Zfilm Revisited

[Bill Miller]

Bill if a film existed (any film) that proved beyond doubt that there were multiple shooters would the conspirators try and alter it if they had the opportunity?

Even if that just meant ‘damaging’ a couple of problem frames Bill, would they do it if they could?

I thought I have answered this question ... did I leave out the 'What opportunity'??? Zapruder kept one copy of his film with him and let two go to the Feds. How can you alter the copy Zapruder kept ... you'd need all the films. No one knew what photographer filmed what and from where, so would not a reasonably intelligent person know that if you alter a film within the first few days of an assassination and before the frames go into print, then a new film showing something different would 'screw the pooch' so-to-speak. The Feds didn't even know about Muchmore's film until after the Zapruder frames were already published by Life Magazine. The Nix film was still in his camera until the 30th of November .. a week after the shooting and after the Zapruder film frames were being published. The Paschall film wasn't known about until 1967. No one knows but what there may still be a film out there unaccounted for ... Bev Oliver's film can be included. None of this even counts as to what must have been done to alter a film, which has been detailed in the forum archives.

Bill

[Mike Williams]

Bernie,

I know your query was directed at Bill, and I hope you do not mind me venturing a reply.

I believe the Z film itself IS evidence of multiple shooters, I also believe this film is unaltered. I think it is just foolishly explained away with such ridiculousness as the SBT/MBT, and other such Horse poo.

Look at the WC, and how they delt with the back of the head wound, which almost every single medical witness stated that they observed. They never delt with it at all. They brushed it to the top, they brushed it to the side, they talk witnesses in circles. Many of the Secret Service Men in Dallas that day testify to a severe back of the head wound, much to Arlen Sphincters chagrin. And yet they come to the conclusion it did not exist. Very selective on their part to say the least.

The FBI, viewing the film on 29NOV63 stated that JFK was hit with the first shot, JBC with the second, and JFK again with the third. They maintain that position to this day!

In my opinion they would not have to alter it, when they can control selectively its interpretation.

Altering the film opens up a whole new can o' worms. It would still have to jive with all the other film, unless of course all the other film were altered as well. Which leads us to yet another issue. To this day, not all the film is accounted for. How were they to know that a film would not show up exposing their charade?

Why would the Secret Service men who were in the plaza that day go along with a "modified" Z film, and then give testimony to the back of the head wound....that makes no sense to me at all.

I personally do not believe that the conspiracy runs that deep.

Larry Hancock related an old joke to me on the phone recently. A ct dies and goes to heaven. First thing he asks God is who killed JFK. God says well.....Oswald, Just like the Warren Commission said. The CT scratches his head and says, dang this conspiracy goes higher than I ever thought.

[Bernie Laverick]

Bill if a film existed (any film) that proved beyond doubt that there were multiple shooters would the conspirators try and alter it if they had the opportunity?

Even if that just meant ‘damaging’ a couple of problem frames Bill, would they do it if they could?

I thought I have answered this question ... did I leave out the 'What opportunity'??? Zapruder kept one copy of his film with him and let two go to the Feds. How can you alter the copy Zapruder kept ... you'd need all the films. No one knew what photographer filmed what and from where, so would not a reasonably intelligent person know that if you alter a film within the first few days of an assassination and before the frames go into print, then a new film showing something different would 'screw the pooch' so-to-speak. The Feds didn't even know about Muchmore's film until after the Zapruder frames were already published by Life Magazine. The Nix film was still in his camera until the 30th of November .. a week after the shooting and after the Zapruder film frames were being published. The Paschall film wasn't known about until 1967. No one knows but what there may still be a film out there unaccounted for ... Bev Oliver's film can be included. None of this even counts as to what must have been done to alter a film, which has been detailed in the forum archives.

