Did Zapruder take "the Zapruder film"?

[Bernice Moore]

Zapruder frame # 374..

For any who would like to see ..

B....

Edited March 22, 2009 by Bernice Moore

[Bernice Moore]

Perhaps she and Sloan should have collaborated a little more on what was published.

In the same book, we see this:

See paragraph on page with photo.

Hi Kathy :

I do not understand what your meaning is, within your post.....? ......

The Knoll is to the left, in your photo, scan..from the book......The little hill, as Bill Newman called it..

.....the embankment..behind them..is the knoll.....Bill is seen below on the north side in photo below...

with the knoll behind him....

The area to the right where Jean & Mary stood, is considered the park area...

If that what you were getting at...I think you may have been thinking what was written below your photo from the book

was in error..??

B.....

Edited March 22, 2009 by Bernice Moore

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Bernice,

You are right on top of this, girl! In fact, the first paragraph on page 24, which Kathy posted, is extremely

important, because it reads as follows (for those who are not adept at turning their computers on their side

or at rotating images):

p. 24: There was no reaction from the officer. He gunned his roaring cycle, his eyes scanning the tops of

nearby buildings, obviously searching for snipers and oblivious to her presence. BOBBY HARGIS, THE

MOTORCYCLE OFFICER RIDING BESIDE MARSHALL AND NEAREST THE LIMOUSINE, WIPED AT THE BLOOD

AND BRAIN TISSUE THAT NEARLY COVERED HIS FACE AND HELMET, HALF-BLINDING HIM. He jumped off

his cycle and stumbled up the hill at a crouch, drawing his pistol as he went.

This, of course, is striking confirmation of the brains and gore blasted out to the left rear, where it hit him

with such force that he thought he himself had been shot. Barb Junkkarinen, among others, I think, really

needs to give the evidence a lot more thought.

Perhaps she and Sloan should have collaborated a little more on what was published.

In the same book, we see this:

See paragraph on page with photo.

Hi Kathy :

I do not understand what your meaning is, within your post.....? ......

The Knoll is to the left, in your photo, scan..from the book......The little hill, as Bill Newman called it..

.....the embankment..behind them..is the knoll.....Bill is seen below on the north side in photo below...

with the knoll behind him....

The area to the right where Jean & Mary stood, is considered the park area...

If that what you were getting at...I think you may have been thinking what was written below your photo from the book

was in error..??

B.....

Edited March 22, 2009 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

Bernice,

You are right on top of this, girl! In fact, the first paragraph on page 24, which Kathy posted, is extremely

important, because it reads as follows (for those who are not adept at turning their computers on their side

or at rotating images):

p. 24: There was no reaction from the officer. He gunned his roaring cycle, his eyes scanning the tops of

nearby buildings, obviously searching for snipers and oblivious to her presence. BOBBY HARGIS, THE

MOTORCYCLE OFFICER RIDING BESIDE MARSHALL AND NEAREST THE LIMOUSINE, WIPED AT THE BLOOD

AND BRAIN TISSUE THAT NEARLY COVERED HIS FACE AND HELMET, HALF-BLINDING HIM. He jumped off

his cycle and stumbled up the hill at a crouch, drawing his pistol as he went.

This, of course, is striking confirmation of the brains and gore blasted out to the left rear, where it hit him

with such force that he thought he himself had been shot. Barb Junkkarinen, among others, I think, really

needs to give the evidence a lot more thought.

Perhaps she and Sloan should have collaborated a little more on what was published.

In the same book, we see this:

See paragraph on page with photo.

Hi Kathy :

I do not understand what your meaning is, within your post.....? ......

The Knoll is to the left, in your photo, scan..from the book......The little hill, as Bill Newman called it..

.....the embankment..behind them..is the knoll.....Bill is seen below on the north side in photo below...

with the knoll behind him....

The area to the right where Jean & Mary stood, is considered the park area...

If that what you were getting at...I think you may have been thinking what was written below your photo from the book

was in error..??

B.....

Or striking confirmation that it was blood and brains from the right side of his head....

[Bernice Moore]

Hi Bernice,

The photo paragraph states that "Jean Hill stood in the grassy area to the extreme right when the fatal shot was fired." It does not say she was in the street.

I posted that to demonstrate that it is coming out of the same book that some are saying says that she was in the street when the fatal shot was fired.

Kathy

I've been lucky enough to go to DP a few times.

Hi Kathy:

I realize that you have been to Dealey, you are fortunate.

""Quote Kathy :I posted that to demonstrate that it is coming out of the same book that some are saying says that she was in the street when the fatal shot was fired.""

Please link thanks.

""Now that I have taken a look at Bill Sloan with Jean Hill, THE

LAST DISSENTING WITNESS (1992), I have discovered on p. 63 the following exchange

between Jean Hill and a person--identified by FBI AIC Gordon Shanklin--as a CIA agent:

"You said you were 'right at the curb' on Elm Street as the presidential

limousine approached", he began, "but weren't you actually in the street

itself for several seconds?"

"Yes", she replied, regaining some of her composure. "I jumped into the

street and called out to the president to look in our direction. We wanted

to take his picture".

"Is that the only reason you were in the street?"

She frowned. "Yes, of course", she said.

"And why did you suddenly jump back from the president's car at almost

exactly the same instant the shooting started?"

"I just realized I probably shouldn't be so close, and I decided I'd better

get back.

Notice how consistent this is with Mary's description of stepping into the street, taking

her picture, stepping back on the grass and getting down so she would not be shot and

tugging at Jean's leg, so she would get down, too.""

What I see as one of the main points in all this, that appears to be constantly averted is that none

of these actions of Mary & Jeans are seen within the Zapruder film, and should be.....

As what one has stated does verify the other's information.....

..Mary has stated and very clearly, she was in the street....3 times I believe down through the years....

..

Thanks B..

*********

The reel was an interview by Jay Hogan of Mary Moorman and Jean Hill at

3:30 pm...on KRLD RADIO excerpts, Tape 5B and 6A at NARA.

I am excerpting from the lengthy transcript several relevant parts of the

interviews. Decide for yourself the importance of this first day evidence:

HOGAN:

Q: Hello, Mrs. Moorman?

