Jump to content

Zapruder film on US (NY?) TV in 1963


Recommended Posts

A shot to the head at stationing 4+65.3 (Z313 impact) as fully described by multiple witnesses as being the second shot fired,

I think it is time that you cite the stats on who said the second shot hit JFK in the head Vs. witnesses who said the third shot hit JFK in the head ... this should being interesting to say the least.

Bill Miller

Have you been following any of these threads? Or, do you simply insist on showing us your research incompetence.....Search this forum, its all there! Hint: Have you heard of a Mr. West, Surveyor, you can start there? Your expertise as a 'researcher' is telling.... I can hear Mary Ferrell turning over in her grave....

btw, what new photographic evidence did you find? Does it have something to do with image resolution? Now THIS should be G-O-O-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Your expertise as a 'researcher' is telling....

Yet it was you who had to ask me 'How can you time stamp the first shot by what the witnesses said?' ... I'll compare post anytime with the say-nothing responses you make.

Still working on that request for you to examine those historical images ... How is it coming???

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In A Citizen’s Dissent, Lane noted..."

Before emailing Mark Lane, I thought I’d have another look at A Citizen’s Dissent, not least for enjoyment of the writing. Two aspects of it jumped out.

First, Lane was a firm advocate of photographic alteration – but only of the “still” variety. Of the famous backyard photo of Oswald posing with a rifle – not to mention the complete works of Karl Marx, a naked Cossack, and a balalaika orchestra - he wrote: “I have appeared on scores of programs broadcast by CBS stations and affiliates. In many instances, I have sought the advice of trained cameramen employed by the stations regarding the picture in question. In almost every instance those professional photographers have suggested that the picture appears to be an obviously doctored photograph” (1).

But what of the Z film? After all, both the very obviously doctored photo to which he referred, and the Zapruder film, had Life magazine in common. Would the conspirators really draw a line between falsifying a single still, and a film? Why could Life be trusted with film, when it had published a blatantly forged still? To make Lane’s unquestioning trust in the veracity of the film even more perplexing and unsatisfactory, he devoted two pages to the strange case of the Z-frames missing from, or composited in, WC Exhibit 885. He quotes from a Feb 6, 1967, Newsweek piece on the explanation for the absence of frames 208-211 in the Exhibit: Life technicians “accidentally” destroyed them (2). Very reassuring, no?

In posing such questions, I realise that Lane was not alone among the first generation of assassination researchers in this sort of photographic schizophrenia. But conformity is no defence; and neither is it tenable to argue that issue of photographic forgery is here being unfairly imposed upon a different and more “innocent” age. The subject was in the air by mid-1964 at the latest (3).

A second oddity: Lane’s silence on an important feature of CBS’s June 1967 four-parter on the assassination, The Warren Report, the very series which was, ostensibly at least, the spur for A Citizen’s Dissent. Readers of the book will look long and hard – and, ultimately, in vain – for any mention of the fact that Walter Cronkite had intoned:

There is one further piece of evidence which we feel must now be made available to the entire public – Abraham Zapruder’s film of the actual assassination. The original is now the private property of Life magazine. A Life magazine executive refused CBS News permission to show you that film at any price, on the grounds that it is an invaluable asset to Time Inc. Life’s decision means you cannot see the Zapruder film in its proper form, as a motion picture film. We believe that the Zapruder is an invaluable asset, not of Time Inc., but of the people of the United States (4).

In A Citizen’s Dissent, by contrast, Lane primly eschewed any such vulgar cry of “free the film” in favour of insisting that “CBS could have ascertained the precise movements of the [presidential] vehicle by viewing the Zapruder film…at the National Archives in Washington” (5). Lane, then, the fearless critic of the official whitewash, thus took, in 1967, a less democratic position on access to the film than CBS; and, to compound the offence, sought to hide this embarrassing fact from his readers.

There was a further reason for Lane’s silence on Cronkite’s call to free the film: To do so would have compromised hopelessly a key line of attack.

During the course of his attack on the 1967 CBS four-parter, Lane adduced an extract from a Boston Traveler piece written two months before the series’ broadcast. In summary, the quote revealed, courtesy of a CBS insider, that the network would only show the series if it produced new material which bolstered the desired defence of the Warren Report. Lane confined himself to noting that the journalist responsible had, while not betraying the identity of her source, “affirmed her belief” to him in the story’s “accuracy” (6).

