What Jean Hill has to tell us about 22 November 1963

[Craig Lamson]

>

> 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

>

I'll let Jerry take care of yor obvoius misreading and just plain poor speculation but I see you are still quoting Costella and there is a bit of unfinished business in that regard. When can we expect to see his false signpost and lamppost claims removed from your website?

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

Edited March 29, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Don Jeffries]

This may have been covered before in all the long threads about alteration, but would both sides please give me a simple answer to a few questions?

First, what has Mary Moorman had to say to any of you regarding this whole issue, since the alteration theory was first proposed? Has her position on the subject changed, and if so, how?

[Paul Baker]

I've listened to Jean Hill's interview on Black Op radio many times. In my opinion, as a witness, she is utterly incredible.

She says that her pockets were searched in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, and photographs confiscated. There is no evidence anywhere to support this, and evidence exists which contradicts this statement.

She says that she chased somebody in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. There is no evidence anywhere to support this, and evidence exists which contradicts this statement.

She says she saw Jack Ruby running from the scene ...

etc.

Apart from solid evidence that Jean Hill was lying, I think the interview itself tells us a lot about the kind of person she was. Listen to how she implies that copies of her book in storage were deliberately destroyed! Then there are the numerous attempts on her (and her children's) lives. So these people, whoever they are, can murder the President in public and get away with it, but they can't sort out a relative nobody like Jean Hill. What would be the point of killing her after she'd told her story in any case?

Best of all, listen to how her voice breaks when she says "I saw a shooter behind the fence on the grassy knoll ..."

She also takes credit for the term "grassy knoll". Fantastic!

Any theory that is dependent in some way on the statements of Jean Hill is fundamentally flawed.

And let's face it, Black Op radio does nothing to progress research into the death of JFK, or anything. Listen to any Fetzer interview.

Paul.

[William Kelly]

Paul,

I met Jean Hill at the Dallas Assassination Information Center? on the third floor of the West End Marketplace mall behind the TSBD. She was signing copies of her book, and signed one for me, saying that "there is nothing more important you can be doing than researhing and writing about the assassination and searching for the truth."

The book is important for a number of reasons, and she was one of the closest persons to witness JFK get his head blow off. She was a fantastic teacher, and a really good person, but like all witnesses, especially young women in persuit of love with a married cop, Hill and Moreman, like most witnesses, are not entirelly reliable. I was offended when Peter Whitmey wrote a very derogatory article about Jean Hill, and believe that all witnesses should be treated special.

But as with pictures and films, the more you look at them the more anomalies you see, no witness is perfect.

The most important point being that these witnesses didn't intentionally put themselves in that position, and in a sense their notority was an accident of history. Those responsible for the assassination cannot say the same thing.

Bill Kelly

I've listened to Jean Hill's interview on Black Op radio many times. In my opinion, as a witness, she is utterly incredible.

She says that her pockets were searched in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, and photographs confiscated. There is no evidence anywhere to support this, and evidence exists which contradicts this statement.

She says that she chased somebody in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. There is no evidence anywhere to support this, and evidence exists which contradicts this statement.

She says she saw Jack Ruby running from the scene ...

etc.

Apart from solid evidence that Jean Hill was lying, I think the interview itself tells us a lot about the kind of person she was. Listen to how she implies that copies of her book in storage were deliberately destroyed! Then there are the numerous attempts on her (and her children's) lives. So these people, whoever they are, can murder the President in public and get away with it, but they can't sort out a relative nobody like Jean Hill. What would be the point of killing her after she'd told her story in any case?

Best of all, listen to how her voice breaks when she says "I saw a shooter behind the fence on the grassy knoll ..."

She also takes credit for the term "grassy knoll". Fantastic!

Any theory that is dependent in some way on the statements of Jean Hill is fundamentally flawed.

And let's face it, Black Op radio does nothing to progress research into the death of JFK, or anything. Listen to any Fetzer interview.

Paul.

[Bill Miller]

[ name=James H. Fetzer' date='Mar 27 2009, 12:54 PM' post='164719]

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?

Funny that no one who was in Dealey Plaza has said that the films don't show what you claim they should. Do you have a clue as to how the films would look if you simply removed any of the frames ... how the flow of the forward movement would be erratic and out of sorts.

And have you ever considered that some witnesses depending on where they were standing might think that Greer went to the left, while not understanding that the street also went to the left. That anyone behind the car with it slowing to a crawl might think it had stopped, while people perpendicular to it like Merriman Smith saw the limo only falter while his car and others in the motorcade came to a momentary stop. Have you really tried differentiate between the motorcade stopping from the actual limo ... it doesn't appear so. But then again why should you. Merriman Smith must have been a xxxx and Jean Hill was slipped a mickey - right???

[Paul Rigby]

Funny that no one who was in Dealey Plaza has said that the films don't show what you claim they should.

Funny you should mention that. I know a guy who really wasn't sure - yes, step forward old Zappy himself:

Zapruder said afterward he couldn’t tell whether the film was complete. Eighteen frames had been defective, he said, and might have been removed without his knowing it.

UPI, “Garrison shows Zapruder Movie,” Press-Telegram, (Long Beach, California), Friday, 14 February 1969, p.10

Another ringing endorsement from Zapruder of his film’s authenticity!

PS You don't think he'd gone senile by this stage, do you?