A: Yes.

Q You took the picture just after the shooting, or just before?

A: Evidently, just immediately, as the. . . Cause he was, he was looking, you know,

whenever I got the camera focused and then I snapped it in my picture, he slumped over.

(DELETED FOR BREVITY)

Q: About how close were you?

(DELETED FOR BREVITY)

A: 10 or fifteen foot, I, no more . . . Because I fall behind my camera.

(DELETED FOR BREVITY)

Q: Were you up on that grassy bank there?

A: We stepped out in the street. We were right at the car.

(DELETED FOR BREVITY)

Q: How many shots did you hear? You say "shots rang out".

A: Oh, oh, I don't know. I think three or four is what I, I uh, that I heard.

Q: Uh huh.

A: (continuing) that I'm sure of. Now, I don't know, there might have been more.

It just took seconds for me to realize what was happening.

Q: Yeah, uh, what as your first thought?

A: That those ARE shots. I mean, he had been HIT.

And that they're liable to hit me, cause I'm right at the car,

so I decided the place for me is to get on the ground (laughs)

Q: So huh, how did the president respond to this shot. I mean, did he just

slump suddenly?

A: He grabbed his chest, and of course, Mrs. Kennedy jumped up immediately,

and fell over him; and she said: "My God, he's been shot."

Q: Did you notice any other reactions...

(DELETED FOR BREVITY)

A: Uh, they hesitated just for a moment [referring, I believe, to the car itself,

rather than to the behavior of any particular individual--dsl] cause I think they

were like I was, you know--'Was that a shot," or was itj ust a backfire, or

just what? And then, course, he clutched himself and they immediately sped up,

real fast, you know, like--to get OUT of there. And, uh, the police, there were

several motorcycles around him; and, uh, they stopped, and uh--one or two must

of went with him, And one ran up the hill, and a friend that was with me ran up

the hill across the street from where the shots came from.

(DELETED FOR BREVITY)

Q: It (shots) seemed fairly close by?

A: Yes, uh huh.

Q And form what direction did they seem to be?

A: Oh, Lord? North. Just back there (at--laughs)

Q: Just just right at you?

A: Yes, sir.

(DELETED FOR BREVITY)

A: The sound popped, well it just sounded like, well, you know, there might

have been a firecracker right there in that car.

Q: And in your picture, uh, you uh took this picture just BEFORE the shot?

(DELETED FOR BREVITY)

A: Evidently, at the minute (means "instant") that he, that it hit him because,

uh, we was we was looking, at me, or I mean, he was looking, you know, at the

people when my picture came out. They just slumped over, so I must have got it.

(DELETED FOR BREVITY)

A: Yes, uh huh. You could see he's clutched, he's bent over, and she's... and she

hadn't even gotten up in my picture, and she DID get up, STOOD UP, in the car.

(DELETED FOR BREVITY)

Q: Uh huh. And you and your friend Miss Hill, uh, were together there

at the scene. Was anybody else with you?

A No, uh uh.

Q: OK, well we sure thank you.

FROM HERE ON OUT, the interview continues with Jean Hill

Q: (continuing)

And also, here, we do have Miss Hill. Miss Hill, you were an

eyewitness, also?

A: Yes, I was . I suppose we were the people closest to the

President's car at the time.

Q: Uh, that as about 10 or fifteen feet, you'd say?

A: Not anymore than that at all.

Q: Uh huh. You were both looking right at the presidential car, then?

A: Yes, we were looking right at the President. We were looking at his face.

As Mary took the picture, I was looking at him. And he grabbed his hands across

his ch-when two shots rang out. He grabbed his hands across his chest. I have

never seen anyone killed, or in pain before like that but there was this odd

look came across his face, and he pitched forward onto Jackie's lap.

DSL NOTE: I believe this must mean: "to the side onto Jackie's lap" --because Jackie was

to the left of JFK, not in front of JFK. In my interview of the Newman's, circa 1971, in

person, and on tape, they talk of JFK falling to the side, or being thrust towards Jackie.

A: And uh, she immediately, we were close enough to even hear her, and

everything, and she fell across him and says "My God, he's been shot."

Q: ..... Did you notice particularly any of the other people around? At the time (she cuts in)

A: There was NO one around us on our side of the street. We had planned it that way;

we wanted to be down there by ourselves; that’s the reason we had gotten almost

to the underpass, so we’d be completely in the clear.

Q: Any other reactions form the other people in the motorcae, that you recall?

A: The motorcade was stunned after the first two shots, and it came to a momentary halt,

and about that time 4 more uh, 3 to 4 more shots again rang out, and I guess it just didn't

register with me. Mary was uh had gotten down on the ground and was pulling at my leg,

saying "Get , get down, they're shooting, get down, they're shooting; and I didn't even

realize it. And I just kept sitting there looking. And uh uh just about that time, well,

of course, some of the motorcycles pulled away. And some of them pulled over to the side

and started running up the bank; there's a hill on the other side (she is interrupted)

Q: Yes, Maam.

A: And the shots came from there. After they were momentarily stopped--after the

first two shots--THEN they sped away REAL quickly.

(DELETED FOR BREVITY)

Q: Well, thank you Miss Hill, and also Miss Moorman, for speaking with us about this.

A. Thankyou.

ANNOUNCER: That's two eyewitnesses to the murdered president, who saw on his face the

anguish of his very last hour alive. Before we go back to CBS, here again are some

announcements of special local importance.

Edited March 22, 2009 by Bernice Moore

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Hi Bernice!

The caption to the photo states that Hill

"stood in the grassy area" when the shot was fired.

It says she was on the grass when the shot was fired.

At odds with previously quoted text ... and the text on the page Kathy

included is Jean's much later ever changing story. Jean was a lovely and fun

woman, but one cannot ignore how her story grew from a guppy to a whale over the years.

Good pickup on Kathy's part.

Hope all is well with you!

Bests,

Barb :-)

Perhaps she and Sloan should have collaborated a little more on what was published.

In the same book, we see this:

See paragraph on page with photo.

Hi Kathy :

I do not understand what your meaning is, within your post.....? ......