One sees immediately Lane’s problem: How to square an attack on a CBS series he condemned, with justice, as an establishmentarian whitewash, with a frank acknowledgement that within the same piece of pro-Warren Report hack work was a ringing call for the release to the public of the Z-film, the very same piece of “evidence” that Lane and fellow-first generation critics argued blew the Warren Report’s conclusions out of the water? For if the CBS series only called forth evidence it believed helpful to the cover-up, what did that make the Z-film? And lest there be any confusion as to what version of the Z-film CBS was taking about, it was the second: “In Abraham Zapruder’s film of the assassination, the fatal shot appears to move the President’s head back” (7).

Lane couldn’t reconcile that contradiction - at least, not plausibly – so was perforce doubly obliged to remain silent on the matter.

Notes:

(1) Mark Lane. A Citizen’s Dissent: Mark Lane Replies (NY: Fawcett Crest, April 1969), pp.98-99

(2) Ibid., pp.192-3.

(3) Dr. Ralph L. Holloway, “From Readers’ Letters: The Assassination,” The Minority of One, May 1964, p.22: “I myself have counted seven utter impossibilities in the background shown in a Life photograph. These obvious tamperings through pictorial montage are in the realm, not of speculation, but of hard, cold fact.”

(4) Richard B. Trask. National Nightmare on Six Feet of Film: Mr. Zapruder’s home movie and the murder of President Kennedy (Danvers, Mass.: Yeoman Press, 2005), p.187.

(5) Lane, loc. cit., p.118.

(6) Lane, loc. cit., p.95. The Boston Traveler reporter in question was Eleanor Roberts.

(7) Lane, loc. cit., p.153.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A shot to the head at stationing 4+65.3 (Z313 impact) as fully described by multiple witnesses as being the second shot fired,

I think it is time that you cite the stats on who said the second shot hit JFK in the head Vs. witnesses who said the third shot hit JFK in the head ... this should being interesting to say the least.

Bill Miller

this should being interesting to say the least.

Most probably, it would be far more interesting as well as informative, were you able to read it for yourself.

Stationing 4+65.3-----------------------------Z313 impact to head.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0464b.htm

Stationing 4+95 (what was actually surveyed in)-----Impact location for the third shot fired. 29.7 feet farther down Elm St from the Z313 impact, as well as being directly in front of James Altgens.

As determined by the US Secret Service as well as the FBI, both of whom were in possession of a first generation copy of the Zapruder film, as well as both entities having the third shot impact location platted on their survey maps of the assassination re-enactment.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0449a.htm

Perhaps someone over at Lancer can explain the concept to you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

Perhaps someone over at Lancer can explain the concept to you!

I know just the guy, Sgt. Mikey.... !

It certainly serves little purpose to research the witness testimonies for 25+ years if one does not understand the basic concept of the english language.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2112.htm

TREASURY DPARTMENT

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE

WASHINGTON, D.C.

May 14, 1964

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: Certainly nice of the SS to refrain from having provided these notes to the WC until May 14, 1964.

Nevertheless, the WC was in possession of this information prior to their assassination re-enactment and survey work.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"a second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the Boss's head."

================================================================================

Now! Down here in the Mississippi backwoods, we may not often speak as if we properly understand the english language. That however is not necessarily always the case.

http://ardictionary.com/Second/3681

SECOND

Definition: Immediately following the first; next to the first in order of place or time

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Promotion to the SECOND grade was of course considered a great lifetime achievement, therefore, we all knew exactly what #2/aka SECOND meant!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

Perhaps someone over at Lancer can explain the concept to you!

I know just the guy, Sgt. Mikey.... !

It certainly serves little purpose to research the witness testimonies for 25+ years if one does not understand the basic concept of the english language.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2112.htm

TREASURY DPARTMENT

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE

WASHINGTON, D.C.

May 14, 1964

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: Certainly nice of the SS to refrain from having provided these notes to the WC until May 14, 1964.

Nevertheless, the WC was in possession of this information prior to their assassination re-enactment and survey work.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"a second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the Boss's head."

