Did Zapruder take "the Zapruder film"?

[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?

[Bill Miller]

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.

It's little wonder that O'Reilly made a complete fool of you on his show, Mr. Fetzer. You are aware are you not that debris landed near Altgens and Brehm which were both to the front and rear of the car.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

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.

It's little wonder that O'Reilly made a complete fool of you on his show, Mr. Fetzer. You are aware are you not that debris landed near Altgens and Brehm which were both to the front and rear of the car.

wow, that 16th generation Z-film animation with brightness removed, contrast added and saturation over-driven explains a lot.... LMAO! Kinda like that photo analysis with the ghost in the bushes your famous for..... and that's Bill O'Rally of FIX news, btw.

Edited March 23, 2009 by David G. Healy

[Bill Miller]

wow, that 16th generation Z-film animation with brightness removed, contrast added and saturation over-driven explains a lot.... LMAO! Kinda like that photo analysis with the ghost in the bushes your famous for..... and that's Bill O'Rally of FIX news, btw.

Ahhh ... taking a break from preparing that request to examine the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film, David - good man! Its been over a year now ... you must have one detailed examination request for the NARA. How about a peek at what you've got done so far ... ???

Oh yes ... one more thing. The images were said to be from the 'NIX FILM' ... not the Zapruder film. Maybe you should learn the basics pertaining to the photographic record before trying to critique it.

Bill Miller

Edited March 24, 2009 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

wow, that 16th generation Z-film animation with brightness removed, contrast added and saturation over-driven explains a lot.... LMAO! Kinda like that photo analysis with the ghost in the bushes your famous for..... and that's Bill O'Rally of FIX news, btw.

Ahhh ... taking a break from preparing that request to examine the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film, David - good man! Its been over a year now ... you must have one detailed examination request for the NARA. How about a peek at what you've got done so far ... ???

Oh yes ... one more thing. The images were said to be from the 'NIX FILM' ... not the Zapruder film. Maybe you should learn the basics pertaining to the photographic record before trying to critique it.

Bill Miller

ya know Wild Bill, I almost got in there (NARA) with Harry Livingston and David Mantik they had a session with the alleged Zapruder film sometime back, but I couldn't make the date they had scheduled, perhaps I'll regret that someday, till then... oh well.

So, if I look real close at your current animation (sic) I think I see Zapruder on the pedestal and Sitzman wearing what again -- could you lighten it up a bit for us so we can make sure.....

Edited March 24, 2009 by David G. Healy

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

All,

While I am drafting my response to Miller, Martin, and Barb about Jean

Hill, here are two articles--one old, one new--for your JFK libraries:

Six Seconds in Dallas: A Belated Review

by Jerrold "Fatback" Smith Copyright © 1999

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_...Issue/ssid.html

Zapruder Counterpoint

by Jerrold "Fatback" Smith © 2009

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_...s_jt_zfilm.html

You might find them especially informative, Bill. You really are something!

Jim

wow, that 16th generation Z-film animation with brightness removed, contrast added and saturation over-driven explains a lot.... LMAO! Kinda like that photo analysis with the ghost in the bushes your famous for..... and that's Bill O'Rally of FIX news, btw.

Ahhh ... taking a break from preparing that request to examine the alleged in-camera original Zapruder film, David - good man! Its been over a year now ... you must have one detailed examination request for the NARA. How about a peek at what you've got done so far ... ???

Oh yes ... one more thing. The images were said to be from the 'NIX FILM' ... not the Zapruder film. Maybe you should learn the basics pertaining to the photographic record before trying to critique it.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

[ name=David G. Healy' date='Mar 24 2009, 06:48 AM' post='164585]

ya know Wild Bill, I almost got in there (NARA) with Harry Livingston and David Mantik they had a session with the alleged Zapruder film sometime back, but I couldn't make the date they had scheduled, perhaps I'll regret that someday, till then... oh well.

