That is understandable considering the hair got in the way and he was on JFK's left side. But we are talking about the general wound location on the head not so much its exact dimensions and size. Even if you are looking at a wound through the mass of blood and hair it is not going to make you think the wound is in a completely different location. With JFK's face and right ear in tact it would not have been difficult to determine wound location relative to his ear as he looked over from the JFK's left side 
"President Kennedy had very thick dark hair that covered the injured area". "You take that out of context  to imply that   "He had thereby confirmed that he'd failed to see the large hole missing scalp and bone depicted in the "McClelland"drawing." Saying "very thick dark hair that covered the injured area" does not necessarily mean totally covered. He clearly said he saw the wound and knew the location so when he said "hair that covered the injured area" it can only be taken to mean the hair partially covered the wound. 
 But from his position I would expect him to see less of the large blasted out area as he was looking at it side on or top down. However that would not cause him to see it in the occipital parietal if it was not located there. His apparent inconsistency regarding the blasted out area does not mean his account was wrong. That is a biased interpretation. 
"Jones counters Dr. McClelland's claim the head shot came from the front, and cites the studies of Dr. John Lattimer as evidence the shot actually came from behind."
Ya I have seen that interview. But the basis of the CT is about wound location. The doctors can speculate all they want on the direction of the shot but it is the missing occipital parietal wound in the autopsy that is the issue. That is what points to a coverup. I personally think the discrepancy between the wound seen at Parkland and the official report indicates a coverup of a frontal shot but it is the omission of the occipital wound that strongly suggests a coverup. 
"Jones would later defer to the accuracy of the autopsy photos,". I must have missed that, but films of Jones show he was most definitely a "Back of he head" witness.
  When it comes to a few people recanting their back of the head statements I have to take that with a grain of salt. Crenshaw was seriously attacked by one of the most recognized medical journals " the Journal of American Medical Associations" when they inferred he was a complete xxxx and may have never even been in the room that day. I think any medical professional who was aware of that cheap attack on Crenshaw saw the writing on the wall. If you talk about an occipital wound your entire career could be put in jeopardy. To be attacked by that well known publication is very serious. And we know that 5 Parkland staff testified to the WC that Crenshaw was in the room that day. It is clear they were not interested in researching the facts.
If a person holds the opinion that the wound was occipital then changes their opinion on a dime decades later I think it is fair to ask which of their two conflicting accounts was wrong and which was right? Take Carrico as an example. He writes O.C in his report that day. He testifies to same at the WC. He doubles down to the HSCA. He triples down in the KRON interview and is photographed with his hand in the upper O.C. Then after decades he suddenly flips!. A rational evaluation of his conflicting statements leans heavily towards his 4 original accounts over his interview with the 6th floor museum so many years later. But the bias of Parkland skeptics like yourself leads you to accept his last version of the wound location without question. It is bias like that which casts doubt on those who argue so fervently against the parkland staff and many at the autopsy.