================================================================================

Now! Down here in the Mississippi backwoods, we may not often speak as if we properly understand the english language. That however is not necessarily always the case.

http://ardictionary.com/Second/3681

SECOND

Definition: Immediately following the first; next to the first in order of place or time

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Promotion to the SECOND grade was of course considered a great lifetime achievement, therefore, we all knew exactly what #2/aka SECOND meant!

Tom, Tom, Tom. You're the second person to use Bennett's statement out of context that I've noticed in the last few days. When he says ""a second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the Boss's head" he is either talking about a second shot AFTER the first shot, and thus a third shot, as in his typed up statement, or a second shot PERIOD. Bennett is most definitely not talking about a second shot of three, as you imply.

That said, I agree that the bulk of the closest bystanders said there was a shot after 313. I have to disagree with you that the early FBI and SS re-enactments acknowledged as much, however.

From patspeer.com, chapter 2b.

Since the head shot n the Nix film (and noted in the Exhibits Section's report) occurs when the limousine is in front of the pedestal, with Zapruder in the background, and since the Exhibits Section's report describes the Nix film as follows: "Nix, standing on the Plaza grass across the road from the Pergola (where Zapruder viewed the motorcade) photographed the motorcade as it approached the triple underpass" it certainly seems they knew Nix was standing across from Zapruder, and not far off to his right. As the third shot portrayed in their exhibits is considerably past Zapruder, and since Nix would have to have been in front of the limousine, with it heading his direction, in order for him to catch Zapruder in the background of his film at this time, it only makes sense that the FBI Exhibits Section believed the head shot captured by Nix came earlier, and was in fact the second shot. Still, we recall Gauthier's 12-9 memo, spelling out that the second shot hit Connally. This is undoubtedly confusing.

This makes us wonder if the FBI actually believes the second shot is the head shot, or has implied this due to their collective incompetence.

Let's examine this first possibility. Could the FBI have concluded the second shot was the head shot?

Certainly not at first. Besides the 11-29 report by Agent Barrett on the first re-enactment, stating that Connally was hit by the second shot, there is the 12-3 report by Agent Abernathy (CD385 p22), stating that the assassination sequence in Nix's film, which depicts the head shot, began "subsequent to the firing of the first two shots."

We compare this to the language of the FBI's summary report of 12-9 (written around 12-4, after Gauthier's people had begun their work in Dallas). It describes the shooting as follows: "As the motorcade was traveling through downtown Dallas on Elm Street about fifty yards west of the intersection with Houston Street (Exhibit 1), three shots rang out. Two bullets struck President Kennedy, and one wounded Governor Connally." We note that here Connally is mentioned last. This raises the possibility that, through their work in Dallas, the FBI's Exhibits Section Chief Leo Gauthier and his team had, if only for a spell, convinced the Bureau that the head shot was the second shot, and that Connally was wounded by the third shot. That the shot after the head shot didn't miss the car entirely is betrayed by the Exhibits Section's conclusion that each of the three shots "hit the target."

But then there's Gauthier himself, in his 12-9 memo, relating "Shot number two which is believed to have struck Governor Connally." And then there's the the 12-20 report from the crime lab.

And then there's this. In another section of Gauthier's report, in a brief description of the Zapruder film, it's made fairly clear the writer believed Connally'd been hit before the head shot. It relates: “The car momentarily became obscured from Zapruder’s line of sight behind a road sign (refer to scale model). As it emerged from behind the sign, the Zapruder film reproduced the action of the occupants of the car as follows: The President is slumped forward in his seat with his right hand partly lowered from the previous waving position, he appears to be leaning toward his left nearer to Mrs. Kennedy; Governor Connally is seen turning his head to the right and rear, falling towards Mrs. Connally, as a circle of light resembling an explosive blast encircles the President’s head.” If the writer of this report felt Connally was not yet wounded and still under his own power at the moment of the head shot, it seems highly unlikely he'd describe him as "falling" towards his wife.

This convinces us that the first possibility is not true. Which leaves us with the second possibility: that the FBI of 1964 was largely incompetent.