Bill

Bill forget Zapruder. Imagine that there is another film in the hands of the conspirators, one that shows definitively that there were multiple shooters, regardless of the subsequent problems it may pose, wouldn't they pale into insignificance compared to having to release that powerful evidence? Under those circumstances would they even consider altering the film so as to defend the conspirators? If they felt that what it showed gave them no other alternative, despite what other films may prove otherwise (and did they really think it would be studied this much?) would they try and alter it?

A yes or no would do on this one.

[Bernie Laverick]

Bernie,

I know your query was directed at Bill, and I hope you do not mind me venturing a reply.

I believe the Z film itself IS evidence of multiple shooters, I also believe this film is unaltered. I think it is just foolishly explained away with such ridiculousness as the SBT/MBT, and other such Horse poo.

Look at the WC, and how they delt with the back of the head wound, which almost every single medical witness stated that they observed. They never delt with it at all. They brushed it to the top, they brushed it to the side, they talk witnesses in circles. Many of the Secret Service Men in Dallas that day testify to a severe back of the head wound, much to Arlen Sphincters chagrin. And yet they come to the conclusion it did not exist. Very selective on their part to say the least.

The FBI, viewing the film on 29NOV63 stated that JFK was hit with the first shot, JBC with the second, and JFK again with the third. They maintain that position to this day!

In my opinion they would not have to alter it, when they can control selectively its interpretation.

Altering the film opens up a whole new can o' worms. It would still have to jive with all the other film, unless of course all the other film were altered as well. Which leads us to yet another issue. To this day, not all the film is accounted for. How were they to know that a film would not show up exposing their charade?

Why would the Secret Service men who were in the plaza that day go along with a "modified" Z film, and then give testimony to the back of the head wound....that makes no sense to me at all.

I personally do not believe that the conspiracy runs that deep.

Larry Hancock related an old joke to me on the phone recently. A ct dies and goes to heaven. First thing he asks God is who killed JFK. God says well.....Oswald, Just like the Warren Commission said. The CT scratches his head and says, dang this conspiracy goes higher than I ever thought.

"Look at the WC, and how they delt with the back of the head wound, which almost every single medical witness stated that they observed. They never delt with it at all. They brushed it to the top, they brushed it to the side, they talk witnesses in circles. Many of the Secret Service Men in Dallas that day testify to a severe back of the head wound, much to Arlen Sphincters chagrin. And yet they come to the conclusion it did not exist."

But these medical witnesses must be wrong Mike because the autopsy photos prove that there was no gaping hole in the back of the head. You're not seriously suggesting they could have been tampered with are you? Because if they didn't alter them it would be there for all the world to see - gaping hole in the back = a shot from the front and therefore... So they took the risk of altering them. And if I was one of the conspirators so would I. Yes there will be problems down the road but none bigger than that gaping hole and its implications.

Ah but, a sophist would say, but that can't be so because those who saw Kennedy's head at Parkland would just simply speak out and the whole edifice would crumble. They did. It didn't!

So is it TOTALLY ruled out that faced with a similar dilemma with any other film evidence that points to conspiracy they wouldn't do the same and deal with the consequences?

I'm intrigued that no anti alterationist can even slightly concede that possibility.

[Lee Forman]

Bernie,

I know your query was directed at Bill, and I hope you do not mind me venturing a reply.

I believe the Z film itself IS evidence of multiple shooters, I also believe this film is unaltered. I think it is just foolishly explained away with such ridiculousness as the SBT/MBT, and other such Horse poo.

Look at the WC, and how they delt with the back of the head wound, which almost every single medical witness stated that they observed. They never delt with it at all. They brushed it to the top, they brushed it to the side, they talk witnesses in circles. Many of the Secret Service Men in Dallas that day testify to a severe back of the head wound, much to Arlen Sphincters chagrin. And yet they come to the conclusion it did not exist. Very selective on their part to say the least.

The FBI, viewing the film on 29NOV63 stated that JFK was hit with the first shot, JBC with the second, and JFK again with the third. They maintain that position to this day!

In my opinion they would not have to alter it, when they can control selectively its interpretation.