I first read the story about Chaney and Curry's  meeting happening on the Stemmons onramp in a piece from Gary Mack. He claimed they each came to him independently and related the same account. I think they had both passed away by the time he told the story so it could not be verified.
 It is one of the most absurd stories I have ever heard and is so full of holes that it is a joke, imo.
 According to Mack, that stop happened for two reasons. Greer did not know how to get to parkland and needed directions, and secondly Curry was not sure if there really was an emergency that would necessitate a rush to Parkland.
 It is true that Greer did not know the route to Parkland, but the idea of bringing their rush to the hospital to a halt so someone could inform Greer, or to make sure they even needed to rush to Parkland is ridiculous. If they suspected there was a medical emergency is Curry going to stop the motorcade to have a talk with them? Even if Curry wanted to instruct Greer or ascertain the possible injuries he could use the radio. In addition it does not make sense that Greer could get lost when he was right behind Curry. With sirens going the traffic was getting out of the way and there is no chance Greer and Curry would get separated by a traffic light.
The idea he would stop the motorcade is unthinkable. What is he going to do, have some cops check everyone to see if they have been shot?
 Then there is the testimony of Curry in which he gives the timeline. According to Curry the conversation with Chaney absolutely happens in the plaza before hitting the underpass. That is true of all the witnesses to Chaney's ride forward.
 By the time they get to the Stemmonns onramp Curry was fully aware there was an emergency. He heard the shots fired and then both Sorrels and Lawson yell 'Shots fired get to Parkland"(Per their testimony.).He sees the limo speed up towards him so he floors it. But he says the limo still caught up to him under the overpass. He must have heard Kinney's siren too. Kinney and Kellerman also put out radio calls before they reached the underpass. When the limo caught Curry in the underpass Curry said he heard two people from the limo yell "Get to Parkland!". Hill and Greer have verified they yelled this. By that time the limo was slightly ahead of Curry and accelerating, (Approx 35mph just before going under the overpass.)
 The idea that Curry would tell Mack that he needed to stop the motorcade to verify that they needed to rush to Parkland is not believable.
 Chaney would have also seen the panic in the plaza, heard Kinney's siren, and seen Curry and the limo accelerating out of the plaza. He may have also heard the two radio calls from Kinney and Kellerman.
As seen in the McIntyre photo Chaney would also have seen that the Limo was about 800 ft ahead of him by then and that it was racing for the onramp. Kinney's siren was still blaring. But instead of attempting to use his radio Chaney must have decided he would catch up to the limo before giving his message to Curry.
He was not aware the Limo would stop on the onramp. He must have assumed that he would be chasing it down the Stemmons freeway for some time before he could catch up and relay the most important and time sensitive message of his career. 
 If Chaney did catch up on the onramp Curry, would he still think he had to inform Curry that there was a problem in the motorcade at that point?  
 Davis Lifton has said they stopped on the onramp because Jackie tried to jump out of the limo. Possibly due to a delayed panic reaction. Maybe that is true and Curry's reason for stopping was a cover story for Jackie's benefit. But the sequence of events up to that point point make it very clear both Chaney and Curry already knew there was an emergency.  
 Gary Mack's story does not pass the smell test. It is more likely Mack made the whole thing up to explain away the testimony of Curry, Chaney, Hargis, Sorrels and Lawson. 
 

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

But really, the precise location of the gaping wound isn't important at all, with regard to whether or not the back-of-head autopsy photos  are fraudulent. The BOH autopsy photos show the full back of the head,  including right up to the cowlick and higher. The fact that they don't show a gaping hole where nearly all 50 witnesses saw one is proof the photo is fraudulent. It is statistically impossible for that many witnesses to be wrong in a clear case like this.

 

Here is a short clip of Dr Jones demonstrating the wound location. He starts with his hand very low and then changes that 3 times until his hand is located a couple inches higher. The clip is from years after the assassination and he had probably demonstrated the wound location many times by then. The fact that he still had to feel around the back of his head for the correct location, and changes it several times, shows how the witnesses will naturally vary on the location they demonstrate. 
 I think this is due to the fact he is trying to find the wound he originally saw with his eyes using the tactile feeling of the hand on the head. The problem is we just can't see the back of our own head.
 I think with regards to the height of the wound we will see some differences in the witness accounts just because they have to feel around for it. But the locations they show depict a wound that is nonexistent in the autopsy photos and X-rays. 

Curry said he was 100 to 125ft in front of the limo on Elm. In Altgens 7, about 5 seconds after the head shot, Curry has his brake lights on and is still about 100 ft ahead of the limo. Curry is in the middle lane and the limo is already shifting to the right lane to get around Curry. It appears from Altgens 7 the limo was able to navigate to the side of Curry and was not inhibited by Curry's vehicle.
 But Curry said a bike cop pulled up next to him to say shots had been fired. Hargis, Sorrels, Lawson, Starves Ellis and Chaney(The bike cop who rode forward to Curry.) all said this happened before they reached the underpass. Hargis specifically said he saw Chaney throw it in 1st gear and race forward immediately after the head shot. But the Nix and Z films combined show Chaney never rode forward before Curry left the plaza.
 This puts the testimony and photographic records in question. Either all those witnesses were wrong, or the films were altered. I think if a limo stop was removed from the films there may be no time for Chaney to ride forward and talk to Curry. That would be reason to remove Chaney's ride forward.