From patspeer.com, chapter 2b

In any event, within just a few days of receiving Gauthier's exhibits section's report the Warren Commission counsel tasked with investigating the shooting realized that the FBI had no clue what happened during the shooting, and had fed them a big steaming pile of nonsense. A 1-23 memo from Gauthier to his boss Nicholas Callahan reveals that on this day he met with Warren Commission counsels Ball, Belin, Eisenberg and Redlich, as well as Inspector Thomas Kelley of the Secret Service, and that the six men spent three hours "re-enacting" the shooting in Dealey Plaza using Gauthier's scale model of the plaza and model cars. Gauthier reports that Kelley "stated that the versions of the FBI and Secret Service were good approximations" and that "The staff is hoping to eventually be in a position to say exactly where the shots occurred on the Parkway with a plus or minus factor of several feet." He then reports that they will meet again on 1-27, at which time they will view the Zapruder and Nix films and try to come to some sort of agreement on the location of the limo during the shots. Not surprisingly, given the FBI's concern about the Commission, in the comments section of this memo Gauthier (or is it Callahan?) tries to assure his superiors that no one is second-guessing their inept work, although, clearly, they were. He writes: "The points on the Parkway as defined by the FBI are considered to be the best approximations possible and in line with the Secret Service version. Inspector Kelley shares the same views. The FBI has the first shot occurring just before the President's head emerges from behind the sign while the Secret Service approximates the location moments after the President emerges. Approximately one second is involved between the two versions. The Commission realizes that there is no material difference between the FBI's and Secret Service's approximations; however, they wish to attempt to fix shooting sequence with a great degree of accuracy with a plus or minus factor of a few feet." (This is already surprising. How could the Secret Service NOT see that Kennedy was hit before he came out from behind the sign in the Zapruder film?)

Attached to Gauthier's memo is a further comparison of the FBI and Secret Service proposed shooting scenarios. It reads:

* Shot One: It occurred when the Presidential car was unobserved by Zapruder for approximately twenty feet while moving behind a road sign. Shot one was approximately fixed on the model at a point directly behind the center of this sign. The movie reveals that prior to reaching this sign the President was seen waving and moments later after emerging from behind the sign he was slumped forward. The position on the Parkway where shot one occurred as approximated by the Secret Service varies about one car length (13 feet) or about one half second at 15 mph. The FBI's estimate places the President approximately one-half second nearer to the assassin when shot one was fired.

(THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FIRST SHOT ON THE 12-5 SECRET SERVICE PLAT AND GAUTHIER"S 1-20 EXHIBITS SECTION REPORT WAS 17 FEET, NOT 13 FEET. CLEARLY, GAUTHIER AND KELLEY ARE NOT RELYING ON THEIR PREVIOUS STUDIES. THAT GAUTHIER BELIEVES SHOT ONE RANG OUT WHEN THE MODEL WAS BEHIND THE CENTER OF THE SIGN, WHEN HE"D PREVIOUSLY APPROXIMATED THIS DISTANCE AS 167 FEET, SUGGESTS THAT HIS MODEL OF DEALEY PLAZA WAS INACCURATE. THE WARREN COMMISSION WOULD LATER DETERMINE THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS 167 FEET FROM THE SNIPER'S NEST BEFORE HE WENT BEHIND THE SIGN.)

* Shot Two: It occurred approximately at the time Governor Connally was turning his head to the right rear. This point was established through the interpretation of the relative location of trees, shrubs, street lights, curbing, etc, appearing in the movie. The position on the Parkway approximated by the FBI and the Secret Service varies about 1.5 car lengths (22 feet) or about one second at 15 mph. The FBI's estimate places the Governor approximately one second further away from the assassin when shot two was fired.