Altering the film opens up a whole new can o' worms. It would still have to jive with all the other film, unless of course all the other film were altered as well. Which leads us to yet another issue. To this day, not all the film is accounted for. How were they to know that a film would not show up exposing their charade?

Why would the Secret Service men who were in the plaza that day go along with a "modified" Z film, and then give testimony to the back of the head wound....that makes no sense to me at all.

I personally do not believe that the conspiracy runs that deep.

Larry Hancock related an old joke to me on the phone recently. A ct dies and goes to heaven. First thing he asks God is who killed JFK. God says well.....Oswald, Just like the Warren Commission said. The CT scratches his head and says, dang this conspiracy goes higher than I ever thought.

Mike - if you'd like I will get you a copy of Palamara's book. If the CIC gives you an order - you follow it - he's the CIC. And if anyone stood to gain in supporting a cover-up - it was the SS - that botched everything. But instead, Bolden is labeled as having 'stained' the SS - not the SS themselves - who were drinking grain until the wee in the Cellar the evening before, who changed the line-up, who called off Rybka, who allowed a PRS on board, who pulled back Ready, who botched the turn on to Elm, who allowed the Heydrich dog-leg, who did the advance, who seized the evidence, who mopped up the limo, who braked the car while it was under fire, and on and on and on. Pack of lemmings, following orders. Plus you've got pensions, job security, gag orders, family, peer pressure - etc.

Even the quote I used earlier on this thread is like a loudspeaker - where's the 'gruesome' version of the film that isn't shown to the public? Now consider this: Who had the films and photos? I think that was the intriguing point made here on the forum with regards to the Muchmore - Marie Muchmore didn't have it! Who had the Zapruder film? Who had the Nix? Where was the Moorman before it was aired after 4:00pm CT that day? Where did Skagg's headshot disappear to?

There is also human nature - whoever is first out of the box wins 90% of the confidence factor and shapes the reality - teaching the old dog a new trick afterwards is an uphill battle. You bring out a new film today that doesn't synch with Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore, and the howling mob will condemn it as a hoax and a phony - and watch the media lead that charge.

'A new film discovered today was found to be a fake! Says film Expert Robert Emmett Johnson, 'It was very convincing at first. Sure had me fooled - and I'm an expert. An expert. But after we reviewed it and compared it with the other evidence, we found that it was a hoax. Some kid with a good set of software. Very nice work, but a complete phony. I don't know what would have motivated him to do something that - I loved Kennedy. Loved him. Kids these days - don't respect nuttin.'

- lee

[Mike Williams]

Bernie,

The obvious flaw here is that you are comparing footage they can control, against footage they can not.

Just because the autopsy photos could well have been tampered with, does not mean the films were. They had the opportunity to completely control the autopsy photos, an opportunity they do not, and did not have with the films.

Lee,

I understand your comments regarding the SS. So why then would the big 3 Kellerman, Hill, and Greer all testify to a huge hole in the back of the head? Why would they not follow the story line to the end? That makes 0 sense. I would be happy to read anything you have to offer. Hell I have even read Mortal Error, which took me longer to open than to debunk.

I completely agree the SS really botched the security. That is not evidence that the Z film is altered however.

[Jack White]

Bernie,

The obvious flaw here is that you are comparing footage they can control, against footage they can not.

Just because the autopsy photos could well have been tampered with, does not mean the films were. They had the opportunity to completely control the autopsy photos, an opportunity they do not, and did not have with the films.

Lee,

I understand your comments regarding the SS. So why then would the big 3 Kellerman, Hill, and Greer all testify to a huge hole in the back of the head? Why would they not follow the story line to the end? That makes 0 sense. I would be happy to read anything you have to offer. Hell I have even read Mortal Error, which took me longer to open than to debunk.

I completely agree the SS really botched the security. That is not evidence that the Z film is altered however.

Mike is sorely lacking in knowledge about EVERY FILM AND PHOTO being confiscated by the FBI.