 Putting alteration aside it is still perplexing how Chaney could drop it in 1st gear, accelerate  forward, cover maybe 125 ft, then slow back down to the speed of Curry's car in order to have their 3 sentence conversation before the limo catches them both. It does not seem Chaney could get far enough ahead of the limo, in the short space of 125 ft, to then have time pull up alongside Curry and exchange words before the limo caught up to them.
 So if Chaney did ride forward the timing we see in the films and photos does not make sense and throws up a big question mark regarding the timing of the limo relative to Curry's vehicle.
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 

Here is the Hargis interview where he mentions Roscoe White at about 8:00 min.
https://youtu.be/047rHDKqqxA?si=CTxy66OOK2lPFNas
If the link does not work search the following on Youtube.  "Michael Brownlow interviews B. W. (Bobby) Hargis - Part 1/2".
 Listening to this interview I now think the "Wall" Hargis mentioned in his WC testimony was not the patio wall. He said "I ran up to the triple underpass, the Grassy Knoll."
 But how could he run all the way to the underpass yet be seen running back to his bike in the Bond photo just 35 seconds after the head shot? DPD Coulsen is seen behind Hargis in the Bond photo and in one of the Cancellare photos which confirms the 35 sec mark of the Bond photo.    
 

7 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Yeah, the CIA could have broken into Zapruder's home. But if I were in charge of the CIA at the time, I would have had one of my agents simply ask Zapruder if the CIA could borrow his copy for a day. Especially if I had money to put up as collateral. And then I would return a copy of the altered film. (That is to say, the film that had been altered a second time.)

 

Yes that would be a simpler way to do it and they could provide plausible reason for wanting to see his copy. Although Zapruder died in 1970 so maybe they would have approached the family.

3 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

Thank you, Chris. I get a "playback error," but Willis #5 makes sense as the original having shown "a train."

Ok. If you copy the following,   "JFK assassination two different Dealey plaza interviews with witness Linda Willis" 
and paste it into the Youtube search box, it should be the 1st video that comes. It is 29:24 min long with the Willis 5 comment at 25:30.

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It sounds like the limo did stop and that motorcycle cops were running around. Something that could not be removed by Hawkeye Works over the weekend.

So, perhaps what happened was that Hawkeye Works only blackened the wound on the back of the head and painted in a new wound on the right-top of the head. It was decided that the limo-stop remaining in the film was too incriminating against the Secret Service, and so the film was withheld.

Since the film was withheld, there was plenty of time to do further work on the film. It was decided to remove the limo stop. Which they did.

Is there a problem with this hypothesis? For example, were copies made of the weekend Hawkeye Works' film and distributed? If so, this would complicate my hypothesis.

 

The only complication I see is the switching out of Zapruder's copy. I think the story is that Life mag traded a 1st generation copy for his original on that weekend. If the limo stop was taken out the night of the assassination then Zapruder was given that altered copy. If they took out the Limo stop much later, they would have had to covertly switch out Zapruder's first generation copy given to him on that weekend. Breaking into his home is definitely something the C.I.A would be capable of.

19 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

If true it is a huge revelation.

A two month duty Dallas PD employee ( with no police academy training and assigned to the evidence department ) is in Dealey Plaza and chasing supposed suspects up into the knoll area within 25 seconds after the JFK head shot?

Ridiculous.

I've always believed the Roscoe White story is truly a majorly important one in the JFKA affair.

 

After watching Hargis say that, I considered it from a skeptical standpoint. Hargis looked to be in his 70's, maybe his memory was bad. Maybe he mixed up the other Officer White who ran from the overpass to the TSBD.  But that officer said he watched the limo go under the overpass before starting for the TSBD. That makes the timing questionable. He also said he had to wait for a freight train to pass before he ran from the overpass. Although his story about a freight train on the overpass during the shooting sequence is very dubious. 

What other officers could have been on the knoll as quickly as Hargis? Smith from Elm and Huston, or Foster from the overpass maybe? And if there was a 2nd cop there why was that never reported?

 Hargis was able to cross the St behind LBJ's SS follow up car about 9 seconds after the headshot. He could run to the knoll wall in 7 seconds. A Bond photo has him running from the lamppost and back towards his bike at 35 seconds after fr 313.  In his retelling he was only on the knoll a few seconds so the timing is tight but possible.

Michael Brownlow has a several part interview with Hargis on Youtube. In one of those Hargis said that when he arrived at the wall on the knoll(I assume he meant the patio wall.) He ran into Roscoe White. He said neither he nor White could tell where the shots had come from.  Hargis arrived on the knoll less than 25 seconds after the headshot. How did Roscoe White get there so quickly?
 Is there any other documentation about White being in the plaza? If he was on the knoll in 25 seconds then where did he come from? He is not found in any of the films so if he was near the Knoll he must have been in the parking lot or just behind the colonnade or on the Elm St extension or behind the TSBD.