(GAUTHIER HAD PREVIOUSLY SAID THIS SHOT WAS FIRED WHEN THE LIMO WAS 262 FEET FROM THE SNIPER'S NEST. ON 12-5 THE SECRET SERVICE HAD APPROXIMATED THE DISTANCE FOR THIS SECOND SHOT AS 242 FEET, 20 FEET CLOSER. NOW, GAUTHIER TELLS US THAT THEY ARE EVEN FURTHER APART, 22 FEET. THIS IS INCREDIBLY PROBLEMATIC. IF ONE PROPOSES THAT GAUTHIER'S MEASUREMENTS ARE WRONG, IT STILL DOESN'T EXPLAIN WHY, EVEN AFTER COMPARING SHOOTING SCENARIOS ON HIS MODEL OF DEALEY PLAZA WITH THE SECRET SERVICE, HE STILL HOLDS THAT THIS SHOT WAS FIRED WELL AFTER THE SECRET SERVICE'S SHOT. EVEN STRANGER, GAUTHIER HAS ALREADY SAID THE FIRST SHOT WAS FIRED WHEN THE LIMO WAS BEHIND THE CENTER OF THE SIGN--WHICH IS AT APPROXIMATELY FRAME 210 OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM--AND HAS PREVIOUSLY REPORTED THAT THE SECOND SHOT WAS AT LEAST 4.4 SECONDS AFTER THE FIRST, WHICH WOULD EQUATE TO ABOUT 80 FRAMES. THIS PLACES THE SECOND SHOT IN GAUTHIER"S ANALYSIS--AT THE VERY EARLIEST--AT FRAME 290. THIS, OF COURSE, IS WITHIN TWO SECONDS OF THE OBVIOUS HEAD SHOT AT FRAME 313, AND IS WAY TOO CLOSE FOR BOTH SHOTS TO HAVE BEEN FIRED BY OSWALD'S BOLT ACTION RIFLE. GAUTHIER'S INABILITY TO REALIZE THIS, OR HIS DELIBERATE IGNORANCE OF THIS FACT, DOES NOT REFLECT WELL ON THE BUREAU AND ITS COMMITMENT TO THE TRUTH.)

* Shot Three: It occurred approximately at the time a circle of light resembling an explosive blast encircles the President's head. The position on the Parkway approximated by the FBI and the Secret Service varies about 2/3 car length (14 feet) or about 2/3 second at 15 mph. The FBI's estimate places the President approximately 2/3 second nearer to the assassin when shot three was fired.

(APPROXIMATELY? WHO IS HE KIDDING? THE MAN'S HEAD EXPLODES. AND WHAT'S ALL THIS ABOUT A "CIRCLE OF LIGHT"? IS GAUTHIER AFRAID TO REPORT THAT BLOOD AND BRAIN ARE VISIBLE IN THE FILM? WHY? AND WHY, WHEN THE SECRET SERVICE'S 12-5 PLAT HAS THE THIRD SHOT AT 294 FEET, AND GAUTHIER'S 1-20 REPORT HAS IT AT 307 FEET, DOES HE STATE THAT THE FBI"S THIRD SHOT IS 14 FEET CLOSER TO THE ASSASSIN THAN THE SECRET SERVICE'S THIRD SHOT? DOES HE MEAN BY THIS THAT THE SECRET SERVICE"S THIRD SHOT IS NOW 321 FEET FROM THE SNIPER'S NEST? OR THAT HE NOW BELIEVES THE THIRD SHOT WAS ABOUT 280 FEET FROM THE SNIPER'S NEST, JUST 18 FEET PAST HIS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED LOCATION FOR THE SECOND SHOT? NEITHER OF THESE SCENARIOS, OF COURSE, MAKES MUCH SENSE.)

The final words of Gauthier's memo speak volumes, and read like a really lame alibi, somewhat akin to "the dog ate my homework".

* Comments: The FBI's analysis of the shooting sequence was determined independently of a similar study made of the movie by the Secret Service. "WHERE ON THE PARKWAY WAS THE PRESIDENTIAL CAR EXPOSED TO GUN FIRE?" The answer to this question is subject to varying factors such as the speed of the vehicle, the firing position of the assassin and the position of Zapruder. It is a matter of accepting the fact that there will be as many versions as there are analysis made of the shooting sequence. The FBI bases its approximations on an interpretation of the Zapruder movie re-enacted ona scale model, The Secret Service has also used the movie to approximate the shooting sequence; eyewitnesses may vary in locating the car at the time of the shooting; members of the Commission may also have differing opinions regarding this matter.

* The Zapruder movie was utilized by the FBI s the best medium for approximating the points on the Parkway where the shooting occurred.

