Jump to content
The Education Forum

What Jean Hill has to tell us about 22 November 1963


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest James H. Fetzer

All,

Barb Junkkarinen and Bill Miller have been attacking me regarding Jean Hill,

citing a remark she made during an interview on Black Op Radio to refute

my contention that she and Mary had both stepped into the street that day.

Before Barb and Bill get such big heads congratulating themselves that they

explode, it might be appropriate to actually study the evidence, because the

two of them are running a con game based upon fragments of the truth, which

are far removed from what Jean Hill has to tell us that implicates the film

as a fabrication. This scam plays the members of this forum for saps, using

the technique of special pleading by only citing evidence favorable to them.

There is an interesting question here, because Jean does say something to

Len--not as the result of a call-in, but apparently due to an email--on

the question at issue. It might be interesting to know who submitted it,

but that does not make any difference. At about 45:22, Len says a question

has been emailed in about whether she stepped into the street "at the time

of the shot". Jean says she was "right at the curb" but that she had been

"in the street" but was "back on the curb at the time of the shot". The

book offers a somewhat different version in proximity to Mary's Polaroid.

In the book, on page 22, we read the following as she called out to JFK:

"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." If she had stepped into the street BEFORE Mary

took her picture, presumably would have to have happened AFTER Altgens #5

and BEFORE Mary stepped into the street. The text makes it quite apparent

that she stepped into the street and called to the president IMMEDIATELY

BEFORE Mary took her photo. Either way, it should have been in the film.

Is her radio remark sufficient to override the description in her book?

Authors know that what you say in print has more enduring significance than

anything you say during a radio interview. Books represent a far greater

investment in time, effort, and reputation. When you work with someone

else, just as Jean was working with Bill Sloan in preparing, JFK: THE LAST

DISSENTING WITNESS (1992), she would have gone over every word, sentence

and paragraph multiple times--in draft, in galley proofs, in page proofs.

We do know that she gave her boyfriend, Escort Motorcycle Officer B. J.

Martin, the pseudonym of "J. B. Marshall" in the book, which may have

been well-intended (to protect his reputation) but was not a good idea,

since his identity was generally well-known and it offers a basis, how-

ever slim, for accusing her of making distortions about factual matters.

But that appears to be a special cases of attempting to spare his honor

because, although Jean was single, her boyfriend Martin was a married man.

At one point in the interview, I may have mistranslated Jean's use of the

word "single" (in describing herself) to have meant "unmarried", which now

appears to be wrong. Jack questioned my description and recalled that, in

the 80s, when she spoke to his group, she would bring cookies and talk about

how her grandchildren loved them. Her maiden name was "Lollis", but she would

be interviewed as "Mrs. Hill". I checked the book and found that he was right.

On page 19 of Jean's book, she says (no doubt, more accurately), "For Jean,

an attractive, 32-year-old mother of two children who had recently separated

from her husband, there was an added incentive: J. B. Marshall, the Dallas

motorcycle patrolman whom she had been dating regularly for the past several

weeks, was to be riding on the outside rear wheel of the presidential limou-

sine." Jack suggests that, being separated, she considered herself "single".

Thus, like her use of a pseudonym for her married boyfriend's name, reflected

the mores of the times and the sensitivity to marital status during that era.

Indeed, there is a lot in the book and in her interview that impeaches the

Zapruder film. I am therefore favorably impressed that Martin Shakelford

would emphasize her commitment to the integrity of her book: "I talked

with Jean Hill on a number of occasions. She tried to deny that she had

"elaborated" on her original account with new, fictional details, and even

told me that if there were photos that contradicted what she was now saying,

I should "ignore the photographs"." That, of course, represents a high

degree of commitment and undoubtedly also extends to inconsistent films.

Moreover, Jean cannot have "tried to deny" but actually "denied". Denial

is a performative speech act, which you perform when you deny something.

If Jean said to Martin, "You are wrong. I didn't 'elaborate'. I deny

your suggestion", she has denied it. What Martin is implying by using

the word "tried" is that he didn't want to hear it because he doesn't

belief it or something such. But there's no doubt that Jean denied it!

So let's look at what she says in her book and then listen to the show.

BACKGROUND

Bill Miller is attempting to tarnish the reputation of Jean Hill, whom

he claims to have befriended, but whose memory he is now manipulating.

He wants to impeach Jean's own words in her own book on the basis of a

remark she made during an inteview on Black Op Radio on 15 June 2000.

What is more probable? That Jean might have misspoken on a radio show

or that she did not understand the words that were coming from her own

mouth as they were written and published in a book that she co-authored?

On page 63 of Bill Sloan with Jean Hill, THE LAST DISSENTING WITNESS (1992),

I have discovered the following exchange between Jean Hill and a person who

Gordon Shanklin, the FBI Agent in Charge in Dallas, introduces to Jean as a

representative of the CIA. Here is part of their conversation:

________________

"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.

_________________

This conversation reportedly occurred in early December 1963, or less than

three weeks after the events of 22 November. There are many other passages

of great interest in relation to the debate over the authenticity of the

Zapruder film that leave scant room for doubt, including for example these:

_________________

p. 21: As nearly as Jean remembers today, Mary clicked off four or five

photos as the limousine rolled toward them. Then, suddenly, the car was

virtually on top of them, and Jean could see every occupant with amazing

clarity.

p. 22: "Hey, Mr. President", Jean shouted impulsively when the 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.

. . .

Jean saw the president driven backward and sideways as a second shot

struck him with tremendous force. The whole back of his head appeared

to explode and a cloud of blood-red mist filled the air and spattered

down on the windshield of J. B.'s motorcycle.

. . .

"Jean, get down!" Mary screamed, as she and the other panicked bystanders

nearby threw themselves to the ground. But although she was every bit as

convinced as Mary that they were directly in the line of fire, Jean stood

there, immobilized by the shock of what she had seen, while her friend

tugged desperately at her legs."

_________________________

What I find most interesting about these passages is the consistency of

Jean's description in comparison with Mary's, where Mary reported stepping

into the street, taking her photo, stepping back onto the grass, getting

down and tugging at Jean's leg to get her down, too. It is difficult to

imagine how anyone could continue to believe the Zapruder is authentic,

even in the absence of having studied other proofs that this and other

films were altered, given the testimony of Mary Moorman and Jean Hill.

For those who may be unfamiliar with my extensive exchange with Josiah

Thompson, he maintains that the film and photographic record is a "seam-

less whole" whose authenticity is established by its consistency--as if

he did not realize that consistency is only a necessary condition but not

sufficient to establish truth (as innumerable Hollywood productions show,

such as the "Star Wars" and "Indiana Jones" sequences illustrate, because

they are consistent but not therefore true). As I have explained, there

is ample evidence contradicting Tink's position, which can be found, for

example, at JFKresearch.com/Moorman/ and at JFKresearch.com/Moorman2/ .

From "Pig on a Leash", we know the concern that Mack has shown in managing

Mary to keep any record of her having stepped into the street from becoming

better known. And we know the reason. She has been consistent since three

hours after the event in describing exactly how she stepped into the street,

took her photograph, stepped back onto the grass, got down and tugged at her

friend's leg to get down with her so they would not be hit by a stray bullet.

Now Jean confirms--in unmistakable language--that she also stepped into the

street to get the president's attention, precisely as Mary had described. I

am just the least bit puzzled--not to say, floored!--that anyone would even

suggest there is any ambiguity about the situation at all. Clearly, both of

them stepped into the street, Jean called to the president, Mary took her

photo, and they stepped back on the grass, as I have explained.

Notice, too, that the CIA agent KNOWS WHAT JEAN DID when she stepped into

the street. Which means that either he observed her personally observed

her stepping into the street or he has viewed a film that shows it, where

this specific interview is taking place about the end of the first week in

December, perhaps no longer than three weeks after the events she is being

grilled about.

Of course, it is also possible that he has been briefed on this matter by

someone else who was there, such as one of those who took Jean into

immediate custody and told her there had only been three shots! But this

means that the CIA has always known that Jean and Mary both stepped into

the street! So I ask: What is the probability of Mary having said, "I

stepped into the street. We were right at the car", when both of them

stepped into the street and both of them were right at the car?

Moreover--and this is the point of returning to this issue--what is more

probable in this situation: That Tink imposed upon Gary Mark to report

back that Mary had said, "I stepped into the street. We were right at the

car", when she rather more probably said, given that we know they both

stepped into the street, "We stepped into the street. We were right at

the car"? These reports not only impugn the integrity of the Zapruder

film but also the candor of the Custodian of The Sixth Floor Museum.

At the very least, the following conclusions can be drawn from this data:

(1) The CIA was concerned that Jean had stepped into the street;

(2) Jean had stepped into the street;

(3) The CIA had film of Jean stepping into the street;

Based upon our previous knowledge of Mary's own reports, we can conclude:

(4) Mary and Jean both stepped into the street;

(5) The CIA was concerned that they had both stepped into the street;

(6) The CIA had film of Mary and Jean stepping into the street.

It is not difficult to draw the following additional inferences:

(7) This created a problem for the CIA;

(8) The CIA needed to fix the problem;

(9) The CIA took steps to deal with it.

Remember, too, we have a video of Mary explaining how she stepped into the

street,

. I submit that, given

the quantity and quality of supporting evidence, there can be no doubt on

the question of whether Mary and Jean stepped into the street, Jean called

to JFK, Mary took her Polaroid, and they both stepped back onto the grass.

That, I submit, has been established DEFINITIVELY. About this, I submit,

there can no longer be any doubt. (Notice, by the way, the eagerness of

Bill Miller to CHANGE THE TOPIC, which is so devastating to his position!)

Miller suggests that Mary and Jean show MOTION, which can be disproven by

showing the sequence of frames relative to Mary and Jean's images. There

is no doubt that, apart from possibly miniscule movements, they are there,

in the film, embedded "like frozen turkeys", which is astonishing in itself.