Roger, Sandy and Keven: Thanks for all the additional information. 

1 hour ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

Chris, I only see the Texas Monthly interview. Could you re-post a link to the "other" interview where she shows Willis 5, please?

Denise, I checked the link I provided and it has both interviews. The second interview has her pointing to the Willis 5 photo as she says that is the photo her dad said had the trains removed. It starts at 25:16. 
 EDIT: Just took another look and I think it is the same interview with some extra footage and a later interview  spliced in the middle of it. Either way go to 25:16 

10 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

I want to go back over what happened to the Zapruder film the weekend of the murder in order to evaluate the likelihood, or even the plausibility, of Jeremy's claim that the film would not have been altered because destroying it was a better alternative.  Spoiler alert: we know the planners of the murder had at least two chances that weekend to destroy rather than alter or hide the film, and they rejected that option each time.

 

We shouldn't ignore the setting that weekend.  It was a time of national trauma and uncertainty. Topped off by the murder of Oswald on Sunday, who authorities were  already telling us was the lone assassin.  Back in Philadelphia Salandria was telling his brother in law that if Oswald was murdered it would mean we were watching a government coup.  

 

So what to do about the Zapruder film that the planners knew contradicted their Oswald story? It was already becoming well known. Zapruder had been on TV the day of the murder explaining what he had filmed.  He had watched the film several times to make sure it had captured the murder. Dan Rather, a local Dallas reporter at the time, got access and had described what he saw when he watched the film.

 

Saturday morning Zapruder organized a bid for media organizations that wanted the right to bring the film to the public.  A CBS rep was there but he could not get his people to bid beyond $10,000. Life mag blew them out of the water with a bid of $50,000, and that was just for the limited right to publish some stills from the film in their magazine.  Life also agreed to return the original to Zapruder after a several days in exchange for a copy Zapruder had kept.

 

For years the story had been told that Life then sent the film to its Chicago headquarters to begin work on it. That's not what happened.

 

Instead the film was sent to the NPIC lab used by the intelligence services, for the purpose of making sets of briefing boards that could clearly show the planners the extent to which the film contradicted the Oswald story they were already going with.

 

At that point, when the boards clearly showed the contradictions, the planners had to decide whether to try to eliminate or obscure the incriminating parts, or simply destroy the film.

 

They rejected destruction in favor of trying alteration, with the knowledge that if that failed they could still try to bury the film from public view as long as possible until things blew over.  Destroying the film would eliminate that option, and as we have seen hiding information is one thing the planners were are adept at.  Life was fronting for the planners; they knew Life would do what they wanted.

 

Instead of destroying it, the film was sent to the CIA's secret Hawkeye Works lab at the Kodak plant in Rochester, NY to try alterations.

 

It became apparent, probably rather quickly, that the alterations they could make were not sufficient to eliminate or obscure all of the incriminating evidence.

 

Note, however, that the alterations they ended up making meant that the original film was in fact destroyed. Just not in the sense Jeremy means.  The original no longer existed; it was replaced by the altered film.  A second set of briefing boards was made starting that weekend from the film returned from HW, and Bruginoi's boards, made from the original film, the last vestiges of the original, were later destroyed.

 

Here was a second decision point for the planners, who were no doubt kept abreast of what was happening at HW. They could scrap the alteration idea as a failure and simply destroy the film. When that became public knowledge as it surely would have because the public was curious about the film, which Life's publication a few days later would surely stoke, they could blame the "accident" on another patsy, as Jeremy suggests. That would make two convenient patsies introduced in the first few days after the murder, one of which they had just murdered so he couldn't contradict their story.

 

Once again they rejected the idea to destroy the film altogether.

 

Life went back to Zapruder Sunday afternoon and cancelled the original deal. They gave Zapruder another $100,000 for the full rights to the film, including the right to show it in its entirety. They then buried it from public view, rejecting all requests to show it, for what turned out to be almost 12 years. 

 

When a bootleg copy of the film was shown on TV in 1975, Life's job of hiding it was finished.  They sold the altered film back to Zapruder for $1. That establishes what Life's role was in the whole process.