The Knoll is to the left, in your photo, scan..from the book......The little hill, as Bill Newman called it..

.....the embankment..behind them..is the knoll.....Bill is seen below on the north side in photo below...

with the knoll behind him....

The area to the right where Jean & Mary stood, is considered the park area...

If that what you were getting at...I think you may have been thinking what was written below your photo from the book

was in error..??

B.....

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Craig commented:

"Or striking confirmation that it was blood and brains from the right side of his head...."

Indeed, Craig. But as I told Fetzer, at least a few times now, but from his commentary he seems to have conveniently

forgotten ... at least forgot to post those comments from elsewhere when he dragged parts of it over here...sigh ... is

that blood and gore was all over the place on and in the limo .... from the hood ornament to the trunk lid.

And we know Hargis, for one, was hit with gore. How much took flight from which opening? I don't know, no one can know for sure.

There was certainly a big burst from the right side when the flap opened up, but there was enough force to open up bone in

the back of the head too.... and the back seat had a great quantity of blood in it. There's also the tail end of the limo and the motorcycles and Queen Mary driving through/under where a great amount of matter had exited his head ... what goes up must come down and all that.

At any rate, there was lots of gore that just was not picked up on film/in photos ... in Dealey or at Parkland.

Robt Frazier's testimony to the Shaw trial was that:

"We found blood and tissue all over the outside areas of the vehicle from the hood ornament, over the complete area of the hood, on the outside of the windshield, also on the inside surface of the windshield, and all over the entire exterior portion of the car, that is, the side rails down both sides of the car, and of course considerable quantities inside the car and on the trunk lid area."

Bests,

Barb :-)

Bernice,

You are right on top of this, girl! In fact, the first paragraph on page 24, which Kathy posted, is extremely

important, because it reads as follows (for those who are not adept at turning their computers on their side

or at rotating images):

p. 24: There was no reaction from the officer. He gunned his roaring cycle, his eyes scanning the tops of

nearby buildings, obviously searching for snipers and oblivious to her presence. BOBBY HARGIS, THE

MOTORCYCLE OFFICER RIDING BESIDE MARSHALL AND NEAREST THE LIMOUSINE, WIPED AT THE BLOOD

AND BRAIN TISSUE THAT NEARLY COVERED HIS FACE AND HELMET, HALF-BLINDING HIM. He jumped off

his cycle and stumbled up the hill at a crouch, drawing his pistol as he went.

This, of course, is striking confirmation of the brains and gore blasted out to the left rear, where it hit him

with such force that he thought he himself had been shot. Barb Junkkarinen, among others, I think, really

needs to give the evidence a lot more thought.

Perhaps she and Sloan should have collaborated a little more on what was published.

In the same book, we see this:

See paragraph on page with photo.

Hi Kathy :

I do not understand what your meaning is, within your post.....? ......

The Knoll is to the left, in your photo, scan..from the book......The little hill, as Bill Newman called it..

.....the embankment..behind them..is the knoll.....Bill is seen below on the north side in photo below...

with the knoll behind him....

The area to the right where Jean & Mary stood, is considered the park area...

If that what you were getting at...I think you may have been thinking what was written below your photo from the book

was in error..??

B.....

Or striking confirmation that it was blood and brains from the right side of his head....

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Good pick up, Kathy ... thanks for posting that!

Barb :-)

Hi Bernice,

The photo paragraph states that "Jean Hill stood in the grassy area to the extreme right when the fatal shot was fired." It does not say she was in the street.

I posted that to demonstrate that it is coming out of the same book that some are saying says that she was in the street when the fatal shot was fired.

Kathy

I've been lucky enough to go to DP a few times.

[Bernice Moore]

Quote:

Hi Bernice!

The caption to the photo states that Hill

"stood in the grassy area" when the shot was fired.

It says she was on the grass when the shot was fired.

At odds with previously quoted text ... and the text on the page Kathy

included is Jean's much later ever changing story. Jean was a lovely and fun

woman, but one cannot ignore how her story grew from a guppy to a whale over the years.

Good pickup on Kathy's part.

Hope all is well with you!

Bests,

Barb :-)

******

Hi Barb:Kathy ,

I have grave doubts that Jean was responsible for the insertion of any photos nor what comments may have or not been typed below..within the book...

.....Bill Sloan wrote the book with Jeans input......I believe perhaps from tapes ??..and as all writers do they do take some libertys.....there were some differences she noted with him.......

...I believe Jean mentioned such, on her Black Ops shows...not positive now, but well could be........

She was also trying to get the rights back to the book at the time, as the book was no longer available and out of print......I never did read or hear later

if she did.

Some witnesses stories grew down through the years, but this thread is about what was stated at the time of the assassination, not the changes they may have made years later....

And why their movements that day are not seen within the Zapruder film.....

Thanks B....

Edited March 22, 2009 by Bernice Moore

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Hi Bernice,

"And why their movements that day are not seen within the Zapruder film..... "

I'd be interested in how two crazy ladies could jump into the street, being so close to the front bumper of the car,

and not have it even mentioned by...

... the two agents in the front seat of the limo

... the two motorcycle cops on the left rear of the limo

... not one bystander/spectator in the area

It's not on ANY films, or in ANY pictures, neither lady mentioned it in affidavits, FBI reports that day,

Hill didn't mention it in her WC testimony, in fact, testified they were on the grass and jumped to the curb

as the limo got close, and she marked on diagrams where she were standing. Moorman also marked

where she was in the Z film and on a diagram for the Shaw trial. They both put themselves on the grass.

And NO one reported it ... not Greer or Kellerman, not the motorcycle cops, no bystanders.

More likely, all those things didn't happen ... because the event never happened. We do know Moorman

stepped into the street earlier to take a different picture. Traumatized by the event, and given all of the above,

do you not find it conceivable that she just got the order of things mixed up as to where she was when?

Bests,

Barb :-)

Quote:

Hi Bernice!

The caption to the photo states that Hill

"stood in the grassy area" when the shot was fired.

It says she was on the grass when the shot was fired.