Miller is playing games: They are not shown stepping into the street! With

the extraordinary events swirling all around them, it is inconceivable that

they would not react very much as John Costella has described them in his

thoughtful reconstruction of what a real film would have shown, which can

be read in "Moorman/Zapruder Revisited", http://JFKresearch.com/Moorman/ .

The indefatigable Miller has been running a side op attempting to discredit

the clear and compelling reports from Jean Hill of having stepped into the

street and calling for JFK to turn their way, because they--she and Mary--

wanted to take his picture. His latest tack has been to claim that Jean Hill

responded to a call-in during an interview on Black Op Radio, hosted by Len

Osanic, 15 June 2000, supports his position that she did not step into the

street. I have listened to the program, which may not be true of Miller or

Junkkarinen. There was no "call in", but she makes a rather odd statement.

To listen: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6966129980059644433

The interview has been supplmented with photos and slides, some of which are

quite striking. Here are my notes, which can be compared with the original,

my comments in brackets. At 4:33-4:40 into the interview, you can see Mary

down on the grass, just as she has described. And Jean talks about when they

took "her pictures" from her at 6:50-7:25. This Secret Service man reached

right in my pocket--in the right pocket!--and grabbed Mary's pictures right

out of her pocket! [As Len's co-host, Anita Langley, remarks, this shows

that they were actually conducting surveillance of the plaza DURING THE

ASSASSINATION, since otherwise they could not have known they were there.]

(J1) They were under surveillance while they were taking photos that day.

Jean relates being forcibly taken to a nearby building to be interrogated.

Those who grilled Jean had even noticed that a bullet had hit the grass near

them and thought that perhaps Mary had been hit, because she went down on the

grass so quickly. [but if there was a bullet in the grass, then there must

have been more than the three shots that would be used to account for a hit

to the back of JFK's neck (the "magic" bullet), a hit to his skull, and a

hit that missed an injured the bystander, James Tague.]

(J2) The shot that hit in the grass must have been at least a fourth shot.

Around 8:40, Jean states she was "within ten feet of the car", and the images

show Altgens 5. [To be that close to the limo, I think she would have to have

been in the street, because the distance from the grass behind the curb to

the lane is greater than that. (There is an ambiguity when anyone talks about

the "curb", incidentally, since it the curbing extends out into the street.)]

(J3) Jean was within ten feet of the car and Mary was probably even closer,

which supports the inference that, at this moment, they were in the street.

[so I asked Jack about the width of Elm Street, and he has told me that it is

40 feet wide, which means each lane is about 13.3 feet wide. So if Jean was

only about ten feet from the limo--and on page 22 of her book, Jean says she

could have touched the front fender--then she has to be in the street, which

impeaches the film. Or, if the limo came toward her by changing lanes and

came within ten feet, that is not in the film either and also impeaches it.

The Altgens 5, for example, shows the limo clearly right in the middle lane.]

A busload of school children, who wanted to be on the grass to sing for JFK,

was shunted off to a parking garage and they were not allowed to sing, a clear

indication of foreknowledge by the Dallas Police Department. She talks about

the film, "JFK", which she thought was very well done. Arlen Specter and the

Warren Commission shredded her testimony. At around 14:50, she says she didn't

talk about it in the past, because children were involved, but now talks about

multiple threats and says, "They were all detailed in my book" [from which,

of course, I have quoted, namely: JFK: THE LAST DISSENTING WITNESS (1992)].

(J4) A busload of children was diverted from the grass to a parking garage,

which appears to be a clear indication of foreknowledge of the "kill zone".

She reports that she has now moved into a secure condominium and probably

would not be doing the interview now except for that. [NOTE: She would die

later that year.] Oliver Stone's dedication to the truth inspired her to

write her own book. At 19:00, she talks about Mary tugging at her leg to

"Get down! Get down! They're shooting!" She heard 4-6 shots, which did

not please officials who interrogated her. Bad things could happen to her if

she didn't "remember" that there were only three shots! [she has shown

great courage in speaking out.]

(J5) Jean heard 4-6 shots, but was told that she should "remembered" only 3!

About 21:20, she said the driver pulled toward her lane and she saw the break

lights come on. The vehicle was "hardly moving, if not stopped". Even the

movement into the left lane closer to Jean is not shown in the film. Jean

mentions an interview she gave shortly after the shooting, which is archived

at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu99dGBPh6M [which includes mention of a

little "dog"]. She talked about taking the Polaroids as Mary was taking them

and coating them with fixative and sticking them in her pocket. [but nothing

like that is seen in the Zapruder, which is another proof of its alteration.]

(J6) The vehicle moved into the lane closest to her, very slowly and even

stopped, which is not in the film, a point to which she returns at the end.

(J7) Jean was taking the photos and coating them, which is not in the film.

At 23:55, they display a quote from Officer Martin, Jean's boyfriend, who

observed, "it was a after the third shot (limousine) had almost came to a

stop, it was going very slow" [which suggests the difficulties of fixing

the occurrence of Mary's #5 Polaroid on the basis of its coincidence with

"the first shot", as Miller likes to suggest, especially when Jean tells

us that she heard four to six shots]. She mentions Mary dropping to the

ground, but she does not talk about both of them stepping into the street.

(J8) Attempts to correlate the photo with "shots" an exercise in futility.

She was putting the picture in her pocket as they were taken and she had

applied "a fixative", because they were Polaroids and had to be coated.

How many pictures? "I think there were about six or eight, I'm not sure",

at 27:20. [We actually see images of #3 and of #5, which is the subject of

extensive research. But #4 is missing, which she apparently gave to her

boyfriend, B. J. Martin, who in the book is called "J. B. Marshall". So

there had to have been at least five and others may have been taken and

the sequence renumbered. She explains their first photo had been changed.]

(J9) They had taken two shots of themselves at the car, photos #1 and #2.

She remembers that, in their very first picture [in Dealey Plaza], which

was of Officer McBride, they captured the sixth floor in the background; but

when it came back, the background had been destroyed. [so they were altering

Mary's photographs from stratch.] "It wasn't there any more". She thinks

it was edited out "because Oswald wasn't there" in the sixth floor window.

(J10) This photo of Officer McBride, which was cropped, was at least #3.

At 29:20, she observed that Arlen Specter threatened to have her put in a

mental institution. "He said he could make me look as crazy as Oswald's

mother, Marguerite". Half of her testimony was given "off the record",

because Specter had the stenographer leave the room. At around 33:20,

she says about Billes Sol Estes, "I don't know what I'm going to tell you

about him--I have these lapses now, so maybe I'll remember in a minute."

(J11) Mary says that she sometimes has "these [presumably memory] lapses".

She says she knows Madeleine Duncan Brown and knew her son, who was the child

of LBJ. Another link is presented here, which presumably is to an interview

with Madeleine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79IOKs0Kr_Y [This link does

not work, but there are several interviews with her on YouTube.] Madeleine

had told Jean about LBJ's "promise, not a threat", that after tomorrow those

Kennedy's won't bother him anymore. And she talks about how Lyndon got down

on the floor of his vehicle "before shots rang out" about 35:05.

(J12) Talks about LBJ "getting down", but not obvious that she observed it.

Little things can be telling: "How did they know to go for Jean's pocket?",

observes Len, in reference to her explanation that, when she arrived near the

top of the grassy knoll, a man identifying himself as a Secret Service agent

reached into her pocket and removed Mary's pictures. One thing that has never

really come out (and she was the only unmarried woman in this group), they--a

group of Dallas police officers--believe that Tippit might have driven Oswald

away from the scene of the crime, which practically no one has ever heard. [A

very interesting hypothesis that might explain why Tippit was killed in turn.]

(J13) That he knew where the photos were proves they were under sureillance.

(J14) The hypothesis that Tippit transported Oswald is extremely interesting.

Len talks about the cab, but Jean thinks that he had picked Oswald up, that

he (Tippit) used to hang around Jack Ruby's place all the time, and that he

was shot because he had transported Oswald to his rooming house. The police

were threatened with the loss of pensions and such to insure their silence

(around 40:00-42:00).

(J15) So pressure was being placed on the police as well as on witnesses.

She can't imagine why she has stayed alive all these years, which her mother

attributed to the power of prayer. Today camcorders and the internet would

have lead to massive coverage of what happened in Dealey Plaza. "I was right

at the curb. I had been in the street", but the head shot "was right in line

with me" [meaning, I take it, right in front of her]. Len says Jean could

study the Zapruder film to see where she was [but, of course, that is the

crucial question]. At about 45:22, Len says a question has been emailed in

about whether she stepped into the street "at the time of the shot". Jean

says she was "right at the curb" but that she had been "in the street" but

was "back on the curb at the time of the shot" [which might mean that Mary

did say "I stepped into the street" instead of "We stepped into the street",

but that is contradicted by page 22 of her book, in which Jean reports that

she was "almost touching the front fender of the limousine"].

(J16) Here she says "she had been in the street", which is not in the film.

Len suggests she could study the Zapruder film to see exactly where she was.

He asks Jean if there has been any tampering with the Zapruder. "I know it

probably really was stopped" [which of course implies the film was probably

altered]. She says that she watched the Zapruder film and that "My head was

following Kennedy. I was following him", at about 47:10-48:05 [but the frame

from the film shown here does not show her looking at JFK but to her right,

well-behind him, which is yet another proof of fakery].

(J17) She says "it probably really was stopped", which is not in the film.

She reiterates having seen four to six shots [which is another proof of

alteration]. Talks about Posner having claimed to have interviewed her,

when he had not [a nice parallel with Miller in suppressing evidence of

fakery in this very interview]. "In that interview I gave that day, they

took time to set up, and the reporter was asking me, "Was there anything

else you saw?", and I said that I thought I had seen a dog".

(J18) Reiterates that, contrary to Posner's claim, he never interviewed her.

He pressed it and said, "Say you saw a dog", which she thinks may have kept

her alive, because it was used to discredit here. But it turns out that

Wallace Milam found footage showing that Jackie was handed a hand-puppet of

"Lamb Chop", with reference to http://www.assassinationweb.com/issue4.htm,

so Jean Hill's "dog" has been found! But Jean thinks that kept her alive

because it was used to discredit her.