Jack

[Lee Forman]

Bernie,

The obvious flaw here is that you are comparing footage they can control, against footage they can not.

Just because the autopsy photos could well have been tampered with, does not mean the films were. They had the opportunity to completely control the autopsy photos, an opportunity they do not, and did not have with the films.

Lee,

I understand your comments regarding the SS. So why then would the big 3 Kellerman, Hill, and Greer all testify to a huge hole in the back of the head? Why would they not follow the story line to the end? That makes 0 sense. I would be happy to read anything you have to offer. Hell I have even read Mortal Error, which took me longer to open than to debunk.

I completely agree the SS really botched the security. That is not evidence that the Z film is altered however.

Agreed - and neither is this... : (

Shoot me an email with your address and I'll mail you Palamara's 'Survivor's Guilt.'

lforman23@comcast.net

BY MR. DYMOND:

Q: You say you were present when the copies of your film were made?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Were you actually present in the room in which these copies were being made?

A: Yes, sir, I was in the processing room watching them actually process the film.

Q: Is the copy you have here today identical to the original or are there any plates missing out of this copy?

A: That would be hard for me to tell, sir.

THE COURT: I cannot hear the witness. What is it?

THE WITNESS: That would be hard for me to say. He asked me if there are any frames missing.

THE COURT: What is your answer?

THE WITNESS: I couldn't say.

BY MR. DYMOND:

Q: So you don't know whether it is a complete copy of the film you took on the 22nd of November?

A: Not if there are one or two frames missing, I couldn't tell you.

Q: Mr. Zapruder, when these copies were made, do I understand you ended up with an original and two copies of the film?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: You gave one copy to the Dallas Police Intelligence Section, is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: One copy to the FBI?

A: Correct.

Q: And one copy to Life Magazine?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Where did you get this copy you have produced here in open court today, if you disposed of all the copies?

A: I got them from Mr. Oser's office.

Q: In other words, this film has not been in your possession up until now, is that correct?

A: No. It was given to me in his office.

Q: Mr. Zapruder, are you able to testify that this film that you have just seen run is a complete copy of the pictures taken by you on that day, no frames being missing?

A: By complete, what do you mean? If there are any frames removed or so?

Q: Any frames removed or damaged or for any reason not shown in this film?

A: I couldn't tell you.

Q: So you couldn't tell whether any part has been skipped, is that correct?

A: I could not.

Q: This will sound repetitious, but it is because the Jury has now come in. Having viewed this film, sir, are you in a position to say whether the film you have just seen is a complete copy of what you took without any frames having been deleted or taken out or skipped?

A: I couldn't tell if any frames were removed. Seen as a whole it shows that I have seen. Seeing you have 18 frames a second you can take out one or two and I couldn't tell.

[Bill Miller]

The obvious flaw here is that you are comparing footage they can control, against footage they can not.

This point is spot on. The autopsy photos were all done in-house so-to-speak. No one had to worry that new autopsy photos would show up somewhere showing something altogether different.

Bill

[Mike Williams]

Bernie,

The obvious flaw here is that you are comparing footage they can control, against footage they can not.

Just because the autopsy photos could well have been tampered with, does not mean the films were. They had the opportunity to completely control the autopsy photos, an opportunity they do not, and did not have with the films.

Lee,

I understand your comments regarding the SS. So why then would the big 3 Kellerman, Hill, and Greer all testify to a huge hole in the back of the head? Why would they not follow the story line to the end? That makes 0 sense. I would be happy to read anything you have to offer. Hell I have even read Mortal Error, which took me longer to open than to debunk.

I completely agree the SS really botched the security. That is not evidence that the Z film is altered however.

Mike is sorely lacking in knowledge about EVERY FILM AND PHOTO being confiscated by the FBI.

Jack

Jack,

But of course I should have anticipated this. You are not making the ridiculous claim that every single photo and film captured was seized by the FBI are you? Come on Jack, i would have expected better from you, but possibly not. Ridiculous claims seem to be the forte.