Q) And what does that have to do with you requesting permission to examine the alleged camedra original Zapruder film

A) Absolutely nothing!

So, if I look real close at your current animation (sic) I think I see Zapruder on the pedestal and Sitzman wearing what again -- could you lighten it up a bit for us so we can make sure.....

If you couldn't see that it was not the Zapruder film or were able to understand it plainly written in the text, then what makes you think I'd believe that you could see Zapruder or Sitzman on it. And before you anser that question ... please tell me again which Fetzer theory are you going with ...

1) the rubber Zapruder was on the pedestal

2) no one was on the pedestal

3) impostors were on the pedestal

4) or that the colonnade was actually a Hollywood backdrop painting with people painted onto the pedestal

Well ?????????????

[Bill Miller]

[ name=James H. Fetzer' date='Mar 24 2009, 06:53 AM' post='164587]

You might find them especially informative, Bill. You really are something!

Jim

I wondered why I had never heard of that guy ... now I know. One witness says might say that they saw JFK clutch his fist and raise his hands to his throat - another says he went for his neck - another says he covered his face - Miller says JFK raisd his hands to his mouth as if to try and cough out the obstruction to his airway - etc. etc.. All are mere interpretations as to what a witnesses saw and one would have to be a boob to try and make a cae for alteration out of that.

In fact, with each description varying ... only one or none can be correct, which means when applying 'Fetzer logic' several of the witnesses must be lying.

And thanks for thinking I am really something, Mr. Fetzer ... I take pride in knowing this ... and knowing that I have not been banned from ever speaking at Copa or Lancer's conferences again.

Bill Miller

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Dealing with you, Miller, brings to mind the phrase, "Dumber than a post!", which seems to fit you to a "t". The only way

that Zapruder and Sitzman could have all those different heights in different photos and films would be if they were made

of rubber! That, brainless wonder, is a way of observing that THEY COULD NOT HAVE HAD ALL THOSE DIFFERING HEIGHTS,

because they were not made of rubber! Which provides powerful proof that their images were introduced into those photos

and films to create the impression they were on top of the pedestal. But that would have only been necessary if they were

somewhere else. I have climbed up there myself, which take some effort, and it always seemed odd to me that a woman in

a dress would even try it, since it would be very difficult to do so while preserving her modesty. Jack and Healy have made

splendid contributions to the study of the assassination. So far as I can see, you have made none--apart from interminable

posts attacking others research. Your role appears to have nothing to do with discovering the truth about the death of JFK.

[ name=David G. Healy' date='Mar 24 2009, 06:48 AM' post='164585]

ya know Wild Bill, I almost got in there (NARA) with Harry Livingston and David Mantik they had a session with the alleged Zapruder film sometime back, but I couldn't make the date they had scheduled, perhaps I'll regret that someday, till then... oh well.

Q) And what does that have to do with you requesting permission to examine the alleged camedra original Zapruder film

A) Absolutely nothing!

So, if I look real close at your current animation (sic) I think I see Zapruder on the pedestal and Sitzman wearing what again -- could you lighten it up a bit for us so we can make sure.....

If you couldn't see that it was not the Zapruder film or were able to understand it plainly written in the text, then what makes you think I'd believe that you could see Zapruder or Sitzman on it. And before you anser that question ... please tell me again which Fetzer theory are you going with ...

1) the rubber Zapruder was on the pedestal

2) no one was on the pedestal

3) impostors were on the pedestal

4) or that the colonnade was actually a Hollywood backdrop painting with people painted onto the pedestal

Well ?????????????