(J19) She thinks seeing "the dog" may have contributed to her longevity.

The whole show will be posted with no editing. And hopefully we can move

some of your books. "I have tried to get my book rights back", without

success. We were set to do a TV movie with a director and screen writer,

but--for some odd reason--the government would not let us do it. And she

awakened in California and television news was showing Waco was burning.

(J20) For some reason, she no longer possesses the rights to her own book.

Currently working on another book to wrap up some "loose ends". Len says,

Many thanks! [And indeed we all have much to learn from what she tells us.]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6966129980059644433

Other videos of Mary and Jean:

Jean Hill & Mary Moorman and the polaroid pictures (6:43)

Two shots followed by three or four more. Camera is a Polaroid and can

only take "one very ten seconds', says Mary. "I decided it was time to

fall on the ground." [Her Polaroid's #1 and #2 were of her and Jean by

the car or getting out of the car. Polaroid #3 is Officer McBride, which

is the photo with the cropped background. #4 is missing and has never been

published. Jean says there were six to eight photos, but probably closer

to six than to eight. My guess would be that there were at many as six.]

At 5:15, Mary says, "I stepped out into the street and aimed it--focused

it for quite a few seconds--to make sure they were looking at me." Jean

reiterates at the end: "I told them I had heard four to six shots, but

they told me I had only heard three shots!"

Jean Hill and Mary Moorman JFK Witnesses (1:31)

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2zjzv_je...k-witn_politics

Interview - Jean Hill by James Earl Jones (2:58)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_hV3DhPT3I

Discussion about death threats in relation to her forthcoming book.

Shows Zapruder fames where she is not following JFK, heard four to

six shots. She was told that she had only heard three shots. She

was worried she would be killed. She was the only non-medical person

to be interviewed at Parkland. Arlen Specter tried "very, very hard

to discredit everything I said".

(J21) Just as Tink and Mack have tried to discredit what Mary has said.

JFK Kennedy Assassination Moorman in the street (0:29)

[After watching this, how can anyone doubt that Mary was in the street?]

Subject: Re: [jfk-research] Re: FLASH! WHAT DID MARY MOORMAN REALLY

SAY ON NOVEMBER 22nd?

Quoting Barb Junkkarinen <barbjfk@...>:

> Yes, Bill, Jean Hill stood in her spot on the grass, wearing bright

> red, of course, every November when the conference had its moment in

> DP. And she was pointed out the two years I was there for that. And

> that was when, either in '98 or '99, while she was holding court over

> there, I heard her say that she and Mary had dropped right where they

> stood right after Mary had snapped her pic and the shot went off.

>

>Bests,

>Barb :-)

(J22) False. Mary got down but Jean didn't but "stooped down" beside her

to help Mary up, but Mary wouldn't get up. (See the image at 43e0-4:45.)

Quoting bmjfk63 <IMSJLE@...>:

>> Mr. Fetzer,

>>

>> I am glad that you are able to cite Jean Hill, but here at this

>> link below ... one can hear Jean's own voice ... no author taking

>> notes and possibly misstating her or being thorough as to the

>> circumstances to her wording. Instead it is a simple question being

>> CLARIFIED by Jean Hill (herself). Let us remember that I am only the

>> messenger ... Jean is the author and who's voice you hear.

(J23) Writing and publishing her own book were probably the most important

events in Jean's life. Her response to Shackelford's insinuations to the

contrary clearly indicates her dedication to the truth and accuracy of what

it presents in permanent, published form, which is a far more significant

test of what an author believes than any remark made during a radio show.

Sloan would have had to check all the text--every word, every sentence,

every paragraph--with Jean. Your suggestions to the contrary betray your

extensive ignorance of the process of composing and publishing a book on

a subject as sensitive and important as the assassination of JFK, which

would shift it from non-fiction into the category of historical fiction.

>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6966129980059644433

>>

>> And the reason for mentioning Groden was because he was there when

>> Jean worked as a consultant on Oliver's movie "JFK". You see, YOU

>> started insinuating that Jean may have been 'drugged' by me (which

>> was hardly the scholarly thing to say) ... or was simply confused

>> and didn't know what she was saying on Osanic's show. That acoording

>> to you ... Jean Hill, while giving a great interview that Len thanked

>> her for, you want to now propose that Jean Hill went bonkers just long

>> enough to clean your clock as to when she got out of the street rather

>> than you admit that you screwed up.

(J24) On the contrary, I think Jean would be embarrassed that someone like

you would claim to be her friend. The remark about the mickey was because I

cannot imagine why she would deny on the air something she has affirmed with

emphasis in her book (unless some unusual circumstances, like a mickey, were

present on that occasion). Of course, Oliver produced "JFK" in the belief

that the Zapruder is authentic, so Jean may have been thinking about that.

Given the weight of the evidence, what she has said in her book counts for

more than what she said on the air. I am reminded of saying, "With friends

like you, who needs enemies?", because I think you are defiling her memory.

>> And your excuse that O'Reilly didn't let you speak is as believable

>> as you trying to say that you didn't have a camera that you could

>> hold next to the transit to so photograph its line of sight.

(J25) Everyone--even you!--can see and hear that O'Reilly wouldn't let me

speak. He even acknowledged it on the air! (See "O'Reilly vs. Fetzer",

). This is a nice example of

your willingness to distort even the most blatant evidence that undermines

or contradicts the line you are pushing. Our experiment in Dealey Plaza

was well-covered at the time. Everyone knew what we did. There is no

doubt. And it is thoroughly discussed in "Moorman/Zapruder Revisited".

>> Bill Miller

It thus appears that, in pursuing the question of Mary in the street, Jack

opened a hornet's nest for those who want to conceal the fabrication of the

film. It is a simple enough matter that, once understood, should convince

anyone--at least, anyone who doesn't have a political agenda!--of fakery!

We therefore appear to have sufficient grounds here to impugn the integrity

of Josiah Thompson and the candor of Gary Mack, the Custodian of the Sixth

Floor, but also the honor of Bill Miller, who appears to be both a XXXX and

a thief. He is a XXXX, because he stoops--to the lowest possible level--by

besmirching the memory of a brave and noble woman, Jean Hill, by attempting

to discredit her own words in her own book; and he is a thief, because he is

out to steal your capacity to understand what happened to JFK on that fatal

day in Dallas. All in all, these are excellent reasons to discount what any

of them have to say about this pivotal event, which shames them. Were there

any justice in this life, all three would be ridden out of town on a rail.

Jim

(According to forum rules, the word "xxxx" is banned from the Forum.)

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

That's the point, Lamson. Did you even bother to read this study? There are many,

many additional indications that the film is a fabrication. Surely you are not as dumb

as you look! That these things happened and are not in the film provides additional

proof that it is a fabrication. Sometimes I wonder what's wrong with you. REALLY!

The only advantage that Mary and Jean have over you is that they were there! Go

back and re-study all the material here that challenges the authenticity of the films.

Then, if you should be capable of formulating an intelligent question, do it! But when

you make an ass of yourself, it does nothing to advance the search for truth about JFK.

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."

I'll ask again, what Zapruder frame? Simple question, how about an answer THIS time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the point, Lamson. Did you even bother to read this study? There are many,

many additional indications that the film is a fabrication. Surely you are not as dumb

as you look! That these things happened and are not in the film provides additional

proof that it is a fabrication. Sometimes I wonder what's wrong with you. REALLY!

The only advantage that Mary and Jean have over you is that they were there! Go

back and re-study all the material here that challenges the authenticity of the films.

Then, if you should be capable of formulating an intelligent question, do it! But when

you make an ass of yourself, it does nothing to advance the search for truth about JFK.

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."

I'll ask again, what Zapruder frame? Simple question, how about an answer THIS time?

The question is right to the point. Where in Zapuruder would Jean be when she commited the acts quoted above? Surely, given your self-proclaimed greatness, you can point us to the frame where she should be when this occured. Its a simple question and your continued dodging speaks VOLUMES about your intellectual honesty or lack thereof.

Surely you are not this dumb. When you have done the research why not give us an intelligent answer...for a change. When you dodge such simple quetions it does nothing to advance the truth (as if thats really your goal anyway) and it only makes you look like an ass.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the point, Lamson. Did you even bother to read this study? There are many,

many additional indications that the film is a fabrication. Surely you are not as dumb

as you look! That these things happened and are not in the film provides additional

proof that it is a fabrication. Sometimes I wonder what's wrong with you. REALLY!

The only advantage that Mary and Jean have over you is that they were there! Go

back and re-study all the material here that challenges the authenticity of the films.

Then, if you should be capable of formulating an intelligent question, do it! But when

you make an ass of yourself, it does nothing to advance the search for truth about JFK.

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."

I'll ask again, what Zapruder frame? Simple question, how about an answer THIS time?

BTW, can we expect you to remove, from your website and from the next printing of Hoax (if there is one) the false claims by John Costella about the lamp post and sfreeway sign as proven here?

John Costella's sign and lamppost mistake folly

Are you intellectually honest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

This is moronic. The frames are not there because they have been removed. Bear

in mind that the limo was slowed dramatically, pulled to the left and stopped. So we

don't know exactly how and where Mary and Jean would have been seen in a genuine

film. Rich has reported that the limo stop was abrupt (VERY DRAMATIC!) and that the

passengers were thrown forward. Interestingly, some of that footage appears to have

been preserved in the fabricated version, since--if you can take your concentration off

of JFK and watch the other occupants of the limo--in 314-316 they are thrown forward

just when--according to Greer--they should have been pressed backwards by acceleration.

That is a striking indication of the fabrication of the film. How do you explain that away?

I worry that you make so much of the extant film, when it is so clearly contracted in time.

If you question is whether we should have seen ALL of these events--Mary taking photos

and handing them to Jean, Jean coating them with fixative, Jean and Mary stepping into

the street, Mary taking her Polaroid in the street, Jean and Mary stepping back on the

grass, Mary getting down and tugging at Jean's leg, Jean standing there in disbelief that

anyone would be shooting at her--in a genuine film of the assassination, I would grant

that that is not necessarily the case. But we actually see NONE of them. NOT ONE!