(IF THE ZAPRUDER FILM AND SCALE MODEL WERE USED AS PURPORTED, THEN WHY DID THEY EITHER 1) PLACE THE HEADSHOT FAR PAST ZAPRUDER, BY THE STEPS, WHEN THE FILM SHOWS KENNEDY TO BE ABREAST OF ZAPRUDER AT THE MOMENT OF IMPACT; OR 2) MISTAKENLY BELIEVE ZAPRUDER WAS FILMING FROM A LOCATION ON TOP OF THE BLOCK WALL CLOSEST TO THE STEPS, INSTEAD OF HIS EASILY ASCERTAINED ACTUAL LOCATION BY THE ARCADE? COULD THEY REALLY HAVE BEEN THAT INCOMPETENT?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

Tom, Tom, Tom. You're the second person to use Bennett's statement out of context that I've noticed in the last few days. When he says ""a second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the Boss's head" he is either talking about a second shot AFTER the first shot, and thus a third shot, as in his typed up statement, or a second shot PERIOD. Bennett is most definitely not talking about a second shot of three, as you imply.

That said, I agree that the bulk of the closest bystanders said there was a shot after 313. I have to disagree with you that the early FBI and SS re-enactments acknowledged as much, however.

[...]

Context, hmm... it is what it is, Pat. Now if Bennet is on the record clearing up his simple statement it would be nice if you could provide a cite.

"...most definitely"? In JFK assassination evidence, testimony, ehibits, films and photos? I don't think so.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One sees immediately Lane’s problem: How to square an attack on a CBS series he condemned, with justice, as an establishmentarian whitewash, with a frank acknowledgement that within the same piece of pro-Warren Report hack work was a ringing call for the release to the public of the Z-film, the very same piece of “evidence” that Lane and fellow-first generation critics argued blew the Warren Report’s conclusions out of the water? For if the CBS series only called forth evidence it believed helpful to the cover-up, what did that make the Z-film? And lest there be any confusion as to what version of the Z-film CBS was taking about, it was the second: “In Abraham Zapruder’s film of the assassination, the fatal shot appears to move the President’s head back” (7).

Chapter 7 of Rush To Judgment (1), “The Other Witnesses,” ostensibly constituted a short, sharp indictment of the Warren Commission’s revealing direction to Hoover that FBI interviews of witnesses need not seek “opinion as to the origin of the shoots” (2). In an asterisked footnote on the chapter’s opening page, Lane offered a specific witness. What followed was a particularly deft piece of literary gate-keeping in the service of the heavily revised Zapruder fraud:

One of these statements by agents of the FBI is typical in its omissions (14). The deponent, Mrs Sharon Nelson, was standing about halfway between the Book Depository and the overpass (15); she obviously heard the shots and was in an excellent position to state whether she thought they came from her right or her left. The reader will scan her statement in vain for an opinion.

Lane thereupon offered Nelson's FBI statement:

Dallas, Texas

March 18, 1964

I, Mrs. Sharon Nelson nee Simons, hereby and voluntarily make the following statement to E.J. Robertson who has identified himself as a Special Agent of the FBI.

My name is Sharon Nelson nee Simmons, and I reside at 409 East 9th Street, Apt. 202, Dallas, Texas. I am a white female and am employed as a Clerk for the Texas School Book Depository.

At the time President Kennedy was shot I was standing on the sidewalk on Elm Street midway between the Texas School Book Depository Building and the underpass on Elm Street.

I was with Jeanne Holt, 2521 Pleasant Drive, Dallas, and Stella Jacob, 508 South Marsalis, Dallas, at the time the President was shot.

I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at the time President Kennedy was shot.

I do not remember seeing any person in the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning of November 22, 1963, who was a stranger to me.

I left the Texas School Book Depository Building at about 12.20 p.m. on November 22, and never returned to this building on that date.

I have read the above statement consisting of one and one half pages and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

/s/Mrs Sharon Nelson (Simmons)

Witness: E.J. Roberston, Special Agent, FBI,

Dallas, Texas, 3/18/64

Thomas T. Trettis, Jr, Special Agent,

FBI, Dallas, Texas, 3/18/64.

The reader of RTJ will scan the rest of the chapter, footnotes included, in vain for any indication of which side Nelson occupied on Elm; or of the light, if any, that the testimony of Nelson’s two named companions could shed on the question. No wonder: Both Holt and Jacobs told the FBI that they stood on the south curb – with Nelson (3). Of course, at a position on the south curb of Elm “approximately fifty yards” (both Holt and Jacob) from the TSBD, the group of three should have been clearly visible on the Zapruder film.

