Did Zapruder take "the Zapruder film"?

[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.

[Craig Lamson]

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.

There you go, quoting that Coltella dude again, like you think his opinion on photographic matters carry any weight. They don't. How do we know this? His failures are many. Moorman 5, the sign, the lamppost, the blur mistake , the hole mistake and that pesky Apoloo shadow thing.

To review a few of those :

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

SO Johnboy says 315-316 eh. Can't wait for him to try and explain this one.

In any case the rest of your post is simply mindless speculation on your part that you are projecting as fact. You have a habit of doing that....

Edited March 28, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[David G. Healy]

<snip JFetzer post for brevity>

There you go, quoting that Coltella dude again, like you think his opinion on photographic matters carry any weight. They don't. How do we know this? His failures are many. Moorman 5, the sign, the lamppost, the blur mistake , the hole mistake and that pesky Apoloo shadow thing.

To review a few of those :

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

SO Johnboy says 315-316 eh. Can't wait for him to try and explain this one.

In any case the rest of your post is simply mindless speculation on your part that you are projecting as fact. You have a habit of doing that....

I'm curious Crag, have you EVER been to the national archives (NARA) to inspect and/or review any of the WCR evidence, exhibits, films, photos, x-rays, clothes, weapons etc? Perhpas a 35mm or a 4x5 trannie of an alleged Zapruder film frame (currently stored there?

[David G. Healy]

<snip JFetzer post for brevity>

There you go, quoting that Coltella dude again, like you think his opinion on photographic matters carry any weight. They don't. How do we know this? His failures are many. Moorman 5, the sign, the lamppost, the blur mistake , the hole mistake and that pesky Apoloo shadow thing.

To review a few of those :

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

SO Johnboy says 315-316 eh. Can't wait for him to try and explain this one.

In any case the rest of your post is simply mindless speculation on your part that you are projecting as fact. You have a habit of doing that....

I'm curious Crag, have you EVER been to the national archives (NARA) to inspect and/or review any of the WCR evidence, exhibits, films, photos, x-rays, clothes, weapons etc? Perhpas a 35mm or a 4x5 trannie of an alleged Zapruder film frame (currently stored there?

[Craig Lamson]

<snip JFetzer post for brevity>

There you go, quoting that Coltella dude again, like you think his opinion on photographic matters carry any weight. They don't. How do we know this? His failures are many. Moorman 5, the sign, the lamppost, the blur mistake , the hole mistake and that pesky Apoloo shadow thing.

To review a few of those :

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

SO Johnboy says 315-316 eh. Can't wait for him to try and explain this one.

In any case the rest of your post is simply mindless speculation on your part that you are projecting as fact. You have a habit of doing that....

I'm curious Crag, have you EVER been to the national archives (NARA) to inspect and/or review any of the WCR evidence, exhibits, films, photos, x-rays, clothes, weapons etc? Perhpas a 35mm or a 4x5 trannie of an alleged Zapruder film frame (currently stored there?

Nope, not that it matters. The fundumentals of photography don't rest upon those items. How about you? Costella?

Given that Costella's credentials fail your own standards (hell it appears YOU fail your own standards) please tell us again why you listen to him.

Edited March 29, 2009 by Craig Lamson