Are you even willing to grant that they were under surveillance, which was apparent

when one of these "officials" reached into Jean's pocket and removed Mary's photos?

That's the point, Lamson. Did you even bother to read this study? There are many,

many additional indications that the film is a fabrication. Surely you are not as dumb

as you look! That these things happened and are not in the film provides additional

proof that it is a fabrication. Sometimes I wonder what's wrong with you. REALLY!

The only advantage that Mary and Jean have over you is that they were there! Go

back and re-study all the material here that challenges the authenticity of the films.

Then, if you should be capable of formulating an intelligent question, do it! But when

you make an ass of yourself, it does nothing to advance the search for truth about JFK.

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."

I'll ask again, what Zapruder frame? Simple question, how about an answer THIS time?

The question is right to the point. Where in Zapuruder would Jean be when she commited the acts quoted above? Surely, given your self-proclaimed greatness, you can point us to the frame where she should be when this occured. Its a simple question and your continued dodging speaks VOLUMES about your intellectual honesty or lack thereof.

Surely you are not this dumb. When you have done the research why not give us an intelligent answer...for a change. When you dodge such simple quetions it does nothing to advance the truth (as if thats really your goal anyway) and it only makes you look like an ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

I'll ask him if there's anything to it. But you know, you are deceitful about

practically everything related to this case, so this claim doesn't excite me.

That's the point, Lamson. Did you even bother to read this study? There are many,

many additional indications that the film is a fabrication. Surely you are not as dumb

as you look! That these things happened and are not in the film provides additional

proof that it is a fabrication. Sometimes I wonder what's wrong with you. REALLY!

The only advantage that Mary and Jean have over you is that they were there! Go

back and re-study all the material here that challenges the authenticity of the films.

Then, if you should be capable of formulating an intelligent question, do it! But when

you make an ass of yourself, it does nothing to advance the search for truth about JFK.

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."

I'll ask again, what Zapruder frame? Simple question, how about an answer THIS time?

BTW, can we expect you to remove, from your website and from the next printing of Hoax (if there is one) the false claims by John Costella about the lamp post and sfreeway sign as proven here?

John Costella's sign and lamppost mistake folly

Are you intellectually honest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is moronic. The frames are not there because they have been removed. Bear

in mind that the limo was slowed dramatically, pulled to the left and stopped. So we

don't know exactly how and where Mary and Jean would have been seen in a genuine

film. Rich has reported that the limo stop was abrupt (VERY DRAMATIC!) and that the

passengers were thrown forward. Interestingly, some of that footage appears to have

been preserved in the fabricated version, since--if you can take your concentration off

of JFK and watch the other occupants of the limo--in 314-316 they are thrown forward

just when--according to Greer--they should have been pressed backwards by acceleration.

That is a striking indication of the fabrication of the film. How do you explain that away?

I worry that you make so much of the extant film, when it is so clearly contracted in time.

If you question is whether we should have seen ALL of these events--Mary taking photos

and handing them to Jean, Jean coating them with fixative, Jean and Mary stepping into

the street, Mary taking her Polaroid in the street, Jean and Mary stepping back on the

grass, Mary getting down and tugging at Jean's leg, Jean standing there in disbelief that

anyone would be shooting at her--in a genuine film of the assassination, I would grant

that that is not necessarily the case. But we actually see NONE of them. NOT ONE!

Are you even willing to grant that they were under surveillance, which was apparent

when one of these "officials" reached into Jean's pocket and removed Mary's photos?

That's the point, Lamson. Did you even bother to read this study? There are many,

many additional indications that the film is a fabrication. Surely you are not as dumb

as you look! That these things happened and are not in the film provides additional

proof that it is a fabrication. Sometimes I wonder what's wrong with you. REALLY!

The only advantage that Mary and Jean have over you is that they were there! Go

back and re-study all the material here that challenges the authenticity of the films.

Then, if you should be capable of formulating an intelligent question, do it! But when

you make an ass of yourself, it does nothing to advance the search for truth about JFK.

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."

I'll ask again, what Zapruder frame? Simple question, how about an answer THIS time?

The question is right to the point. Where in Zapuruder would Jean be when she commited the acts quoted above? Surely, given your self-proclaimed greatness, you can point us to the frame where she should be when this occured. Its a simple question and your continued dodging speaks VOLUMES about your intellectual honesty or lack thereof.

Surely you are not this dumb. When you have done the research why not give us an intelligent answer...for a change. When you dodge such simple quetions it does nothing to advance the truth (as if thats really your goal anyway) and it only makes you look like an ass.

Well the fact is you can't show the film is false so your claims fail. Its really easy to explain away your "conclusions" about the alleged alteration of the Zapruder film...you are ignorant. But once again where would you EXPECT to see all of this action? Give us a frame number range?

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll ask him if there's anything to it. But you know, you are deceitful about

practically everything related to this case, so this claim doesn't excite me.

That's the point, Lamson. Did you even bother to read this study? There are many,

many additional indications that the film is a fabrication. Surely you are not as dumb

as you look! That these things happened and are not in the film provides additional

proof that it is a fabrication. Sometimes I wonder what's wrong with you. REALLY!

The only advantage that Mary and Jean have over you is that they were there! Go

back and re-study all the material here that challenges the authenticity of the films.

Then, if you should be capable of formulating an intelligent question, do it! But when

you make an ass of yourself, it does nothing to advance the search for truth about JFK.

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."

I'll ask again, what Zapruder frame? Simple question, how about an answer THIS time?

BTW, can we expect you to remove, from your website and from the next printing of Hoax (if there is one) the false claims by John Costella about the lamp post and sfreeway sign as proven here?

John Costella's sign and lamppost mistake folly

Are you intellectually honest?

Whats the matter, you need somone else to tell you what to think before you can answer? The concept is pretty simply and since you have no trouble pimping Costellas's claims ( unless you are pimping them without understanding them) then reaching your own conclusion can't be that hard for you, can it? After all you can confirm my findings by simply walking outside and observing. You do have the ability to do something that simple don't you?

You did not have the intellectual honesty to check the validity of these false claims by Costella before you published them in Hoax and on your website. Lets see if you have any intellectual honesty now.

John Costella's sign and lamppost mistake folly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[ name=James H. Fetzer' date='Mar 26 2009, 09:37 PM' post='164692]

All,

Barb Junkkarinen and Bill Miller have been attacking me regarding Jean Hill,

citing a remark she made during an interview on Black Op Radio to refute

my contention that she and Mary had both stepped into the street that day.

I wish you'd state the facts correctly, Mr. Fetzer. I agree that Moorman and Hill stepped into the street that day - I disagree with you that they were in the street during the actual shooting. There is a difference and your inability to state it correctly calls into question in my mind that you may be purposely doing this. Seeing how you mentioned the other forum ... this si what I had to say to you idiocy ...

The cancer (Fetzer's 'half-@##$%' propaganda) spreads. It's a shame that Mr.

Fetzer didn't take up any questions with Jean Hill when she was alive like some

of the rest of us, including Osanic's radio show had done, but maybe if one's

intention is to misstate the facts so to promote a book, then waiting until the

witness is dead and out of the way so not to hinder one's efforts is a necessary

tool in Fetzer's mind. And before I go any further ... let us observe that the

same thing has and will continue to happen with Bill Newman. I don't have Jean's

book in front of me, but I have a fairly good recollection of it in my mind to

this day for I also have in my mind the discussions Jean and I had in regards to

a few matters.

Mr. Fetzer mentions Jean getting down into the street, but Jean said that she

didn't know if her calling out is what caused it, but that Kennedy had then

turned to her side of the street. That at the same instant she had thought that

the Secret Service wasn't going to appreciate her getting so close to the car.

If someone simply goes to the Zapruder film and watches the president, they will

be able to see EXACTLY when JFK turned to look to Jean's side of the street. The

event that Jean Hill tells of occurred between Z133 and Z157. By Z162 the

President never looked back to Jean's side of the street and by Z202 Kennedy had

been shot. Now how difficult would it have to be for a 'critical thinker' not to

see that Kennedy didn't turn and look to Jean's side of the street smiling AFTER

he had been shot????????? I say give us a damn break, Mr. Fetzer for who is

playing who for saps! Only a con-man would by-pass this observation in hopes of

selling his snake-oil in my view.

I would like to also point out that what was said pertaining to how close Jean

had gotten to the car was a figure of speech and had you of simply asked her

about this as I did, then Mr. Fetzer would have known better than to try and run

with such nonsense. What Jean Hill said to me was that if she had remained in

the street ... that she would have been right up to the car and immediately knew

that "they" (the SS agents) would not stand for her being so close to the car.

What Jean said to me was that she got back out of the street as quickly as she

had jumped into it.

But let us not take my word for this ... let's put on our 'critical thinking'

caps and consider the story that Mr. Fetzer is trying to sell here. For

instance, who in the entire world doesn't think that had some woman of ran up to

the car while the shooting was going on that Jean Hill would not have been in a

world of trouble afterwards. Who doesn't believe that Jean Hill would have been

taken down in a heartbeat - hauled in for questioning - and made to regret ever

thinking about getting right up next to the car. Who believes that not a single

witness would have mentioned this foolish move on Jean Hill's part. Earlier in

the motorcade the Agents were on top of a youngster who had tried to do the same

thing, so who in their right God-damned mind would believe that such an action

would have been allowed to slide had Jean Hill went for the car while the

President was being shot all to hell? Anyone besides Mr. Fetzer wishes to step

up and look like a total idiot?? I didn't think so!

One might ask themselves why if Mr. Fetzer believed that Jean Hill had been

right at the car AFTER Z202, then why is this not in any reports? Why did not

single witness mention a woman rushing to the car once the shooting started??