At odds with previously quoted text ... and the text on the page Kathy

included is Jean's much later ever changing story. Jean was a lovely and fun

woman, but one cannot ignore how her story grew from a guppy to a whale over the years.

Good pickup on Kathy's part.

Hope all is well with you!

Bests,

Barb :-)

******

Hi Barb:Kathy ,

I have grave doubts that Jean was responsible for the insertion of any photos nor what comments may have or not been typed below..within the book...

.....Bill Sloan wrote the book with Jeans input......I believe perhaps from tapes ??..and as all writers do they do take some libertys.....there were some differences she noted with him.......

...I believe Jean mentioned such, on her Black Ops shows...not positive now, but well could be........

She was also trying to get the rights back to the book at the time, as the book was no longer available and out of print......I never did read or hear later

if she did.

Some witnesses stories grew down through the years, but this thread is about what was stated at the time of the assassination, not the changes they may have made years later....

And why their movements that day are not seen within the Zapruder film.....

Thanks B....

[Craig Lamson]

What I see as one of the main points in all this, that appears to be constantly averted is that none

of these actions of Mary & Jeans are seen within the Zapruder film, and should be.....

As what one has stated does verify the other's information.....

..Mary has stated and very clearly, she was in the street....3 times I believe down through the years....

Lets start with this one,

What z frame would you expect to see this action by Jean Hill?

QUOTE(James H. Fetzer @ Mar 22 2009, 01:18 AM)

p. 22: "Hey, Mr. President", Jean shouted impulsively when teh car was almost abreast of

her. "Look over here. We want to take your picture." In her desperation and excitement,

she stepped off the curb into the street as she spoke, almost touching the front fender of the

limousine before she instinctively drew back.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't need to worry

about answers". - Thomas Pynchon, GRAVITY'S RAINBOW (1973).

On another thread on this forum, I have noticed a response from one Bill

Kelly to a post by Bernice Moore that struck me as quite bizarre. Bernice

was quoting from a report by Doug Horne, who would become the senior military

analysis for the Assassination Records Review Board, of an interview he did

with Homer McMahon, who was in charge of the color-photo lab at the NPIC in

Washington, D.C. McMahon testified that he had been bought a copy of a film

--he doesn't call it "the Zapruder", since he did not know its origin, and,

indeed, its contents do not correspond to the present film, which is why his

report is significant--that he had observed six to eight impacts from at least

three directions. This is eyewitness testimony reporting what he witnessed

when he watched this film, which he said he had watched at least ten times.

This is extremely important, since the present film does not show anything

like "six to eight impacts from at least three directions", yet the studies

of the medical evidence, especially by David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., which

were published in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) along with Doug Horne's

report about Homer McMahon and the conduct of (what turned out to be)

two supplemental autopsies, one with the real, one with a substitute, brain,

are some of our most important evidence that impugns the authenticity of

the Zapruder film. Since his work on the supplemental autopsies complements

the conclusions of Robert Livingston, M.D., a world authority on the human

brain, that the brain shown in diagrams and photographs at the National

Archives cannot possibly be the brain of JFK, in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE

(1998), I am worried that Kelly is not up to speed on the medical evidence.

He also appears to be out of his depth on the Zapuder, since the four shots

to JFK--one to his throat (from in front), one to his back (from behind),

and two to the head (one from behind and one from in front)--and as many

as three to John Connally (from the side) add up to a number between six

and eight from at least three directions. If Kelly is going to disregard

what we know from sources like these, where Robert Livingston was a world

authority on the human brain and an expert on wound ballistics, and David

Mantik is both a Ph.D. in physics and an M.D., who is board certified in

radiation oncology and makes profession decisions affecting life and death

on the basis of his interpretations of X-rays, then we are not going to be

able to make any progress at all in understanding what happened to JFK in

Dealey Plaza on 22 November 1963! The reason for fabricating the film,

of course, was to conceal the true causes of the death of John F. Kennedy.

This Kelly business reminded me of my latest exchange with John P. Costella,

Ph.D. in physics with a specialization in electromagnetism, the properties

of light and the physics of moving objects, which resolves the question of

why the conflict with the Moorman has been so sensitive to the gang in its

attempts to quash progress in understanding the case. The Zapruder shows

a massive blow out to the right front, which is inconsistent with the medical

evidence, as I summarize it below, because JFK's brains were blown out to

the BACK AND LEFT, not to the RIGHT FRONT. Roderick Ryan, an expert on

special effects who received the Academy Award for lifetime contributions

in 2000, told Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), that the brains and gore

had been painted in. So what we see in the film is a false depiction of the true

causes of the death of JFK. I don't know exactly what games Kelly is

playing here, but grasping the reasons for fabricating the film is not rocket

science. And his dismissal of the exceptional research of Doug Horn boggles

the mind! If you want to solve the case, you must ignore William Kelly.

Here, however, is where John Costella's post to me makes such a difference

in understanding why the Moorman issue has been so protracted and so contentious.

Barb's fallback seems to be that the Newmans saw JFK's brains and blood on the

side of his head, which is probably true. The frangible bullet that entered

his right temple appears to have also caused a flap of skull to crack open

and to have damaged his ear. But seeing brains and blood is not the same

thing as seeing his brains bulge out to the right front, which the medical

studies in MURDER by David Mantik and also by Gary Aguilar address. Indeed,

when Tink posted his first hatchet-job review of MURDER on amazon.com, he

complimented the author of only one chapter, namely: Gary Aguilar. But that

was a thoughtless act on is part, because Aguilar's chapter is devoted to

establishing the consistency of the observations of the wound to his head at

Parkland and at Bethesda, where he produces powerful proof that they were

consistent descriptions of the massive opening at the back of the head that

McClelland and Crenshaw had drawn, which Mantik had confirmed, and which can

even be seen in late frames of the film, such as 374. Which is no doubt why

he later returned to his review and removed the sentence about Aguilar.