In selecting the only one of the group of three women whose FBI statement did not specify the south curb, Lane sought to shield his readers from an unpleasant reality - that the Zapruder film was a rank fraud. Can authorial solicitousness run any more tender?

Notes:

(1) The UK version, published by The Bodley Head Ltd., 1966.

(2) Ibid., p.110.

(3) Testimony of Nelson, 22H665; of Jacob, 22H655; and Holt, 22H652. As I wrote on the Lancer forum in early 2006, all three women’s statements were taken on the same day, 18 March 1964.The statements of Holt and Jacob were structured by the same FBI pair, A. Raymond Switzer and Eugene F. Petrakis. The job of fashioning Simmons’, by contrast, was undertaken by E.J. Robertson and Thomas T. Trettis. The latter duo some interesting recent “form” in this area.

Five days earlier Robertson and Trettis had interviewed Jean Hill, another, albeit rather better publicised, south curb witness. This was to produce startling results. Let Harold Weisberg take up the story: “Reporting their interview with Mrs. Hill, the agents write things they must have known to be wrong. The two women [Mary Moorman, being the other – PR] were not ‘opposite the main entrance of the Texas School Book Depository Building’ but considerably west of there, opposite the location of the President’s car at the time of the fatal shot” (Photographic Whitewash, 1976, p.36).

How to make sense of this? On the surface of it, simple enough: Five days before Robertson and Trettis separated Simmons from Holt and Jacob, the same pair removed Hill and Moorman from the south curb, too. Why? Did the latter pair make one pair too many for the Z-film? Or is there another, better explanation? Answers solicited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul...she says she was STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK, so has to be on the north curb,

since THERE IS NO SIDEWALK ALONG THE SOUTH CURB.

Jack

Jack is correct and once again Paul misleads the reader by attributing his uninformed bias to Lane through misrepresentation.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

Tom, Tom, Tom. You're the second person to use Bennett's statement out of context that I've noticed in the last few days. When he says ""a second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the Boss's head" he is either talking about a second shot AFTER the first shot, and thus a third shot, as in his typed up statement, or a second shot PERIOD. Bennett is most definitely not talking about a second shot of three, as you imply.

That said, I agree that the bulk of the closest bystanders said there was a shot after 313. I have to disagree with you that the early FBI and SS re-enactments acknowledged as much, however.

[...]

Context, hmm... it is what it is, Pat. Now if Bennet is on the record clearing up his simple statement it would be nice if you could provide a cite.

"...most definitely"? In JFK assassination evidence, testimony, ehibits, films and photos? I don't think so.....

One would suppose that our understanding of the english language (down here in the backwoods), is far better than many give credit for!

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hudson.htm

Mr. HUDSON - Well there was a young fellow, oh, I would judge his age about in his late twenties. He said he had been looking for a place to park and he walked up there and he said he finally just taken a place over there in one of them parking lots, and he come on down there and said he worked over there on Industrial and me and him both just sat there first on those steps. When the motorcade turned off of Houston onto Elm, we got up and stood up, me and him both. He was on the left side and I was on the right and so the first shot rung out and, of course, I didn't realize it was a shot, what was taking place right at that present time, and when the second one rung out, the motorcade had done got further on down Elm, and you see, I was trying to get a good look at President Kennedy. I happened to be looking right at him when that bullet hit him - the second shot.

Mr. LIEBELER - That was when the bullet hit him in the head; is that correct?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes; it looked like it ht him somewhere along about a little bit behind the ear and a little bit above the ear.

Mr. LIEBELER - On the right-hand side or the left-hand side?

Mr. HUDSON - Right hand.

Mr. LIEBELER - You say that it was the second shot that hit him in the head; is that right?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I do believe that - I know it was. [/b

]Mr. LIEBELER - You saw him hit in the head, there wasn't any question in your mind about that, was there?

Mr. HUDSON - No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - And after you saw him hit in the head, did you here another shot?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you see that shot hit anything - the third shot?