The reason is because it didn't happen. Jean Hill was asked by a radio listener

just exactly when was it that she had been the street and Jean clarified when

that occurred. The earliest image of Jean Hill came when Charles Bronson took

his photo which equates to Z229/Z230. That photo Bronson took shows Jean Hill in

motion and back onto the grass. Mr. Fetzer the 'critical thinker' seems to be

more of a 'critical stinker' when it comes to reasonable rational thinking. I

hope history sees Mr. Fetzer as what he really is and that's a cancer on the

research community!

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In continuing to dig into the morass, as it has been called by some in the past..of the ..

.."The Zapruder Film".......

What I regard imo, as another go-around and using two more witnesses , who are unable to speak for themselves at present...

By whomever, is that their conclusions and opinions are, simply put....that Mary & Jean's given information of their actions that

day Nov.22/63....is in error..

Which is their perogative and is a given.....

Some continue to ask, why did no one report what Jean Mary have mentioned re their actions that day....

Were they asked,?? comes to mind....

Such as some apparently who have posted and do believe that the Umbrella man did not spin

nor pump such up an down .....but as posted and shown within another thread, it may be , Did Zapruder take the Zapruder film..?

He does pump the umbrella and spin it, and that is seen within the Zapruder film.

Yet no witness reported this action either..

Now let's for this post, put aside what Mary Moorman and Jean Hill stated that does differ...with their actions seen within the film.....

.........lets go in another direction..

I found that in re-reading just this one article below, thanks to, and written by Michael Griffith..

Names in relation to the Zapruder film....

and have listed just those mentioned, in such..that lead to information pertaining to Zapruder film alteration....

There are more than likely many more within the links that are included..

I continue to find such, very interesting....each time...I do so.....

Michael T. Griffith

Dr. Luis Alvarez.

Physicist Art Snyder

Noel Twyman,

J. Edgar Hoover aide Cartha DeLoach

Charles Brehm's son

William Newman

Special Agent George Hickey

Newsman James Altgens

Special Agent George Hickey

James Fetzer

Mark North

Dr. David Mantik

Mathematician Daryll Weatherly

William Greer

Mike Pincher

Roy Schaeffer

Secret Service Special Agent Sam Kinney

Chester Breneman

Dan Rather

Abraham Zapruder

Patrolman Bobby Hargis

Secret Service survey

Douglas Horne/ARRB

Philip Melansen

Dr. Mantik says the following:

A strong case can now be made for extensive editing of the Zapruder film. In fact, the conclusion seems inescapable--the film was deliberately altered. No other explanation is in the same league, in terms of explanatory power, for the myriad of anomalous characteristics that are seen everywhere in this case. Many frames were excised, some individual frames were extensively altered, others were changed only enough to fill in for missing frames, and others were left alone. . . .

What can be made of the absurd paradoxes of (supposed) camera tracking errors that are totally inconsistent with what actually appears in the relevant frame? When the frame contents shift by enormous amounts, corresponding blurs must be seen. There is no cinematic magic that can avoid such realities. And what can be said about intersprocket magnifications that are grossly different in two frames, particularly when tracking nonsense surfaces in the same frames? And now, thanks to Noel Twyman, we have the image of The Soaring Bird and of The Black Hole. These could have provided precisely the kind of reference points for pin registration that would be essential for frame to frame editing.

Why else are these images there? They do recur persistently throughout the film. And when they are absent, where do they go--unless someone has deliberately omitted them? And where exactly did the intersprocket image of the right motorcycle come from? And why is it never visible in the central image?

Why does the intersprocket image of the motorcycle skip around? Why is the intersprocket image darker after about Z235? Why do so many odd features occur within the intersprocket area? Why is the intersprocket image missing in frames Z413 and 414?

And so the questions come, one after another, like automatic rifle fire. How much more evidence is required before reason prevails? At the very least, the proposal of film alteration deserves extensive consideration and serious discussion--even among those who are still inclined to be doubters. For these individuals, there is now much to explain. It is time for them to put on their ten-league boots and begin climbing this small mountain of data. (Assassination Science, p. 340, original emphasis).....

EVIDENCE OF ALTERATION IN THE ZAPRUDER FILM

Michael T. Griffith

1998

@All Rights Reserved

Third Edition

Revised and Expanded on 4/8/98

What follows are some of the indications that the Zapruder film has been altered. By "altered" I mean that certain frames have been removed and that others are composites. Why was the film altered? To remove episodes and images that clearly showed there were more than three shots (at least one from the front) and therefore that there were multiple gunmen involved in the shooting. I have gathered most of these points from the historic new book Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out On The Death Of JFK, about which more will be said further on in this article.

* Numerous witnesses, over 40, including the escort patrolmen to the rear of the limousine, said the limousine stopped or slowed down drastically for a second or two. The Muchmore film shows the limousine's brake lights on for nine frames (about half a second) during the time period corresponding to about frames 311-319 of the Zapruder film. This event is not seen in the Zapruder film; in fact, the limousine never comes close to performing this action in the current film.

Opponents of alteration cite the virtually invisible, extremely brief slowing identified by physicist Dr. Luis Alvarez. This slowing occurs from about Z295-304, as the car decelerates from approximately 12 to 8 mph in half a second. However, in the film this event is so subtle that it is usually not noticed by viewers. No one appears to have noticed it, in fact, until Dr. Alvarez, through careful study and analysis of the film, detected it. It seems highly unlikely that this subtle, half-second slowing is what the witnesses were describing when they said the limousine came to a full stop or slowed down drastically.

* However, the sudden slowing of the limousine from 12 to 8 mph in Z295-304 does present another problem for the film's authenticity. Though the slowdown is not very noticeable in the film, it represents a deceleration of about 0.37 g. Physicist Art Snyder notes that such a rapid slowing would be expected to toss things around, and he adds that most cars do not decelerate more than 0.4 g. When one examines the frames immediately after this deceleration, one sees no visible effect on the occupants from such a dramatic slowing. The fact that JFK is not moved by this deceleration is particularly interesting because he no longer had voluntary muscular control and should have been thrown forward. Yet for many frames before and after this event he appears to be quite immobile. So, assuming Dr. Alvarez's data are accurate, the sudden reduction in speed that he detected would seem to constitute further evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film. Could it be that this half-second slowing is a remnant of what was originally a much longer, more noticeable deceleration?

* Dr. Roderick Ryan believes he has discovered that the limousine is actually standing still in Z303 but is moving in Z302, even though the limousine appears to be moving at a nearly uniform speed in the film during this time (Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON, Rancho Santa Fe, CA: Laurel Publishing, 1997, pp. 158-159, 164-165). Notes Noel Twyman,

Experience tells us that the limousine could not have decelerated from 11 miles per hour to a complete stop in 1/18 second. (BLOODY TREASON, p. 165)

Dr. Ryan made this discovery by analyzing the blurring of background images in the two frames. Moreover, Dr. Ryan's son, who also works in motion picture film technology, studied the film and confirmed his father's discovery (BLOODY TREASON, p. 159).

In case some might be wondering about Dr. Ryan's background, he is a retired scientist from Kodak. He holds a Ph.D. from USC, majoring in cinema and communications. He worked for Kodak for 29 years. He spent his entire career in motion picture film technology. He is a recipient of the Scientific and Engineering Award from the Society of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. He has authored numerous books on motion picture technology and several articles on motion picture science. In addition, he is a Fellow of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and a member of the Committee for Selection of Scientific and Technical Awards, Special Effects, Documentary Films.

* In Z353-356 we see Malcolm Summers diving to the ground. Summers is to the right of James Altgens. In Z353 Summers' left leg is extended most of the way out. But, in the very next frame, Z354, amazingly, the foreleg is bent markedly backward. Can anyone flex their foreleg to that degree so quickly? In 1/18th of a second?

In Z355 Summers' left leg is bent even farther backward. Can anyone move their foreleg that much in 1/9th of a second (from its position in Z353 to its position in Z355)?

Then, in Z356, the left foot seems to be on the ground. Can anyone whip their left foreleg backward and then put their foot on the ground in the space of three frames, 1/6th of a second?

* Another seemingly impossible action in the Zapruder film is the extremely rapid and precise movement of Charles Brehm's son in Z277-287. In Z277 Brehm junior is standing behind his father. Then, from Z277-287, or in just over half a second, he bolts out from behind his father and comes to stand beside him, clapping his hands no less. In other words, in Z277 Brehm junior is standing behind his father, but, just ten frames later, he is standing calmly and steadily beside him and clapping his hands--all in a fraction over half a second. Ten frames of the Zapruder film, calculated at the assumed speed of 18.3 frames per second, equals .56 seconds (or 560 milliseconds).

I attempted to duplicate the speed of the son's movement, but was unable to do so in the manner seen in the film. When I moved myself around a chair fast enough to appear from behind it to beside it in the required time, I was unable to come to a stop the way the son does in the film. In the film the son, after just over half a second, is standing calmly beside his father clapping his hands. I could not duplicate this feat. Again, when I did move myself around the chair fast enough, I could not stop with that kind of speed and precision and come to be clapping my hands by the time I stopped.

While working on the present edition of this article, I conducted a simulation with my eleven year-old son, Jacob. I had Jacob stand behind a chair and asked him to duplicate the actions of Brehm's son as quickly as possible. I showed him exactly what he had to do. Jacob carried out the movements twelve times. With a stop watch in hand, I timed each attempt. Jacob's times were as follows: .97, .99, .89, .92, 1.03, .92, .89, .99, .97, .85, .82, and .77, as compared to Brehm's son's amazing time of .56. Jacob was unable to perform the required actions as rapidly as Brehm's son performs them in the Zapruder film. For his last three attempts, Jacob was practically jumping out from behind the chair. And, bear in mind, Jacob was purposely trying to move as rapidly as he could. Yet, he was unable to duplicate the feat of Brehm's son.

I have pressed opponents of alteration to explain this amazing feat of Brehm's son. So far none has been able to do so. They cite the fact that Brehm's son also moves out from behind his father in the Muchmore film. However, as others have noted, the extant Muchmore film is not the original, and some researchers believe the film might have been altered in an attempt to make it roughly conform with the edited Zapruder film.