[Craig Lamson]

Dealing with you, Miller, brings to mind the phrase, "Dumber than a post!", which seems to fit you to a "t". The only way

that Zapruder and Sitzman could have all those different heights in different photos and films would be if they were made

of rubber! That, brainless wonder, is a way of observing that THEY COULD NOT HAVE HAD ALL THOSE DIFFERING HEIGHTS,

because they were not made of rubber! Which provides powerful proof that their images were introduced into those photos

and films to create the impression they were on top of the pedestal. But that would have only been necessary if they were

somewhere else. I have climbed up there myself, which take some effort, and it always seemed odd to me that a woman in

a dress would even try it, since it would be very difficult to do so while preserving her modesty. Jack and Healy have made

splendid contributions to the study of the assassination. So far as I can see, you have made none--apart from interminable

posts attacking others research. Your role appears to have nothing to do with discovering the truth about the death of JFK.

Pimping yet another study I see. exactly HOW have you fact checked this work to see if it is in fact true, or did you just close your eyes, click your heels together and chant..I BELIEVE..I BELIEVE...I BELIEVE....

Truth appears to mean nothing to you, shamelss self promotion however...a completely different story.

Edited March 24, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Dealing with you, Miller, brings to mind the phrase, "Dumber than a post!", which seems to fit you to a "t". The only way

that Zapruder and Sitzman could have all those different heights in different photos and films would be if they were made

of rubber! That, brainless wonder, is a way of observing that THEY COULD NOT HAVE HAD ALL THOSE DIFFERING HEIGHTS,

because they were not made of rubber! Which provides powerful proof that their images were introduced into those photos

and films to create the impression they were on top of the pedestal. But that would have only been necessary if they were

somewhere else. I have climbed up there myself, which take some effort, and it always seemed odd to me that a woman in

a dress would even try it, since it would be very difficult to do so while preserving her modesty. Jack and Healy have made

splendid contributions to the study of the assassination. So far as I can see, you have made none--apart from interminable

posts attacking others research. Your role appears to have nothing to do with discovering the truth about the death of JFK.

Tell me you are not seriously going to pomp this laughable lame dog again! Which reminds me, I don't recall you ever

responding to questions/problems with this brought to your attention before. Shall I feign surprise? :-)

Photos of the subjects taken at different times, from different angles, with different cameras, from different distances ... with lines

drawn arbitrarily on very muddy copies ... with the subjects further from the cameras than the measured pedestal ... one would think

that if common sense didn't kick in on all that, that a little intellectual curiosity and interest in not shoveling up pure poop as

another in a long line of meaningless "proofs" you might have had an actual independent professional photographer and/or expert

look before you ran with this the first time ... let alone again!

I may have missed it, but I don't think even cameraman Healey has supported this nonsense. If not ... you might ask him why.

It may, indeed, be "powerful proof" of something ... but not of anything you are going to want to hear.

Geesh.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Observations about Jean. Costella places Mary's photo around

315-316 in relation to the extant film, so I think your arguments

are unavailing. The first two shots appear to have been those to

the throat (which passed through the windshield and make sound of

a firecracker) and to the back (~ 5 1/2 inches below the collar to

the right of the spinal column), where the first was probably fired

from the above-ground sewer opening at the south end of the Triple

Underpass and the second from the top of the County Records Build-

ing. They were probably fired with silenced weapons, where the

Altgens #5 shows him clutching at his throat and, I surmise, both

of these shots have already been fired. Mary caught action later,

well after Altgens took this photo and right after the shot that

entered his right temple and blew his brains out the back of his

head. The constant barrage of criticism is moving me forward.

Here are some crucial points in the discussion about Jean Hill.

NOTE (1): Correlating the Moorman with the extant Zapruder

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. Put him as seen in the Moorman

next to frame 315 of the Z, and you can figure out exactly where that

head wound is, if you believe the photographic evidence: his right

temple. And that's simply not where it should be.

John

So here John is elaborating on the inconsistency between the massive

blow out of brains and gore to the right-front shown in the Zapruder

and the fact that, given the orientation of his head in the Moorman,

it cannot be the case that that blow-out was actually coming from the

back of his head, because it was not sufficiently rotated to the left.

NOTE (2): Federal agent asks her about bullet that hit the grass

On pages 29-30, Jean is being grilled by "federal agents" of some kind:

The questioners returned then, breaking into her thoughts and starting

the interrogation all over again.

