Craig Lamson Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 (edited) Observations about Jean. Costella places Mary's photo around315-316 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now