As I've said in JFK discussion groups on the Internet, I would invite anyone to attempt to duplicate the movement of Brehm's son--to whip around an object, turning sharply in the process, stop on a dime with no need to steady himself, and clap at the same time, all in the equivalent of ten frames, or in just over half a second. To put it another way, to duplicate this movement, a person would need to be standing behind an object one moment and then come to be calmly standing and clapping beside it just 10/18th of a second later. If someone claims he or she can do this, I would invite that individual to videotape the feat and make the tape available for others to view. At this time, I am convinced this movement is impossible, and that this episode is proof of alteration in the Zapruder film.

* Several witnesses said Kennedy was knocked visibly forward by a shot to the head, and Dan Rather reported seeing this event when he viewed the film the day after the shooting. No such motion of the head is now visible in the film, only the split-second forward movement from Z312-313, which no one could have noticed.

Former FBI official and J. Edgar Hoover aide Cartha DeLoach recently provided further evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film (albeit unintentionally and unknowingly, I'm sure). DeLoach recalls in his book HOOVER'S FBI that he watched the Zapruder film at FBI HQ the day after the shooting and that he saw Kennedy "PITCHING SUDDENLY FORWARD" in the film. No such motion, of course, is seen in the current film.

Newsman James Altgens, who was standing on Elm Street, to the left front of the limousine, with an excellent view of the shooting, when asked if he saw the backward head snap, replied that he didn't see it and that he thought reports of it were based on an optical illusion.

Special Agent George Hickey, riding in the follow-up car, said the final shot made Kennedy "fall forward and to his left."

William Newman, who was standing on the Elm Street sidewalk right in front of the grassy knoll and who had one of the best views of the shooting, tried to tell New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison that JFK was knocked forward and to the left as if struck by a baseball bat, but Garrison wouldn't believe him because the event wasn't in the film.

I believe the above is good evidence that the original Zapruder film showed Kennedy being knocked rapidly forward. How do defenders of the film's authenticity explain this testimony? They seem to have two approaches to this evidence: They either dismiss all of it as mistaken or they note that Kennedy does eventually fall forward and that this is what the witnesses were describing. Yes, Kennedy does eventually fall forward, but this occurs after the violent backward head snap and is a much slower motion, a motion that is clearly the natural result of Kennedy losing consciousness and simply falling over into his wife's lap. The witnesses, on the other hand, seemed to be saying that the impact of the head shot knocked or strongly pushed Kennedy forward, which is not seen in the current film.

In the current film, Kennedy's head is knocked forward from Z312-313 by the impact of a bullet. No one disputes this. With regard to these frames, Itek noted, "the President's head is subjected to a large acceleration forward." Itek calculated that Kennedy's head is knocked forward 2.3 inches and his right shoulder about 1.1 inches from Z312-313. Bear in mind that each frame represents only 1/18th of a second. But, amazingly, by Z314 the head is suddenly moving backward. I suggest that in the original film the marked forward motion that begins at Z312 did not end at Z313 but continued for at least several frames and probably more, and that this was the forward movement seen and described by witnesses.

* The violent, dramatic backward head snap in Z313-323, which for so many years was thought to be concrete proof of a shot from the front, actually constitutes further evidence of alteration. It has been established that no bullet striking the front of the skull could have caused the backward head snap. However, no bullet striking from behind could have caused this motion either. Warren Commission supporters have put forth two theories to explain how a bullet striking from behind might have caused the head snap, the jet-effect theory and the neuromuscular-reaction theory. Both theories are untenable (see, for example, ("Special Effects in the Zapruder Film: How the Film of the Century was Edited," in James Fetzer, ed., Assassination Science, Chicago: Catfeet Press, 1997, pp. 279-284; Mark North, Act Of Treason, New York: Carroll and Graf, 1991, pp. 383-385). So if neither a bullet from the front nor a bullet from behind could have caused the head snap, what caused it? A few researchers have speculated that Jackie was the cause of the head snap, that is, that she shoved JFK backward, but it is extremely doubtful that she was strong enough to throw her husband's torso backward with such terrific force. The head snap is a physical impossibility, at least according to everything we now know about physics and the human body. So how can we explain it? Dr. David Mantik, who holds a doctorate in physics, suggests that what we now see as the head snap was originally a much slower motion and was actually the action of Jackie lifting her husband back up to look at him.

* Seemingly impossible inconsistencies occur in the streaking of background figures in relation to the camera's movement. Mathematician Daryll Weatherly's vector analysis of image streaking constitutes powerful evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film. Dr. Mantik explains,

Weatherly, in an insightful analysis, takes [physicist Dr. Luis] Alvarez's work to its logical conclusion and raises new and curious issues related to image streaking. For example, between Z-193 and Z-194 the camera moves to the left. This is easily determined by simply looking at the right edge of the frame--the image shifts with respect to the frame edge, presumably as a result of uneven camera movement (i.e., poor tracking). As Alvarez noted, such a movement should produce streaking--of the background figures, the sign, and the closer bystanders. But none of this is seen--it is all quite paradoxical. Based on this, Weatherly proposes that this is a composite scene. This is a remarkably simple and powerful argument. It is difficult to avoid this conclusion. (Assassination Science, p. 315)

Another case of inconsistent image streaking occurs in Z212. In this frame the posts on the Stemmons Freeway sign are noticeably blurred, but the holes in the masonry wall in the background are very well defined. "Since neither of these objects is moving," observes Dr. Mantik, "their visual definition should be similar--but it is not" (Assassination Science, p. 315).

* A white spot on the grass behind the limousine is seen to behave in an unnatural manner. When the spot's width is measured in relation to the camera's tracking, the spot should be at its smallest when the image is at the left edge of the frame. But it doesn't do this. On some occasions, the spot's width is two to three times what it should be. And the frame to frame displacement of the white spot becomes especially egregious when the spot moves into the intersprocket area. Between Z334 and Z335, the displacement of the spot is 180 PERCENT OF NORMAL. Critics of alteration note that the white spot also appears in a photo taken by Richard Bothun. This, however, does not explain the unnatural way the spot behaves in the Zapruder film.

* The head turn of the driver, William Greer, from Z315-317 is too fast--it seems to be well beyond human capability. His head turns about 165 degrees in six frames, or in only 1/3rd of a second. Furthermore, attorney Mike Pincher and Roy Schaeffer argue that the Greer head turn should create blurring in the film since the human eye can't remain focused when following such a rapid movement, but no blurring is seen:

If the reader flashes his hand in front of his face in approximation of one-third of a second, it appears as a blur. The eyes are incapable of staying in full focus in following this action. If Greer's 165-degree movement in one-third of a second truly depicted real time, it would likewise appear as a blur. But blurring of this nature is not seen in the Zapruder film. (Assassination Science, p. 223)

* At least four witnesses saw blood and brain from Kennedy's skull blow out toward the rear of the limousine. Blood and brain splattered onto the left side of the follow-up car's windshield and onto the driver's arm. A considerable amount of blood and brain also splattered onto the two patrolmen who were riding to the limousine's left rear. At least one of those witnesses specified that the brain matter blew out from the back of the skull, and dozens of witnesses, including doctors and nurses, saw a large hole in the right rear part of President Kennedy's head. In the Zapruder film no blood or brain is seen to spray backward. (It cannot be said that the right frontal explosion of blood and brain, which is itself suspect, caused all the blood splattering. In the Zapruder film the right-frontal spray blows mainly forward, and also up and toward the camera, and quickly dissipates--in fact it dissipates in no more than three frames. This effusion of spray could not have caused all of the blood splattering that occurred.)

Secret Service Special Agent Sam Kinney was the driver of the follow-up car in Kennedy's motorcade and thus had a bird's-eye view of the shooting. In interviews with Vincent Palamara between 1992 and 1994, Kinney made some interesting and important observations about what he saw and about his impressions concerning the shooting. Of particular interest are Kinney's comments about the large head wound in the President's head:

He had no brain left [in the wound created by the shot]. It was blown out. . . . there was nothing left. . . . [The wound was in] the back of the head. I saw it hit and I saw his hair come out . . . . I had brain matter all over my windshield and left arm, that's how close we were to it. It was the right rear part of his head, because that's the part I saw blow out. I saw hair come out, the piece [of skull] blow out, then the skin went back in--an explosion in and out. ("The Secret Service Interviews," Kennedy Assassination Chronicles, Summer 1997, p. 20, emphasis added)

When Kinney was told about the description of the exit wound given by a number of the doctors who treated Kennedy at Parkland Hospital right after the shooting, he replied,

I would say that, too. . . . ("The Secret Service Interviews," p. 20, emphasis added)

Kinney's description of a large, blown-out right-rear exit wound matches the reports given by numerous Parkland doctors and nurses and by several witnesses at the autopsy. Also, his account of particulate matter exploding out the back of the skull and landing on his windshield and left arm agrees with Patrolman Bobby Hargis's report that the head shot sent blood and brain flying toward him so fast that when it struck him he initially thought he himself had been hit and that the debris got all over his motorcycle and uniform (in an interview he gave a few years ago, Hargis described the head shot as an "explosion"). Hargis, of course, was riding to the left rear of the limousine.

* There are marked disagreements between the descriptions of those who saw the film soon after the assassination and what is now in the film. Dan Rather's reference to Kennedy's head being knocked forcefully forward is one case in point. Another example is the account of surveyor Chester Breneman, who was allowed to study enlargements of Zapruder frames to aid him in determining locations and distances. Breneman insisted that on some of the frames he saw a blob of blood and brain blow out from the back of Kennedy's head. No such event is visible on the current film. (As mentioned, some witnesses in the plaza likewise saw blood and brain blown backward.)

* The bloody spray from the right-frontal explosion that is seen in the film blows upward, forward, and also toward the camera, and is really clearly visible for only one frame, and dissipates in two to three frames--or in no more than 1/6th of a second. Yet, in films of two ballistics tests the resulting spray is visible for multiple frames. In other words, the right-frontal effusion in the Zapruder film seems to disappear too quickly, with unnatural speed.