    

What does all of this mean? Reason, together with the actions taken that weekend by the planners, establish the logical basis for the claim that the Zapruder film was altered. It prevents gatekeepers from arguing the film was not, or could not, have been altered.  It provides a basis to examine all of the specific alterations that have been alleged.

I have heard many skeptics dismiss the rear blowout theory because the Z film shows no such wound. The film is a powerful tool and totally convincing for those who reject the possibility of alteration. If it was destroyed they would not have that powerful tool to use as pushback against the Parkland witnesses.
 If they were covering up an occipital blowout the witnesses testimony from Parkland would be a big problem. You can fake documents and X-rays but controlling a couple dozen witnesses is much harder or impossible. However when it comes to witnesses memory vs actual film images, the film tends trump the witness accounts. Even if you have 20+ witnesses, many people will assume all the witnesses have to be wrong. 
 Covering up a rear blowout would be a minimal alteration that only requires blacking out the occipital which was already in shadow. You would not need to create fake hair in the posterior area. Could that go undetected? I don't know. But if they could be confident about that alteration, the Z film would be beneficial to them and would not have been destroyed.
 Of the ten films taken that day only the Z film would require removal of an occipital blowout. The head is never seen with any clarity or seen at all in the Hughes, Paschall, Bell, Daniels, Towner or Dorman films. The Nix and Bronson films had no view what so ever of the right posterior area of JFK's head because JFK's head was turned about 18 degrees to his left relative to Elm. Muchmore had a somewhat better angle but her view to the right occipital was nearly side on due to the way the head curves around to the side at that location. Additionally his head disappears behind Jean Hill just three frames after the headshot. So if a 4th shot(Rear blowout) happened just 1/4 second after the headshot it would not have been recorded by Muchmore. After JFK passes Jean Hill, Hargis blocks the view except for a frame or two that shows just a sliver of his head.
 The only film that would require alteration is the Z film. Even the Moorman photo was taken less than 1/4 second after the headshot and would most likely not show the 4th shot. 
   On the other hand, the fact they did not release the film to the public may indicate it was not altered. Why would they alter it then hide it away? I can only guess that it may have been their ace in the hole in case they failed to discount and discredit the Parkland accounts. Maybe the longer they held it the more confident they could be that no other film evidence would surface to reveal their alteration. Maybe holding it for years lessened the chance that new technology would expose their film as fake.
 

14 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Uncovering the Probable Techniques Used to Alter the Zapruder Film in November 1963

Drawing inspiration from the groundbreaking research of esteemed Australian physicist John Costella, this video delves into a meticulous examination of the intricate processes possibly employed in the creation of the Zapruder film. By exploring the technological capabilities accessible to forgers during the pivotal year of 1963, we aim to provide a detailed and enlightening analysis of the potential methodologies utilized in crafting this historic piece of footage. Join us on a journey through history and technology as we uncover the secrets behind one of the most iconic films of our time.

 