"Did you see a bullet hit the ground near you?" she was asked.

"Not that I remember. Why?"

"Then what made you jump back from the president's car so suddenly?"

"I just realized that I shouldn't touch it, that's all."

"What were you doing in the street in the first place?"

"I was trying to get him to turn toward me."

"Who?"

"President Kennedy."

"Why?"

"So Mary could take his picture. But just as he turned, the first

bullet struck him."

"How many shots did you hear?"

"I'd say at least four to six. Maybe more."

Notice that what Jean is calling "the first bullet" is probably the

fourth or even the fifth. I have already mentioned that Atgens #5

was taken after JFK had been hit in the throat and in the back. At

about this time, Connally turned to his right and then back to his

left to see what was going on. When he turned to his left, he felt

a doubling-up in his chest, which was from a shot that appears to

have been fired from the west side of the Book Depository. And he

would be hit once or perhaps even twice more. We know the "magic

bullet" theory is false (google "Reasoning about Assassinations").

So by this time, there had to have been at least three shots (or

four, if you count the bullet that hit the grass), so this was not

"the first bullet". Indeed, if you take her number of six or more

by counting from this shot, then there had to have been something

like nine or ten shots, which is in fact probably the right number.

(Try my "Assassination Science and the Language of Proof", which

shows there cannot have been less than six shots, including four

to JFK, one to Connally, and one that missed and injured Tague in

ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, and Doug Horne's "Interviews with Former

NPIC Employees", which includes his interview with Homer McMahon,

who studied a film he was brought that night and determined that

there were six to eight impacts from at least three directions in

MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA.) I'm not asking you to believe me, but I

am telling you how to add up the number of shots that were fired.

This is crucial: Notice how these "federal agents" are grilling

her about BEING IN THE STREET, NEAR THE LIMOUSINE, and JUMPING

BACK FROM IT about the same time a shot hit the grass! Do you

really think there is any doubt about any of these things? Note

that she talks about the same events taking place at around 40:00

-45:00 into the interview. She says she stepped into the street

but was back on the curb by the time of the head shot, which, we

now know, was actually two shots to the head that took place very

close together: a shot to the back of the head and a shot to the

right temple. David Lifton, BEST EVIDENCE (1980), talks about how

he took frames to Richard Feynman, the Nobel winning physicist at

CalTech, and Feynman explained that the head moves forward in 312

before the massive blow-out to the right front and then movement

back and to the left on pages 48-49. Josiah has an analysis of

this phenomenon in SIX SECONDS on pages 86-92, which I have been

told he no longer accepts. So what Jean is thinking of as "the

first shot" is actually two closely-spaced shots occurring after

the shot to his throat, the shot to his back, the shot to John

Connally's chest and possibly another to his wrist and another to

his thigh, plus the shot that missed an injured James Tague. And

the shot that hits the grass must therefore be around number eight

if the shot that hit the chrome strip on the windshield has still

to be fired. Which is why it is difficult to figure all this out.

NOTE (3): CIA agent reminds Mary she was in the street

On page 63, we find a similar interrogation taking place, this time

an exchange between Jean Hill and a person--identified by FBI AIC

Gordon Shanklin--as a CIA agent, who wants to cover the same issues:

"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.

John Costella has found this exchange--and, I suspect, the earlier

one--remarkable, because, as I have pointed out, the photographic

record does NOT have Jean MOVING AT ALL--she stands perfectly still,

like a stuffed toy, and only turns her head. Moreover, every single

Zapruder frame published by LIFE magazine is remarkable, in that NOT

ONE SHOWS MARY OR JEAN. So we have this amazing situation, whereby

if it weren't for the photographic evidence, we might be dubious of

Mary and Jean's presence in Dealey Plaza. But then again, we have

Jim Featherston and Mary and Jean's interviews and all the efforts

that have been exerted to try to keep them quite about all of this.