What John noticed, however, is that Barb's attempt to suggest that brains and

gore actually did bulge out to the right front of his location in the limo,

as the Newmans purportedly observed--when it was actually coming out the back

of his head--would require that JFK's head be turned dramatically to the left

(that is, his face be turned sharply toward his left shoulder). Then the

claim could be made that the Newmans saw brains and gore blown out that was

coming from the back of his head, WHICH IN THE ZAPRUDER LOOKS LIKE IT IS

BEING BLOWN OUT TO THE RIGHT FRONT! That is quite a stretch for those of

us who understand the evidence, but in a situation like this, it is not surprising

to see those who want to defend Zapruder authenticity, including Tink, Miller,

Lamson, Barb, and even Shackelford, among others, to grasp after straws.

In this context, therefore, John's observation that the Moorman contradicts

that explanation and exposes it as a sham, because JFK's head is NOT shown

dramatically turned to the left, which means that the blow out of brains and

gore to the right front cannot be attributed to his having turned his head to

the left, which means the authenticity of the film has indeed been impeached

by the medical evidence! And this refutation of the film appears definitive!

Which, I now believe, is why Josiah has been so insistent on drawing attention

to distant background features of the film. If Jack and I are right about the

film having been taken from the street--and after all of the testimony from

Mary and from Jean, it is beyond any doubt!--then of course the photo DIRECTLY

impeaches the Zapruder. But that issue hinges on subtle and complex issues,

where he has tried to create enough smoke to make it appear to be uncertain,

while the far more powerful INDIRECT proof based on the medical evidence lies

dormant. I therefore believe he has concocted this charade for more than one

purpose, both to defeat the direct proof but lead us away from the indirect.

We appear to have succeeded in exposing twin hoaxes, Zapruder's and Tink's!

And, of course, the answer to the question is that Zapruder did not take "the

Zapruder film" because NO BODY "takes" a fake film. It was concocted from

various ingredients using the sophisticated techniques of optical printing and

special effects as a fabrication that no one , including Zapruder, actually took.

________________

All,

I found some of Barb's observations so extraordinary that I sent the below

post to several of those with whom I collaborate to make sure that there

wasn't something here I was missing. The passages that puzzled me include:

[Hide Quoted Text]

You just leap to seeing that wound as proof of film alteration ...

which is nonsense if you know the medical evidence. There was a gaping

wound in the right rear of JFK's head ... jsut where Parkland said

they saw it. Clint Hill saw it in DP when he was hanging over the back

of the limo all the way to Parkland ... and the autopsy measurements,

notes, and diagrams/drawings corroborate damage in precisely that area

of JFK's skull ... as well as the gull extent of the damage to his

skull.

The Zfilm is not at odds with any of the damage known to have occurred

to JFK's skull. The film captured fleeting fractions of seconds and the

back of JFK's head, in shadow, was not exactly mugging for the camera.

This, of course, makes me wonder whether Barb has ever looked at frame

374, for example, where the blow-out is visible, reviewed John's studies

of the film, which I have highlighted many times now, or ever read HOAX.

I would place a considerable bet that she has never read HOAX, but since

it is so easy to look at frame 374 or watch John's studies of the film,

(1) The third gif:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

(2) Frames 312, 313, and 314:

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostel...ntro/crater.gif

(3) The Wound Mistake:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/wound.html

I don't know what to make of her position, in light of the quantity and

quality of the evidence arrayed against here. In any case, John sent me

an extremely interesting suggestion about a possible relationship between

Mary's photograph and Zapruder's film, which I wanted to share with you.

Jim

----- Forwarded message from jpcostella@hotmail.com -----

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:28:54 +1100

From: John Costella <jpcostella@hotmail.com>

Jim,

I still sit on Tink's side when it comes to the extant Moorman and what camera position

it implies, so make sure that the issues are disentangled.

Re the head wound being inconsistent with the Z film, I think it's beyond doubt. The

explanation I like best is David Lifton's in Best Evidence about the time they got hold

of the clear frames in the early '70s. The GIF sequences of deblurred frames on my

website make it clear for the newcomer, but it really goes back to DSL.

The only argument that Tink and Miller and the others put forward against this is that

somehow JFK's head is massively rotated to the left in 313 and 314, and that we are

seeing the part of his head above his right ear. Ironically, the Moorman polaroid itself

dismisses this idea (if these were all genuine), as it lines up at about Z-315 or Z-316,

and shows that JFK's head is tilted but not spun around as would be required -- and as

you can see from Clip G on my website, his head starts to lift from 314 through to 318

but does not rotate left or right.

Indeed, maybe that's the point of all this Moorman guff. Forget about the pedestal

for the moment, and look at JFK. Place the Moorman next to Zapruder frame 315

or 316, and you have two (allegedly genuine) different views of the same instant

of time. That shows you that the "red blob" that explodes out the front of his head in

the Z-toon is indeed supposed to be coming out of his right temple. If his head had

been rotated massively to the left, we'd be able to see his face in the Moorman --

but we don't.

John

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:06:28 -0500

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

David and David, Jack and John,

I especially need your opinions on this issue. Am I right or wrong that the

medical evidence, especially of the massive blow-out to the back of the head,

is inconsistent with the Zapruder, which shows a massive blow-out to the right-

front side of the head? You can even see it in frame 374 of the film itself.

Here is my basic argument, which I have been advancing for quite a while now:

Tink adopted the pose that there is a simple choice between accepting

Mary's testimony and the alleged consistency of all of the films and

photographs, when their consistency is not enough to establish their

authenticity. That would dictate, for example, discounting the

massive and detailed proof that the Zapruder is a recreation! He

talked as though Costella were on his side, when he is actually Tink?s

greatest nightmare. It was as though Tink hadn?t read "New Proof of

JFK Film Fakery" presenting John's latest proof, much less THE GREAT

ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX. None of what I have said here even reaches

to the mutually reinforcing deceptions of (a) the blow out to the

right-front in the Zapruder film, ( the missing right-front in the

anterior-posterior X-ray, and © the publication of 313 in LIFE

magazine with a caption saying that the right-front of his head had

been blown out (which was rewritten twice after twice breaking the

plates). And it implicates Zapruder in the deception, when (d) he

described a blow-out to the right-front during an interview on

television that night (HOAX, page 435)! None of it was true. Jackie

herself reported that, from the front, he looked just fine but that

she had a hard time holding his skull and brains together at the back

of his head. None of the witnesses or doctors reported it. Not even

the mortician! It's not just that Tink?s little boat has sprung a

leak. It has sunk like a sieve into the ocean of truth!