I have been very interested in Dr Costella's observations of the Z film. I think the shifting Stemmons sign pole is still a valid mystery. There has never been a valid debunking of Dr Costella's Stemmons pole issue that I know of. It has stood the test of time, imo. 
 I think his observation about the lack of motion blur on the limo around frame 232 has merit too.
 There are a number of theories in the linked video that, imo, have not stood the test of time. 
 The couple seen around fr 232 are not facing the limo but that is, imo, normal. The Z film view is deceptive and makes it look like JFK has yet to pass by them. But an overhead view like the West map shows JFK had already passed them by fr 210. They would be looking at the back of his head by frame 223. They appear to be looking in the direction of LBJ in the Z film and some witnesses who specifically did not like JFK said they came to see their local politicians like Connally and LBJ. I don't think their direction of their gaze can be taken as evidence of alteration.
 I idea that the images of Moorman and Hill have Been enlarged does not seem to match the measurements. At least it does not work with the image size comparisons I have made. Without going into the weeds I would point out that the head sizes of JFK and Jackie are definitely larger than those of Hill and Mary Moorman. It seems to match the relative distances of the limo and the witnesses to Z. The location of the curb and elements like the peristyles also seem to be correct and show no sign of magnification which would change their exact positions in the film. 
  The 'legs together/legs apart guy' in frames 380/381 can be explained by the motion blur in frame 380 that makes it look like his legs are together when they are already apart. if you take the legs apart image in 381 and add the same motion blur found in fr 380 you can almost exactly reproduce the leg image in frame 380. Here is a link to a very short video that demonstrates this effect of motion blur.
https://youtu.be/HuPNRfENhnI
In the preceding frames he also appears to have his legs together. In those frames the blur increases with each frame as his legs are spreading apart more in each frame. The increased blur in conjunction with the legs opening up maintains the effect thru those frames . That explanation is somewhat subtle but I was able recreated that effect, although I lost that video comparison years ago.
  The lack of parallax of the lamppost and the background around frame 272 is very interesting. But now I think there is at least a possible explanation for that. In Willis 5 Zapruder is facing roughly east and by frame 315 the Moorman photo shows he has pivoted around by approx 70 degrees to face southwest. To do this he had to shift his weight to one foot in order to start his turn. If he started this turn by shifting his weight to the left foot in order to lift his right foot the camera would move left by a couple inches. So at that moment he would be panning the camera to the right his torso and the camera would be shifting left. That leftward shift of his weight and torso position cancel out any parallax that would happen as a result of panning to the right.
I have tested this by reproducing all the parameter including the amount he turned and the relative position and distance of the lamppost to Z and to the background. There are two variables in that test. Those are the point at which Z shifted his weight to start the turn and which leg he moved first. I tried to move in as natural an unbiased  manner as I could when reproducing Z's actions. What I found is the shift of weight to the left foot very neatly cancelled out the parallax of my lamppost and background. The background was maybe 25 ft further than the bushes in the Z film background. This is not an absolute proof of how the lack of parallax occurred in that Z film sequence, but it is certainly a plausible explanation of how it might have happened.
  The documentary also mentions the "odd blurred extension" on the lower left side of the post but I'm sure most everyone knows that is just the No Parking sign on the lamppost.
    Hargis' surge forward as the passengers lunge forward may very well be an artifact of alteration. The Nix film shows the limo slowing by about 3 mph and that is the speed at which Hargis closes in on the limo. Personally I can't see Hargis being caught off guard to such a degree that he did not compensate for the slight slowing of the limo.
   How someone could remove a limo stop or near stop is a big mystery. Simply removing frames or using a matte process are seriously problematic. But the account of the four bike cops saying it either completely stopped or almost completely stopped is an even bigger head scratcher. How could all four cops who were supposed to maintain their positions near the rear bumper through the entire parade, make such a gross error? How could they think it stopped when it is shown to only be slowing to 8mph? Even if the limo just slowed to 2 mph for 2 seconds before accelerating, it would change its position relative to the bike cops by about 40 feet. They would go from being at the rear bumper to being 20 feet out in front of the limo if they did not react to the slowing. How all four cops who are closely watching the changing speed of the limo throughout the parade could all make such a huge error in perception is hard to fathom.
 

16 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Chris,

When I look at the shadows of people on the grass, and see that the "direction" of their shadows is close to the direction the limousine is traveling, I know that it will be difficult to make out the motion blur in the shadows. (That is to say, the motion blur due to the camera following the limo.)

I try to stay away from evidence that is subtle. So I have no interest in the motion blur of those shadows.

Now here's the thing that's bugging me. The reason I even mentioned motion blur of shadows in my post is because somebody (Keven?) posted a video a few days ago that showed a number of anomalies in the Z film. And the one that stood out -- because it was so simple and easy to understand -- was a shadow with no motion blur, even though the man causing the shadow did have motion blur. I recall that shadow being roughly VERTICAL... which is precisely the reason it got my attention. Problem is... their ain't no such thing! There are no vertical shadows, and it's driving me nuts! Because I swear I saw one. Argh.

I wish I could watch that video again.

 

I can't think of any photo of Elm St that was taken from the position necessary to capture a shadow that was vertical in the frame. Cancellare came the closest when he captured Wiegman. Z would have seen vertical shadows when his camera was pointing directly towards the Sun around frame 406, but there is nothing to create the long shadows. It would be interesting to see an image like that, let me know if you find it.
  I tested the shadows on the Franzen's by adding motion blur to a sharp Z Frame. They became very blurry but their shadows still appeared much sharper.  The, blurry witness with sharp shadows, alteration theory is an old one that has not stood the test of time and the advent of computer photoshop software.