[Jack White]

Bernie,

The obvious flaw here is that you are comparing footage they can control, against footage they can not.

Just because the autopsy photos could well have been tampered with, does not mean the films were. They had the opportunity to completely control the autopsy photos, an opportunity they do not, and did not have with the films.

Lee,

I understand your comments regarding the SS. So why then would the big 3 Kellerman, Hill, and Greer all testify to a huge hole in the back of the head? Why would they not follow the story line to the end? That makes 0 sense. I would be happy to read anything you have to offer. Hell I have even read Mortal Error, which took me longer to open than to debunk.

I completely agree the SS really botched the security. That is not evidence that the Z film is altered however.

Mike is sorely lacking in knowledge about EVERY FILM AND PHOTO being confiscated by the FBI.

Jack

Jack,

But of course I should have anticipated this. You are not making the ridiculous claim that every single photo and film captured was seized by the FBI are you? Come on Jack, i would have expected better from you, but possibly not. Ridiculous claims seem to be the forte.

Yes, that is exactly the claim. It is NOT ridiculous except to the uninformed and misinformed.

That is why Beverly Oliver and Gordon Arnold were crucial to getting the remaining films.

Jack

[Mike Williams]

Beverly Oliver and Gordon Arnold....I see.......

[Bernice Moore]

Mike::

Here is some information on The Orville Nix Film:

A Snip here......a snip there.....and then a disappearance......

FYI........

B......

A Video titled "Rush To Judgment.".Begins with the date.. Feb. 1964) a 1966 film documentary about the John F Kennedy Assassination that was directed by Emile de Antonio and hosted by Mark Lane. It is a black and white film, 122 minutes long. It has also been shown on BBC TV since 1967 as part of the much longer (300 minutes) film entitled "The Death of Kennedy".

*************************

Orville Nix Verbatim from the Video....

Mark Lane: "Mr.Nix .Where were you on November 22nd ?.."

Orville Nix: "I was standing on the corner of Main and Houston "..(Sts).

Mark Lane: "And did you take any pictures of the Presidental Limousine as it went through Dealey Plaza ?.."

Orville Nix: "Yes, I had taken pictures before and after --before and during the assassination "..

Mark Lane: "And you know of course that your pictures were used by the Government to determine where the limousine was when some of the shots were fired ?"..

Orville Nix: "Yes "..

Mark Lane:"And did you deliver a copy of your film to the Federal Government ?"..

Orville Nix:"Yes, I delivered a copy of my film to the Federal Government about December 1st "..

Mark Lane:"About a little over a week after the assassination ?"..

Orville Nix:"Yes, my film got lost in the processing plant !"..

Mark Lane: "Where is the original film ?"..

Orville Nix: "The original film --uh--belonged to United Press International .The Government has a duplicate copy "..

Mark Lane: " Where is that copy ?"..

Orville Nix: " In the Archives"..

Mark Lane:"And is that the duplicate copy which was used by the Warren Commission determining along with other films, the Muchmore film and the Zapruder film where the Presidential limousine was when some of the shots were fired ?"..

Orville Nix: "I would say so"..

Mark Lane: "Well you now have a copy, of your film which you were kind enough to show to us this afternoon .Is that copy the same as the original that you gave to the FBI on December 1st ?"..

Orville Nix: " I would say, No--- there is some films maybe missing---some --uh--frames--uh--some of the frames were ruined "..

Mark Lane :"Does the film which you have at the present time ,have the same number of frames as the film that you delivered to the FBI on December 1st ?"..

Orville Nix: "--uh--I would say No--but its' cause of loosing maybe a --uh--frame --uh--here and there "..

Mark Lane :" At the time of the shots were fired ,did you look at the Book Depository building ?"..

Orville Nix :" No"..

Mark Lane : " Did you think ,at that time ,that the shots came from the Book Depository ?"..

Orville Nix : "No, I thought it came from a fence --uh--between the Book Depository and the Railroad Track"..