Jim

----- Forwarded message from barbjfk@comcast.net -----

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 23:25:04 +0000 (UTC)

From: Barb Junkkarinen <barbjfk@comcast.net>

You are preaching to the choir. I presented and exhibition ...

complete with gurney from a local hospital, JFK and Parkland personnel

stand-ins and a tasteful rubber wound made to the avg dimension

described at Parkland ... to show everyone there is NO doubt that with

JFK laying on his back on a gurney in TR1, the Parkland doctors could

without a doubt, see exactly what they said they saw ... and where

they saw it.

You just leap to seeing that wound as proof of film alteration ...

which is nonsense if you know the medical evidence. There was a gaping

wound in the right rear of JFK's head ... jsut where Parkland said

they saw it. Clint Hill saw it in DP when he was hanging over the back

of the limo all the way to Parkland ... and the autopsy measurements,

notes, and diagrams/drawings corroborate damage in precisely that area

of JFK's skull ... as well as the gull extent of the damage to his skull.

The Zfilm is not at odds with any of the damage known to have occurred

to JFK's skull. The film captured fleeting fractions of seconds and

the back of JFK's head, in shadow, was not exactly mugging for the

camera.

Think before you leap ... and you can't really think about anything in

this arena, let alone promote leaps of fancy, until you know and

understand the evidence.

Hi Bernice,

The photo paragraph states that "Jean Hill stood in the grassy area to the extreme right when the fatal shot was fired." It does not say she was in the street.

I posted that to demonstrate that it is coming out of the same book that some are saying says that she was in the street when the fatal shot was fired.

Kathy

I've been lucky enough to go to DP a few times.

Hi Kathy:

I realize that you have been to Dealey, you are fortunate.

""Quote Kathy :I posted that to demonstrate that it is coming out of the same book that some are saying says that she was in the street when the fatal shot was fired.""

Please link thanks.

""Now that I have taken a look at Bill Sloan with Jean Hill, THE

LAST DISSENTING WITNESS (1992), I have discovered on p. 63 the following exchange

between Jean Hill and a person--identified by FBI AIC Gordon Shanklin--as a CIA agent:

"You said you were 'right at the curb' on Elm Street as the presidential

limousine approached", he began, "but weren't you actually in the street

itself for several seconds?"

"Yes", she replied, regaining some of her composure. "I jumped into the

street and called out to the president to look in our direction. We wanted

to take his picture".

"Is that the only reason you were in the street?"

She frowned. "Yes, of course", she said.

"And why did you suddenly jump back from the president's car at almost

exactly the same instant the shooting started?"

"I just realized I probably shouldn't be so close, and I decided I'd better

get back.

Notice how consistent this is with Mary's description of stepping into the street, taking

her picture, stepping back on the grass and getting down so she would not be shot and

tugging at Jean's leg, so she would get down, too.""

What I see as one of the main points in all this, that appears to be constantly averted is that none

of these actions of Mary & Jeans are seen within the Zapruder film, and should be.....

As what one has stated does verify the other's information.....

..Mary has stated and very clearly, she was in the street....3 times I believe down through the years....

..

Thanks B..

*********

The reel was an interview by Jay Hogan of Mary Moorman and Jean Hill at

3:30 pm...on KRLD RADIO excerpts, Tape 5B and 6A at NARA.

I am excerpting from the lengthy transcript several relevant parts of the

interviews. Decide for yourself the importance of this first day evidence:

HOGAN:

Q: Hello, Mrs. Moorman?

A: Yes.

Q You took the picture just after the shooting, or just before?

A: Evidently, just immediately, as the. . . Cause he was, he was looking, you know,

whenever I got the camera focused and then I snapped it in my picture, he slumped over.

(DELETED FOR BREVITY)

Q: About how close were you?

(DELETED FOR BREVITY)

A: 10 or fifteen foot, I, no more . . . Because I fall behind my camera.

(DELETED FOR BREVITY)

Q: Were you up on that grassy bank there?

A: We stepped out in the street. We were right at the car.

(DELETED FOR BREVITY)

Q: How many shots did you hear? You say "shots rang out".

A: Oh, oh, I don't know. I think three or four is what I, I uh, that I heard.

Q: Uh huh.

A: (continuing) that I'm sure of. Now, I don't know, there might have been more.

It just took seconds for me to realize what was happening.

Q: Yeah, uh, what as your first thought?

A: That those ARE shots. I mean, he had been HIT.

And that they're liable to hit me, cause I'm right at the car,

so I decided the place for me is to get on the ground (laughs)

Q: So huh, how did the president respond to this shot. I mean, did he just

slump suddenly?

A: He grabbed his chest, and of course, Mrs. Kennedy jumped up immediately,

and fell over him; and she said: "My God, he's been shot."

Q: Did you notice any other reactions...

(DELETED FOR BREVITY)

A: Uh, they hesitated just for a moment [referring, I believe, to the car itself,

rather than to the behavior of any particular individual--dsl] cause I think they

were like I was, you know--'Was that a shot," or was itj ust a backfire, or

just what? And then, course, he clutched himself and they immediately sped up,

real fast, you know, like--to get OUT of there. And, uh, the police, there were

several motorcycles around him; and, uh, they stopped, and uh--one or two must

of went with him, And one ran up the hill, and a friend that was with me ran up

the hill across the street from where the shots came from.

(DELETED FOR BREVITY)

Q: It (shots) seemed fairly close by?

A: Yes, uh huh.

Q And form what direction did they seem to be?

A: Oh, Lord? North. Just back there (at--laughs)

Q: Just just right at you?

A: Yes, sir.

(DELETED FOR BREVITY)

A: The sound popped, well it just sounded like, well, you know, there might

have been a firecracker right there in that car.

Q: And in your picture, uh, you uh took this picture just BEFORE the shot?

(DELETED FOR BREVITY)

A: Evidently, at the minute (means "instant") that he, that it hit him because,

uh, we was we was looking, at me, or I mean, he was looking, you know, at the

people when my picture came out. They just slumped over, so I must have got it.