When the film was recreated, it was too difficult technically for

them to be in the street with the curb behind them, because it was

being used as the dividing line for optical printing combining new

events with old events, new backgrounds with old foregrounds, and

old backgrounds with new foregrounds, as David Healy has suggested.

NOTE (4): Jean reported there was another photo of her boyfriend

This, I think, may explain the "misattribution" of the officer shown in

her photograph as her boyfriend, when it was instead Officer Hargis (in

her fifth Polaroid). She may have been thinking of her fourth, which, it

appears, included her boyfriend, B. J. Martin, whom she identifies in the

book as J. B. Marshall. Jean told Jack White that she had kept the missing

photograph and had put it between the pages of a book for safekeeping so

she could give to her boyfriend, BECAUSE HE WAS IN THE PHOTO. She later

met with him, and he warned her not to tell anybody about about what she

saw that day. She showed him the Polaroid she had kept. She told Jack it

showed her boyfriend and the president's limo. He asked that she give him

the photo"as a souvenir", which she did. Years later, when she was considering

doing a book, she asked for it to be returned. He told her that HE HAD

LOST IT! Penn Jones told Jack he thought it had shown the 6th floor and

that Oswald was not there, which was the reason it has gone "missing".

There is more to say about these things, Barb, but I hope you have the

general idea. There is too much evidence, including conducting multiple

interrogations, where the themes are repeated over and over: Jean was

in the street; what was she doing there?; why did she jump back?; did

she notice the shot that hit the grass?; she was there because she and

Mary wanted to take his picture; she stepped out into the street and

called to him; the car was so close she could touch it; she thought it

was a bad idea for her to be so close; she "jumped" back onto the curb;

Mary took her photograph; Mary got back on the grass; Mary got down and

tugged at Jean's leg; Jean remained standing. Listen to the interview

and you will find what she has to say reinforces this scenario. While

I do not insist ALL OF THESE EVENTS should be seen in the film, I do

insist that at least SOME OF THESE EVENTS should be seen there. As for

talking explicitly about the faking of the film, I think she had to know

it had been altered, but she probably thought that, like standing so very

close to the limousine, it was inadvisable to talk about it, at least, if

she wanted to live longer. And she did until subsequent to the interview.

Dealing with you, Miller, brings to mind the phrase, "Dumber than a post!", which seems to fit you to a "t". The only way

that Zapruder and Sitzman could have all those different heights in different photos and films would be if they were made

of rubber! That, brainless wonder, is a way of observing that THEY COULD NOT HAVE HAD ALL THOSE DIFFERING HEIGHTS,

because they were not made of rubber! Which provides powerful proof that their images were introduced into those photos

and films to create the impression they were on top of the pedestal. But that would have only been necessary if they were

somewhere else. I have climbed up there myself, which take some effort, and it always seemed odd to me that a woman in

a dress would even try it, since it would be very difficult to do so while preserving her modesty. Jack and Healy have made

splendid contributions to the study of the assassination. So far as I can see, you have made none--apart from interminable

posts attacking others research. Your role appears to have nothing to do with discovering the truth about the death of JFK.

Tell me you are not seriously going to pomp this laughable lame dog again! Which reminds me, I don't recall you ever

responding to questions/problems with this brought to your attention before. Shall I feign surprise? :-)

Photos of the subjects taken at different times, from different angles, with different cameras, from different distances ... with lines

drawn arbitrarily on very muddy copies ... with the subjects further from the cameras than the measured pedestal ... one would think

that if common sense didn't kick in on all that, that a little intellectual curiosity and interest in not shoveling up pure poop as

another in a long line of meaningless "proofs" you might have had an actual independent professional photographer and/or expert

look before you ran with this the first time ... let alone again!

I may have missed it, but I don't think even cameraman Healey has supported this nonsense. If not ... you might ask him why.

It may, indeed, be "powerful proof" of something ... but not of anything you are going to want to hear.

Geesh.