* The 12/5/63 Secret Service survey placed the shots at approximately Z208, Z276, and Z358. A head shot at Z358 corresponds with the accounts of Emmett Hudson and James Altgens. Additionally, CE 2111, a Secret Service report, identifies the manhole cover on the side of Elm Street as being located almost opposite the limousine at the time of the last shot--the manhole cover is some 70 feet beyond the spot on the street that corresponds to Z313, which is when the head shot occurs in the current film. (There are several indications that there were TWO head shots. Dr. Mantik opines the first head shot occurred at around Z306-313 and that another one followed a short time later. He believes the current rapid backward head snap that starts at Z313 was originally a much slower motion and, as mentioned, might very well have been the action of Jackie lifting her husband back up to look at him.)

* There is a "remarkably symmetric" plus sign at the center of Elm Street in Z028 (Z28). This might have been used as a register mark for aligning the film when it was being copied by those who altered the film.

* There are magnification anomalies in the film for which there appears to be no credible natural or innocent explanation. One clear example of this is the measured width between the two posts on the back side of the Stemmons Freeway sign from Z312-318. This distance increases by over 12 percent in only six frames. Yet, from Z191-207 the interval remains constant. Some might attempt to explain this anomaly by suggesting that the lens was nonlinear for objects so far off the central axis. But, even if this were the case, it would still be unusual for such inconsistent changes to occur so abruptly within the lens, and lens aberrations do not normally occur in such an erratic fashion anyway.

* Abraham Zapruder told CBS News that he began filming as soon as the President's limousine turned onto Elm Street from Houston Street, as one would logically expect him to have done. But the present Zapruder film begins with the limousine already on Elm Street at Z133. On the day after the assassination, Dan Rather of CBS News watched what was quite possibly an earlier version of the film. Rather reported that in the film he watched that day the limousine "made a turn, a left turn, off Houston Street onto Elm Street." Again, no such event is now seen in the film. In the current film there is a long gap between the earlier motorcycles and the limousine's first appearance at Z133. Why would Zapruder have expended valuable film on the motorcycles but not have taken as much footage as he could of the limousine? Why did he report he had filmed the limousine when it turned onto Elm Street? And what of the left turn from Houston Street onto Elm Street that Rather observed in the film when he viewed it the day after the shooting?

Before I conclude, I would like to address two questions that have been raised by those who deny alteration: Why would the forgers, who were presumably trying to conceal or remove evidence of multiple gunmen and of shots from the front, produce an altered film that included the rapid backward head snap seen in the current film? And, why would the forgers have produced a film that contained indications of more than three shots? My answer to both of these objections is twofold: One, they do not explain the evidence of alteration. If there is scientific proof of alteration, then these philosophical objections must be rejected. Two, I do not believe the forgers were at all satisfied with the results of their tampering. I think they had to create the backward head snap because they had to remove images that were even more unacceptable and problematic. We must keep in mind that the Zapruder film was suppressed from public view for over a decade. In short, I believe the forgers concluded that even after all of their editing the film was still unacceptable, and that this is why the film was suppressed for so long.

I stress that this list contains only some of the indications of fakery in the Zapruder film. I would urge the reader to read the chapters on the signs of alteration in the Zapruder film in the new book Assassination Science, edited by Professor James Fetzer of the University of Minnesota. Concerning the evidence that the Zapruder film has been altered, Dr. Mantik says the following:

A strong case can now be made for extensive editing of the Zapruder film. In fact, the conclusion seems inescapable--the film was deliberately altered. No other explanation is in the same league, in terms of explanatory power, for the myriad of anomalous characteristics that are seen everywhere in this case. Many frames were excised, some individual frames were extensively altered, others were changed only enough to fill in for missing frames, and others were left alone. . . .

What can be made of the absurd paradoxes of (supposed) camera tracking errors that are totally inconsistent with what actually appears in the relevant frame? When the frame contents shift by enormous amounts, corresponding blurs must be seen. There is no cinematic magic that can avoid such realities. And what can be said about intersprocket magnifications that are grossly different in two frames, particularly when tracking nonsense surfaces in the same frames? And now, thanks to Noel Twyman, we have the image of The Soaring Bird and of The Black Hole. These could have provided precisely the kind of reference points for pin registration that would be essential for frame to frame editing.

Why else are these images there? They do recur persistently throughout the film. And when they are absent, where do they go--unless someone has deliberately omitted them? And where exactly did the intersprocket image of the right motorcycle come from? And why is it never visible in the central image?

Why does the intersprocket image of the motorcycle skip around? Why is the intersprocket image darker after about Z235? Why do so many odd features occur within the intersprocket area? Why is the intersprocket image missing in frames Z413 and 414?

And so the questions come, one after another, like automatic rifle fire. How much more evidence is required before reason prevails? At the very least, the proposal of film alteration deserves extensive consideration and serious discussion--even among those who are still inclined to be doubters. For these individuals, there is now much to explain. It is time for them to put on their ten-league boots and begin climbing this small mountain of data. (Assassination Science, p. 340, original emphasis)

If you have not read Assassination Science, I would urge you to do so. It is quite possibly the most important book ever published on the death of President Kennedy. It truly represents a breakthrough in the case. Noel Twyman's book Bloody Treason also presents evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film, along with other important developments relating to the assassination.

Even if some of the apparent technical anomalies in the Zapruder film can be explained, strong indications of tampering would still remain. To put it another way, if opponents of alteration are able to explain the absence of background streaking in certain frames, the magnification anomalies, the odd behavior of the white spot, and other seeming difficulties, would this establish the film's authenticity? No. Otherwise, do we dismiss the witnesses who reported the limousine stopped or slowed drastically? Do we dismiss the witnesses who saw blood and brain blown visibly to the rear? Do we dismiss the fact that the backward head snap is physically impossible according to everything we know about physics and the human body? Do we dismiss the fact that Zapruder said he filmed the motorcade from the time it turned onto Elm Street? Do we dismiss the fact that Brehm's son is positioned behind his father one moment but half a second later is standing calmly clapping at his side? Do we dismiss the fact that the 12/5/63 Secret Service survey placed the last shot at Z358 and that this placement matches the testimony of Emmett Hudson and James Altgens regarding the explosive head shot?

The numerous indications of alteration in the Zapruder film naturally raise some disturbing questions. The answer to the question of why the film was altered is fairly apparent--to conceal obvious evidence of a frontal shot, of multiple gunmen, and of more than three hits. But, who performed the alteration? Whoever they were, they were very well connected (so as to gain access to the film) and had at their disposal considerable technical expertise. It would seem self-evident that those who altered the Zapruder film were either working with or following orders from the men who were responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy.

Though it has been 34 years since the shooting, a special prosecutor or a Congressional committee should be appointed to investigate this matter.

A declassified CIA document indicates the Zapruder film was detoured to a sophisticated CIA photographic lab relatively soon after the assassination, and quite possibly on the night of the shooting. Professor Phillip Melanson has discussed this declassified document and what it reveals about the handling of the film in his famous article "Hidden Exposure: Cover-Up and Intrigue in the CIA's Secret Possession of the Zapruder Film" in The Third Decade, November 1984. A summary of the main points of Melanson's findings is included in Assassination Science.

Though many researchers have long suspected the Zapruder film was altered at the CIA, there is some indication that at least part of the alteration might have been done at the FBI.

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

MICHAEL T. GRIFFITH is a two-time graduate of the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, and of the U.S. Air Force Technical Training School in San Angelo, Texas. His articles on the JFK assassination have appeared in THE DEALEY PLAZA ECHO, in THE ASSASSINATION CHRONICLES, and in the JFK/DEEP POLITICS QUARTERLY. He is the author of the book COMPELLING EVIDENCE: A NEW LOOK AT THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY (Grand Prairie, TX: JFK Lancer Productions, 1996). He is also the author of four books on Mormonism and ancient religious texts.

Back to Michael T. Griffith

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/g...Alteration.html

""Professor Phillip Melanson has discussed this declassified document and what it reveals about the handling of the film in his famous article "Hidden Exposure: Cover-Up and Intrigue in the CIA's Secret Possession of the Zapruder Film" in The Third Decade, November 1984. A summary of the main points of Melanson's findings is included in Assassination Science.""

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=520770

""A declassified CIA document indicates the Zapruder film was detoured to a sophisticated CIA photographic lab relatively soon after the assassination, and quite possibly on the night of the shooting...""

The following excerpts are taken from three enclosures in ARRB Document

D-133, which was prepared by Doug Horne.

Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 07/15/97

Date: 07/14/97

Topic: ARRB Interviewed Homer McMahon

. . .

Mr. McMahon was manager of the NPIC (National Photo Interpretation

Center) color lab in 1963. About two days after the assassination of

President Kennedy, but before the funeral took place, a Secret Service

agent named "Bill Smith" delivered an amateur film of the assassination

to NPIC and requested that color prints be mde of frames believed to be

associated with wounding ("frames in which shots occurred"), for purpos-

es of assembling a briefing board. Mr. Smith did not explain who the

briefing boards would be for, or who would be briefed. The only persons

who witnessed this activity (which McMahon described as "an all night

job") were USSS agent Smith, Homer McMahon, and Ben Hunter (McMahon's

assistant). Although no materials produced were stamped with classifi-

cations markings, Smith told McMahon that the subject matter was to be

treated as "above top secret"; McMahon said not even his supervisor was

allowed to know what he was working on, nor was his supervisor allowed

to participate. Smith told McMahon that the had personally picked up

the film (in an undeveloped condition from the man who exposed it) in

Dallas, flown it to Rochester, N.Y. (where it was developed by Kodak),

and then flown it down to NPIC in Washington so that enlargements of

selected frames could be made on NPIC's state-of-the-art equipment.

After the film (either an unslit original or possibly a duplicate)

was viewed more than once on a 16 mm projector in a briefing room at

NPIC, the original (a double-8 mm unslit original) was placed in a 10x

20x40 precison enlarger, and 5" X 7" format internegatives were made

from selected frames. A full-immersion "wet-gate" or liquid gate pro-

cess was used on the original film to reduce refractivity of the film

and maximize the optical quality of the internegatives. Subsequently,

three each 5" X 7" contact prints were made from the internegative. He

recalled that a mimimum of 20, and a maximum of 40 frames were duplicat-

ed via internegatives and prints. All prints, internegatives, and scraps

were turned over to Bill Smith at the conclusion of the work.