(DELETED FOR BREVITY)

A: Yes, uh huh. You could see he's clutched, he's bent over, and she's... and she

hadn't even gotten up in my picture, and she DID get up, STOOD UP, in the car.

(DELETED FOR BREVITY)

Q: Uh huh. And you and your friend Miss Hill, uh, were together there

at the scene. Was anybody else with you?

A No, uh uh.

Q: OK, well we sure thank you.

FROM HERE ON OUT, the interview continues with Jean Hill

Q: (continuing)

And also, here, we do have Miss Hill. Miss Hill, you were an

eyewitness, also?

A: Yes, I was . I suppose we were the people closest to the

President's car at the time.

Q: Uh, that as about 10 or fifteen feet, you'd say?

A: Not anymore than that at all.

Q: Uh huh. You were both looking right at the presidential car, then?

A: Yes, we were looking right at the President. We were looking at his face.

As Mary took the picture, I was looking at him. And he grabbed his hands across

his ch-when two shots rang out. He grabbed his hands across his chest. I have

never seen anyone killed, or in pain before like that but there was this odd

look came across his face, and he pitched forward onto Jackie's lap.

DSL NOTE: I believe this must mean: "to the side onto Jackie's lap" --because Jackie was

to the left of JFK, not in front of JFK. In my interview of the Newman's, circa 1971, in

person, and on tape, they talk of JFK falling to the side, or being thrust towards Jackie.

A: And uh, she immediately, we were close enough to even hear her, and

everything, and she fell across him and says "My God, he's been shot."

Q: ..... Did you notice particularly any of the other people around? At the time (she cuts in)

A: There was NO one around us on our side of the street. We had planned it that way;

we wanted to be down there by ourselves; that’s the reason we had gotten almost

to the underpass, so we’d be completely in the clear.

Q: Any other reactions form the other people in the motorcae, that you recall?

A: The motorcade was stunned after the first two shots, and it came to a momentary halt,

and about that time 4 more uh, 3 to 4 more shots again rang out, and I guess it just didn't

register with me. Mary was uh had gotten down on the ground and was pulling at my leg,

saying "Get , get down, they're shooting, get down, they're shooting; and I didn't even

realize it. And I just kept sitting there looking. And uh uh just about that time, well,

of course, some of the motorcycles pulled away. And some of them pulled over to the side

and started running up the bank; there's a hill on the other side (she is interrupted)

Q: Yes, Maam.

A: And the shots came from there. After they were momentarily stopped--after the

first two shots--THEN they sped away REAL quickly.

(DELETED FOR BREVITY)

Q: Well, thank you Miss Hill, and also Miss Moorman, for speaking with us about this.

A. Thankyou.

ANNOUNCER: That's two eyewitnesses to the murdered president, who saw on his face the

anguish of his very last hour alive. Before we go back to CBS, here again are some

announcements of special local importance.

Edited March 22, 2009 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Lamson appears not to have read what Costella has observed, which I reiterate here:

> Re the head wound being inconsistent with the Z film, I think it's beyond doubt. The

> explanation I like best is David Lifton's in Best Evidence about the time they got hold

> of the clear frames in the early '70s. The GIF sequences of deblurred frames on my

> website make it clear for the newcomer, but it really goes back to DSL.

>

> The only argument that Tink and Miller and the others put forward against this is that

> somehow JFK's head is massively rotated to the left in 313 and 314, and that we are

> seeing the part of his head above his right ear. Ironically, the Moorman polaroid itself

> dismisses this idea (if these were all genuine), as it lines up at about Z-315 or Z-316,

> and shows that JFK's head is tilted but not spun around as would be required -- and as

> you can see from Clip G on my website, his head starts to lift from 314 through to 318

> but does not rotate left or right.

This appears to account for the intensity with which Tink, Barb, Miller and the rest of the

gang have defended the authenticity of the Moorman as having been taken from the grass,

which, if they were successful, would defeat the DIRECT PROOF that the Moorman impeaches

the Zapruder (because it was taken from the street, but Mary is not shown in the street at

the time she took it). That attempt, however, even if it were successful, would not defeat

the INDIRECT PROOF that the Moorman impeaches the Zapruder (because it shows that

JFK's head is not oriented dramatically to the left), which would be necessary for the fallback

position that the Newmans were observing blow-out of brains to the right front WHICH WAS

COMING FROM THE DEFECT AT THE BACK OF HIS HEAD! Which means the testimony and

medical evidence of a large defect to the back-right of his head and the massive blow-out

of brains and gore to the left-rear, which struck Officer Hargis, impeaches the Zapruder.

What I see as one of the main points in all this, that appears to be constantly averted is that none

of these actions of Mary & Jeans are seen within the Zapruder film, and should be.....

As what one has stated does verify the other's information.....

..Mary has stated and very clearly, she was in the street....3 times I believe down through the years....

Lets start with this one,

What z frame would you expect to see this action by Jean Hill?

QUOTE(James H. Fetzer @ Mar 22 2009, 01:18 AM)

p. 22: "Hey, Mr. President", Jean shouted impulsively when teh car was almost abreast of

her. "Look over here. We want to take your picture." In her desperation and excitement,

she stepped off the curb into the street as she spoke, almost touching the front fender of the

limousine before she instinctively drew back.

Edited March 23, 2009 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

Lamson appears not to have read what Costella has observed, which I reiterate here:

> Re the head wound being inconsistent with the Z film, I think it's beyond doubt. The

> explanation I like best is David Lifton's in Best Evidence about the time they got hold

> of the clear frames in the early '70s. The GIF sequences of deblurred frames on my

> website make it clear for the newcomer, but it really goes back to DSL.

>

> The only argument that Tink and Miller and the others put forward against this is that

> somehow JFK's head is massively rotated to the left in 313 and 314, and that we are

> seeing the part of his head above his right ear. Ironically, the Moorman polaroid itself

> dismisses this idea (if these were all genuine), as it lines up at about Z-315 or Z-316,

> and shows that JFK's head is tilted but not spun around as would be required -- and as

> you can see from Clip G on my website, his head starts to lift from 314 through to 318

> but does not rotate left or right.