Mark Lane:"--uh--Did anyone else ,who you know, that you've spoken with ,also believe that the shots came from there "..

Orville Nix: " Most everyone thought it came from the fence behind the Book Depository "..

Mark Lane :"Did you have the occasion to speak with Forrest Sorrels ---who is of course a friend of yours ,and is the Secret Service agent in charge of Dallas that day ?"..

Orville Nix:" Yes, I did "..

Mark Lane : "Did he tell you where the thought the shots came from ?"..

Orville Nix : " He thought they came from the same place"..

Mark Lane : " Which is ?"..

Orville Nix: "Behind the fence"..

Mark Lane : " At the present time where do you believe the shots came from ?"..

Orville Nix : " Well they came from the Book Depository because there's proof it did come from there "..

Mark Lane :" I see---and this you've read in Newspapers and you've read the Report ?"..

Orville Nix :" Yes,--er-- I believe the Warren Report"..

*****************************************end of his interview on tape****

Orville Nix:

JFK: How the Media Assassinated the Real Story...

From Real History Archives

""But perhaps nothing revealed CBS's prejudice in the series more tellingly than the network's treatment of Orville Nix, a man who was wielding a movie camera across from the grassy knoll on that fateful day. Nix, who had worked for the General Service Administration as an air conditioning repairman in the Dallas Secret Service building, sold his footage to UPI for $5000 in 1963. But, according to his granddaughter Gayle Nix Jackson, the film only brought him heartache.

"The FBI had issued a dictum to all of Dallas's film labs that any assassination photos had to be turned over to the FBI immediately," recalls Gayle Jackson. "The lab called my granddad first and, like the good American he was, he rushed it to the FBI." Nix had to turn his camera over to the FBI as well. "They took the camera for five months. They said they needed to analyze it. They returned it in pieces," recalls Jackson.

In 1967 Nix dutifully turned out for the CBS re-creation. Recalls his granddaughter: "His turn came to reenact what he saw. They said, 'Mr.Nix. where did the shots come from?' He said, `From over there on that grassy knoll behind the picket fence.' Then it would be, `Cut!' We went through this six or seven times and each time it was, `Cut!' And then a producer stepped forward and said, `Orville where did the Warren Commission say the shots came from?' My granddad said, `Well, the Texas Book Depository.' The producer said, `That's what you need to say.'" CBS producer Bernard Birnbaum, who worked on the documentary, denies the exchange. "We never tried to put any words in anybody's mouth, absolutely not," he told the "Voice." Birnbaum says CBS did give Warren Commission critics air time and cites a segment of the documentary where another eyewitness contends shots came from the grassy knoll. "We were looking to disprove everything," he insists.

According to Jackson, her grandfather also told CBS that there were four shots fired during the assassination, an observation subsequently endorsed by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1975, based on controversial acoustical evidence. But what did the CBS viewing audience hear from Nix? "Bang, bang, bang," as if to suggest that Nix also subscribed to the three-bang theory.

After being browbeaten by CBS, Orville Nix, a normally mild-mannered man, became furious. "He was hitting the steering wheel on the ride back home saying, `Why are they trying to make me feel like I am insane?'" Jackson recalls. She remembers that a year or so later, when District Attorney Jim Garrison called for Nix to testify, her grandfather wouldn't talk. He was afraid for his life.

How many other witnesses experienced the Orville you-never-heard/saw-that phenomenon we will never know. But one other was Kenny O'Donnell, a confidant and adviser to JFK who was in the motorcade. In Tip O'Neill's book Man of The House, O'Neill describes a conversation with O'Donnell, who told him he was sure that two shots had come from the fence behind the grassy knoll. O'Neill said to O'Donnell, "That's not what you told the Warren Commission." O'Donnell responded, "You're right, I told the FBI what I had heard, but they said it couldn't have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn't want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family."