. . .

Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 08/14/97

Date: 08/14/97

Topic: Processing of Zapruder Film by NPIC in 1963 (Revised August 15,

1997)

. . .

I asked both men [Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter] if they still recall-

ed that their event occurred prior to the President's funeral, and they

both emphatically said yes. Mr. McMahon said he believes they performed

their work the night of the same day the President was assassinated, and

Bennett Hunter said he was of the opinion they did their work on the sec-

ond night after the assassination (i.e., Saturday night).

. . .

Home McMahon remembered again that the Secret Service agent stated

definitively that the assassination movie was developed in Rochester,

and that copies of it were made in Rochester also, and that he personal-

ly watched one of those copies projected at least 10 times that night

prior to making the internegatives of selected frames. Mr. Hunter agreed

that it seemed very likely to him that the copies of the motion picture

film would "probably have been made in Rochester", but did not independ-

ently recall.

. . .

Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 06/18/97

Date: 06/17/97

Topic: ARRB Staff Interviewed Ben Hunter (Grammatical Edits Made on

June 19, 1997)(Final Edit Made June 20, 1997)

. . .

-The Zapruder film was not copied as a motion picture; in fact, Hun-

ter said that NPIC did not have that capability for color movies, since

they were in the business of still, B & W reconnaissance photography for

the most part. He said that the assigned task was to analyze (i.e., loc-

ate on the film) where occupants of the limousine were wounded, includ-

ing "studying frames leading up to shots", and then produce color prints

from appropriate frames just prior to shots, and also frames showing shots

impacting limousine occupants. He recalled laying the home movie out on

a light table and using a loupe to examine individual frames. He does not

recall whether they received any instructions as to number of shots, or

any guidance as to where to look in the film.

. . .

Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 07/15/97

Date: 07/14/97

Topic: ARRB Interviewed Homer McMahon

. . .

Although the process of selecting which frames depicted events sur-

rounding the wounding of limousine occupants (Kennedy and Connally) was

a "joint process", McMahon said his opinion, which was that President

Kennedy was shot 6 to 8 times from at least three directions, was ul-

timately ignored, and the opinion of USSS agent Smith, that there were

3 shots from behind from the Book Depository, ultimately was employed in

selecting frames in the movie for reproduction. At one point he said

"you can't fight city hall", and then reminded us that his job was to

produce internegatives and photographs, not to do analysis. He said

that it was clear that the Secret Service agent had previously viewed

the fim and already had opinions about which frames depicted woundings.

. . .

END

""* Abraham Zapruder told CBS News that he began filming as soon as the President's limousine turned onto Elm Street from Houston Street, as one would logically expect him to have done. But the present Zapruder film begins with the limousine already on Elm Street at Z133. On the day after the assassination, Dan Rather of CBS News watched what was quite possibly an earlier version of the film. Rather reported that in the film he watched that day the limousine "made a turn, a left turn, off Houston Street onto Elm Street." Again, no such event is now seen in the film. ""

Mr. LIEBELER - As you stood there on this abutment with your camera, the motorcade came down Houston Street and turned left on Elm Street, did it not?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER - And it proceeded then down Elm Street toward the triple underpass; is that correct?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's correct. I started shooting--when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street.

Mr. LIEBELER - Tell us what happened as you took these pictures.

Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, as the car came in line almost--I believe it was almost in line. I was standing up here and I was shooting through a telephoto lens, which is a zoom lens and as it reached about--I imagine it was around here--I heard the first shot and I saw the President lean over and grab himself like this (holding his left chest area).

Mr. LIEBELER - Grab himself on the front of his chest?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - Right---something like that. In other words, he was sitting like this and waving and then after the shot he just went like that.

Mr. LIEBELER - He was sitting upright in the car and you heard the shot and you saw the President slump over?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - Leaning--leaning toward the side of Jacqueline. For a moment I thought it was, you know, like you say, "Oh, he got me," when you hear a shot--you've heard these expressions and then I saw---I don't believe the President is going to make jokes like this, but before I had a chance to organize my mind, I heard a second shot and then I saw his head opened up and the blood and everything came out and I started--I can hardly talk about it [ the witness crying].

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/zapruder.htm

The Zapruder Film: Truth or Deception?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-rcdBNFnGs...ated&search

B... :tomatoes

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ANYONE using ANYTHING Jean Hill said as a means to prove a point needs their head examined :tomatoes

Duncan MacRae

Duncan...how much time did you spend talking to Jean Hill? Any?

Jack

Jack, It doesn't matter how much time I spent with her. Her ever changing story in print and on film is available for all who can be bothered checking it , then they can only come to one of two conclusions....1... That she suffered from false memory syndrome, or 2.... That she was an out and out xxxx.

Duncan

There are NO ever changing stories.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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, Miller, 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.

[ name=James H. Fetzer' date='Mar 26 2009, 09:37 PM' post='164692]

All,

Barb Junkkarinen and Bill Miller have been attacking me regarding Jean Hill,

citing a remark she made during an interview on Black Op Radio to refute

my contention that she and Mary had both stepped into the street that day.

I wish you'd state the facts correctly, Mr. Fetzer. I agree that Moorman and Hill stepped into the street that day - I disagree with you that they were in the street during the actual shooting. There is a difference and your inability to state it correctly calls into question in my mind that you may be purposely doing this. Seeing how you mentioned the other forum ... this si what I had to say to you idiocy ...

The cancer (Fetzer's 'half-@##$%' propaganda) spreads. It's a shame that Mr.

Fetzer didn't take up any questions with Jean Hill when she was alive like some

of the rest of us, including Osanic's radio show had done, but maybe if one's

intention is to misstate the facts so to promote a book, then waiting until the

witness is dead and out of the way so not to hinder one's efforts is a necessary

tool in Fetzer's mind. And before I go any further ... let us observe that the

same thing has and will continue to happen with Bill Newman. I don't have Jean's

book in front of me, but I have a fairly good recollection of it in my mind to

this day for I also have in my mind the discussions Jean and I had in regards to

a few matters.

Mr. Fetzer mentions Jean getting down into the street, but Jean said that she

didn't know if her calling out is what caused it, but that Kennedy had then

turned to her side of the street. That at the same instant she had thought that

the Secret Service wasn't going to appreciate her getting so close to the car.

If someone simply goes to the Zapruder film and watches the president, they will

be able to see EXACTLY when JFK turned to look to Jean's side of the street. The

event that Jean Hill tells of occurred between Z133 and Z157. By Z162 the

President never looked back to Jean's side of the street and by Z202 Kennedy had

been shot. Now how difficult would it have to be for a 'critical thinker' not to

see that Kennedy didn't turn and look to Jean's side of the street smiling AFTER

he had been shot????????? I say give us a damn break, Mr. Fetzer for who is

playing who for saps! Only a con-man would by-pass this observation in hopes of

selling his snake-oil in my view.

I would like to also point out that what was said pertaining to how close Jean

had gotten to the car was a figure of speech and had you of simply asked her

about this as I did, then Mr. Fetzer would have known better than to try and run

with such nonsense. What Jean Hill said to me was that if she had remained in

the street ... that she would have been right up to the car and immediately knew

that "they" (the SS agents) would not stand for her being so close to the car.

What Jean said to me was that she got back out of the street as quickly as she

had jumped into it.

But let us not take my word for this ... let's put on our 'critical thinking'

caps and consider the story that Mr. Fetzer is trying to sell here. For

instance, who in the entire world doesn't think that had some woman of ran up to

the car while the shooting was going on that Jean Hill would not have been in a

world of trouble afterwards. Who doesn't believe that Jean Hill would have been

taken down in a heartbeat - hauled in for questioning - and made to regret ever

thinking about getting right up next to the car. Who believes that not a single

witness would have mentioned this foolish move on Jean Hill's part. Earlier in

the motorcade the Agents were on top of a youngster who had tried to do the same

thing, so who in their right God-damned mind would believe that such an action

would have been allowed to slide had Jean Hill went for the car while the

President was being shot all to hell? Anyone besides Mr. Fetzer wishes to step

up and look like a total idiot?? I didn't think so!

One might ask themselves why if Mr. Fetzer believed that Jean Hill had been

right at the car AFTER Z202, then why is this not in any reports? Why did not

single witness mention a woman rushing to the car once the shooting started??

The reason is because it didn't happen. Jean Hill was asked by a radio listener

just exactly when was it that she had been the street and Jean clarified when

that occurred. The earliest image of Jean Hill came when Charles Bronson took

his photo which equates to Z229/Z230. That photo Bronson took shows Jean Hill in

motion and back onto the grass. Mr. Fetzer the 'critical thinker' seems to be

more of a 'critical stinker' when it comes to reasonable rational thinking. I

hope history sees Mr. Fetzer as what he really is and that's a cancer on the

research community!

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For instance, who in the entire world doesn't think that had some woman of ran up to

the car while the shooting was going on that Jean Hill would not have been in a

world of trouble afterwards. Who doesn't believe that Jean Hill would have been

taken down in a heartbeat - hauled in for questioning - and made to regret ever

thinking about getting right up next to the car. Who believes that not a single

witness would have mentioned this foolish move on Jean Hill's part. Earlier in

the motorcade the Agents were on top of a youngster who had tried to do the same

thing, so who in their right God-damned mind would believe that such an action

would have been allowed to slide had Jean Hill went for the car while the

President was being shot all to hell?(Miller)

I find a great deal of logic in this quote --I think it should be considered.

Kathy

(BTW, if you folks who are adding emails, etc. into your posts, it would be great if you would use the Quote tag key when posting them. Just cut what you want to post, click on the Quote icon, and paste between the brackets. It would be a whole lot easier to read your posts. Sometimes it is hard to separate who said what.)

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...