Mr. HUDSON - No, sir.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brehm.htm

When the President's automobile was very close to him and he could see the President's face very well, the President was seated, but was leaning forward when he stiffened perceptibly at the same instant what appeared to be a rifle shot sounded. According to BREHM, the President seemed do to stiffen and come to a pause when another shot sounded and the President appeared to be badly hit in the head. BREHM said when the President was hit by the second shot, he could notice the President's hair fly up, and then roll over to his side, as Mrs. KENNEDY was apparently pulling him in that direction.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-landi.htm

Statement of Special Agent Paul E. Landis, Jr., United States Secret Service, concerning his activities and official duties on November 22, 1963.

All during this time I continued to scan the crowd, returning my gaze towards the President's car. It must have been another second or two before the next shot was fired

It was at this moment that I heard a second report and it appeared that the President's head split open with a muffled exploding sound. I can best describe the sound as I heard it, as the sound you would get by shooting a high powered bullet into a five gallon can of water or shooting into a melon. I saw pieces of flesh and blood flying through the air and the President slumped out of sight towards Mrs. Kennedy.

The time lapse between the first and second report must have been about four or five seconds.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pat; Pat; Pat!

If and when you ever begin to factually evaluate the evidence, then you just may get something correct on your website.

Until that time, is is merely another accumulation of error and misunderstandings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul...she says she was STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK, so has to be on the north curb,

since THERE IS NO SIDEWALK ALONG THE SOUTH CURB.

Jack

Not strictly true, Jack, there were sidewalk areas at either end of the southern stretch of Elm running from Houston Street to the Overpass.

Second, that doesn't explain why Lane chose the only one of the three, all of whom stated they stood together, who appeared to offer this version; hence my drawing attention to the fact that only Nelson was interviewed by a different pair of FBI agents. Something afoot here, me thinks.

Which still leaves Holt and Jacob, who both said all three women stood on the south curb of Elm.

Interestingly, “curb” was demonstrably a contemporaneous colloquialism standing for “at the road’s southern edge.” Proof? Well, here’s a witness, as interviewed by KRLD on November 22, 1963, using the word in precisely the sense I mean, and as deployed by Holt and Jacob:

Uh, just immediately before the presidential car came into view, we were, you know, there was just tremendous excitement. And my friend who was with me, we were right ready to take the picture. And she’s not timid. She, as the car approached us, shed did holler for the president. “Mr. President, look this way!” And I’d stepped off the curb into the street to take the picture. And snapped it immediately. And that evidently was the first shot. You know I could hear the sound. And…

You will recognise at once the identity of the interviewee: Mary Moorman.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul...she says she was STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK, so has to be on the north curb,

since THERE IS NO SIDEWALK ALONG THE SOUTH CURB.

Jack

Jack is correct and once again Paul misleads the reader by attributing his uninformed bias to Lane through misrepresentation.

Bill Miller

No, Bill, Jack isn't correct, it merely suits your purpose on this occasion to pretend he is. As for Lane...

1) I traveled to Dallas at the beginning of 1964 and there met Hugh Aynesworth, a reporter for The Dallas Morning News, who gave me photostated copies of a number of original affadavits. These documents, prepared by the Dallas police, included one signed by Deputy Constable Weitzman…it reveals that Weitzman described the rifle which he and Boone had discovered as ‘a 7.65 Mauser bolt action equipped with a 4/18 scope, a thick leather brownish-black sling on it…

2) The paraffin test report in the Oswald case was among the Photostats given to me in January 1964 by Hugh Aynesworth

Mark Lane. Rush To Judgment (London: The Bodley Head Ltd., 1966):

Extract 1): pp.114-115; and 2) p.149

So let me see if I have this sequence, in all its innocence, aright:

On November 26, Lane commences work on his first literary defence of Oswald. In mid-December, said defence is published by that legendary right-wing organ, The National Guardian. Yet in January 1964, author of said defence travels to Dallas to be greeted by a journalist, professionally active in the cover-up from the outset, and – get this - a recent applicant for employment with the CIA, who just happens to hand him (Lane) a stack of photostats exonerating Oswald, and calling into doubt a number of key official claims.

And you don’t find any of this odd, curious or suspicious? Forsooth, I have another car to sell you.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...