Since Orville Nix's death in 1988, his granddaughter, a former loss-prevention executive, has been waging a one-woman war to get the original film back from UPI. She wants it analyzed to reveal the details that a copy does not provide. "You know my granddad believed in the Texas handshake, and that is how he made his deal with UPI." According to Jackson, the rights to the film were to revert to Nix's estate in 1988. After initially getting a green light from UPI for the return of the film, the then-media giant informed her that the attorney that granted her request was "no longer with the company." She was told to wait until 1991. Then on June 4, 1991, came a note from UPI's general counsel, Frank Kane. "UPI agrees that, in accordance with the oral agreement . . . UPI hereby releases all rights over the Nix Film to Mr. Nix's heirs and assigns." There was only one problem. UPI no longer had the film. Jackson received a letter saying the film had gone to the Warren Commission and was supposedly housed in the National Archives. With the Warren Commission out of business, she contacted the National Archives only to learn that the original was not there either.

The last official place the film was said to have been was in the House Select Committee on Assassinations files. That Committee was convened in 1975 to investigate the assassinations of John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King. The chief counsel for the HSCA, G. Robert Blakey, who has a penchant for gagging his staff via mandatory secrecy oaths, came clean with Nix's granddaughter about the fate of the family heirloom, says Jackson. "Blakey's the only one who takes full responsibility for the loss of the film because it was his committee that was supposed to assure that all evidence was returned to the rightful owner," Jackson says. So much for posterity's view of the grassy knoll on November 22, 1963. A former HSCA staff member, Gaeton Fonzi, recalls that back at the time of the hearings the staff "heard rumors that Blakey planned to classify all of the committee files, but we didn't believe them because that would be too reminiscent of what the Warren Commission had done." In fact many of the files were classified and this same man, Blakey, is the one who has been recently assigned to help draft legislation about what will be released from the original Kennedy assassination files. ""

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/...assination.html

***************************************

B......

[Mike Williams]

Bernice,

Thank you for the info.

[Lee Forman]

Bernice,

Thank you for the info.

Hey Mike - just wanted to add - they did get everything - or tried to get everything [skaggs being one exception]. 'They' were largely the SS - the FBI, etc. Time Life connections to the CIA are boring at this point. Muchmore's film and UPI is very interesting - however, the material evidence in the case of Johnny Q was rounded up - even by memo to processing companies by the FBI. It's also facinating to consider what Rosemary Willis said about this in her Dallas Morning News interview.

Rosemary: After, afterwards, you know, a lot of people, pandemonium, down on the ground. And as people get to... the limousine drives off, lot of people, FBI, CIA, policemen, lot of impostors, lot of people suddenly on the scene, and they roped off the area, they just kind of told everybody to stay put. But they really didn't do anything. It was rather strange. Kept us there for, I don't know, 30 minutes, maybe an hour. The interesting part is after we left the roped-off scene and went to the Eastman-Kodak plant, that's where it becomes real interesting. And we'll continue....

(Rosemary recalls being interrogated later by investigators) ???

.... .tell you over and over you didn't see what you saw, you didn't hear what you heard. When they asked you what happened, you say, 'I heard a shot from over here, I heard a shot and saw smoke from other here,' and they're going (assumes mean voice), 'No, you didn't. Look at me: you didn't. I'm telling you, you didn't.' Very adamantly and depending who they were talking to, they were very strong about it, they did not want you to tell the truth. It was messing everything up.

TM: Who were these people?

Rosemary: Well, some of them, like I say, were impostors, and that's where you get into that part about Eastman-Kodak.

Note how Orville is unwilling to go the distance - and how Zapruder 3x would not confirm. It smells. And the fact that they are all labeled as 'amateurs' and incompetent, etc. Telling. And we have yet to see the film taken, say, by the young woman in the blue blouse over by the North Peristyle. Sure - stuff was returned...eventually - in my racket we call it 'bait and switch.'

However - some folks have seen different films - films that are not public. Like UFO sightings, these folks seem to be laughed off as nutters - however, their recollection of what they saw seems much closer to what witnesses indicated.

- lee