This appears to account for the intensity with which Tink, Barb, Miller and the rest of the

gang have defended the authenticity of the Moorman as having been taken from the grass,

which, if they were successful, would defeat the DIRECT PROOF that the Moorman impeaches

the Zapruder (because it was taken from the street, but Mary is not shown in the street at

the time she took it). That attempt, however, even if it were successful, would not defeat

the INDIRECT PROOF that the Moorman impeaches the Zapruder (because it shows that

JFK's head is not oriented dramatically to the left, which would be necessary for the fallback

position that the Newmans were observing blow-out of brains to the right front WHICH WAS

COMING FROM THE DEFECT AT THE BACK OF HIS HEAD! Which means the testimony and

medical evidence of a large defect to the back-right of his head and the massive blow-out

of brains and gore to the left-rear, which struck Officer Hargis, impeaches the Zapruder.

What I see as one of the main points in all this, that appears to be constantly averted is that none

of these actions of Mary & Jeans are seen within the Zapruder film, and should be.....

As what one has stated does verify the other's information.....

..Mary has stated and very clearly, she was in the street....3 times I believe down through the years....

Lets start with this one,

What z frame would you expect to see this action by Jean Hill?

QUOTE(James H. Fetzer @ Mar 22 2009, 01:18 AM)

p. 22: "Hey, Mr. President", Jean shouted impulsively when teh car was almost abreast of

her. "Look over here. We want to take your picture." In her desperation and excitement,

she stepped off the curb into the street as she spoke, almost touching the front fender of the

limousine before she instinctively drew back.

Shucking and jibing again I see Fetzer. Oh wait the correct term is fetzering...

Costella's conclusion is based on his claim that Moormanis frame 315 or 316. Why he thinks that we don't know. Nowever given his gross inability to understand what he sees in photographs ( his epic fails: Moorman 5, blur mistake, sign mistake, lamppost mistake, hole mistake, Apollo shadow issue) why shoud we give hisw claim any weight? In fact if we apply your own statements about who can have an opinion, Costella is himself an epic fail given he has absolutely no photographic, film, darkroom, retouching not compositing experience. He is not qualified, at least as Jim Fetzer and David Healy state, to have an opinion in the matter. Of course Fetzer himself is not qualifed either, hes just the pimp for these crazy theories.

And of course you have still failed to answer this simple question:

What z frame would you expect to see this action by Jean Hill?

Edited March 23, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Such a simple question throws quite a complication into his/their latest. No doubt, requires a

few rounds of confabbing with his...uh ... advisors for him to determine what his answer should be, Craig ... or,

and this is more likely, if DD & D (dodge, dive, divert) is the best he can do on this one. Altgens, which

he failed to address, though repeatedly and pointedly asked in the Moorman in the street discussions,

putting quite the limitation on this latest fetzering, eh?!

Bests,

Barb :-)

Lamson appears not to have read what Costella has observed, which I reiterate here:

> Re the head wound being inconsistent with the Z film, I think it's beyond doubt. The

> explanation I like best is David Lifton's in Best Evidence about the time they got hold

> of the clear frames in the early '70s. The GIF sequences of deblurred frames on my

> website make it clear for the newcomer, but it really goes back to DSL.

>

> The only argument that Tink and Miller and the others put forward against this is that

> somehow JFK's head is massively rotated to the left in 313 and 314, and that we are

> seeing the part of his head above his right ear. Ironically, the Moorman polaroid itself

> dismisses this idea (if these were all genuine), as it lines up at about Z-315 or Z-316,

> and shows that JFK's head is tilted but not spun around as would be required -- and as

> you can see from Clip G on my website, his head starts to lift from 314 through to 318

> but does not rotate left or right.

This appears to account for the intensity with which Tink, Barb, Miller and the rest of the

gang have defended the authenticity of the Moorman as having been taken from the grass,

which, if they were successful, would defeat the DIRECT PROOF that the Moorman impeaches

the Zapruder (because it was taken from the street, but Mary is not shown in the street at

the time she took it). That attempt, however, even if it were successful, would not defeat

the INDIRECT PROOF that the Moorman impeaches the Zapruder (because it shows that

JFK's head is not oriented dramatically to the left, which would be necessary for the fallback

position that the Newmans were observing blow-out of brains to the right front WHICH WAS

COMING FROM THE DEFECT AT THE BACK OF HIS HEAD! Which means the testimony and

medical evidence of a large defect to the back-right of his head and the massive blow-out

of brains and gore to the left-rear, which struck Officer Hargis, impeaches the Zapruder.

What I see as one of the main points in all this, that appears to be constantly averted is that none

of these actions of Mary & Jeans are seen within the Zapruder film, and should be.....

As what one has stated does verify the other's information.....

..Mary has stated and very clearly, she was in the street....3 times I believe down through the years....

Lets start with this one,

What z frame would you expect to see this action by Jean Hill?

QUOTE(James H. Fetzer @ Mar 22 2009, 01:18 AM)

p. 22: "Hey, Mr. President", Jean shouted impulsively when teh car was almost abreast of

her. "Look over here. We want to take your picture." In her desperation and excitement,

she stepped off the curb into the street as she spoke, almost touching the front fender of the

limousine before she instinctively drew back.

Shucking and jibing again I see Fetzer. Oh wait the correct term is fetzering...

Costella's conclusion is based on his claim that Moormanis frame 315 or 316. Why he thinks that we don't know. Nowever given his gross inability to understand what he sees in photographs ( his epic fails: Moorman 5, blur mistake, sign mistake, lamppost mistake, hole mistake, Apollo shadow issue) why shoud we give hisw claim any weight? In fact if we apply your own statements about who can have an opinion, Costella is himself an epic fail given he has absolutely no photographic, film, darkroom, retouching not compositing experience. He is not qualified, at least as Jim Fetzer and David Healy state, to have an opinion in the matter. Of course Fetzer himself is not qualifed either, hes just the pimp for these crazy theories.

And of course you have still failed to answer this simple question:

What z frame would you expect to see this action by Jean Hill?