The Zapruder Film Provenance

[Pamela Brown]

From what I've been told from friends through the years, a couple of whom worked on the issue, I think I can say with reasonable certainty that the stills from the Zapruder film hit RR Donnelley Prepress on Saturday evening, November 23rd, 1963. That would be by maybe 8PM CST that night. These were used in the November 29th issue of Life. It was originally on Press by around 4AM on the 24th but then the presses went down again after Oswald was shot late Sunday morning.

As far as the film itself, I've heard so many different stories that I personally would have no idea if the film itself was in the Time-Life plant in Chicago Saturday afternoon or if the stills came in from the outside.

Reading this got me wondering though whether anyone has ever studied the November 29th Life stills in comparison to the Zapruder film; if it's being alleged here that some of the alteration work was done Saturday night and Sunday then it's possible that the stills in Life wouldn't match the standing film.

I looked at the two briefly today and what I believe is Z-337 looked a little odd (Jackie's face) but the Life online version was too small (and B&W of course) to know for sure. I was wondering if anyone else has compared the two with higher res photos?

Hi Will,

There's a few former Lifers around who may be able to answer these questions.

Certainly if Zapruder and Life were concerned enough about the provenance of the film that they made the Kodak and Jamesson people sign affidavits, there must be a record of who Zapruder gave the original to at Life and the copies to at SS, and what they did with them.

Along the same lines of thought, one photo was sold to Look and published and then given to the FBI and when it came back it was edited - for some reason the train on the tracks in the background was removed.

BK

It would be really helpful if the 'former Lifers' on this forum could also clarify their understanding of when and/or how early bootleg copies of the Z-film were made and to whom they may have been given. I, for one, would like to know who the hero was who made my early viewing of the film possible.

[Josiah Thompson]

Hi Bill and Jerry,

"Counting the extant film as zero, she had obtained a fifth generation copy (as explained earlier in this chapter). If she had requested a projection print (i.e., a positive) she would have purchased a fourth generation copy; but the preferred medium for studying film characteristics in Hollywood is a motion picture negative, so she settled for a dupe negative of a fourth generation projection print.."

Wow! A fifth generation copy! Isn't the image quite degraded as one goes from copy to copy of copy to copy of copy of copy to copy of copy of copy of copy? Aren't better copies than this available from other sources... for example, the DVD made by the Zapruder family a few years ago. I can understand why one would want to use a copy certified as a copy by NARA. But a 5th generation copy? Some time ago people were looking at Z film copies of copies and coming up with a chrome revolver in Bill Greer's hand.

Josiah Thompson

..."In Chapter 14 of IARRB Volume IV, Doug Horne does get into the micro analysis of anomalies, describing each one in detail, and adding a new one to the mix – the edge of the Stemmons Freeway sign, which was recently uncovered by Sydney Wilkerson, who works on Hollywood movies. Sydney bought some first generation large 35 mm stills of the Z-film from the NARA and with a team of professional Hollywood special effects producers, has examined the film closely. They are preparing a yet to be released report on their study which could include positive scientific proof of tampering, or at the very least will show how the film could have been tampered with, - eliminating the brief stop that over 50 witnesses claim they saw, fudging up JFK's head wound to indicate a large frontal exit wound, and eliminating the blowout of the back of the head."...

Just to keep things technically accurate ... It is impossible to purchase first generation copies of the Zapruder film or frames of the Zapruder film from the NARA. The NARA does not drag out the original every time someone requests a copy. The NARA made archival prints of the Zapruder film and all copies are generated from the archival prints. Therefore, under the very best circumstances, Sydney is examining a copy of a copy and may well be examining a copy of a copy of a copy.

Best to you,

Jerry

Hey Jerry, Good to hear from you.

While I'd like to keep this thread focused on the film's chain of custody and not the conent or anamolies, certainly making a 35 mm copy of the original from the NARA qualifies as a chain of custody issue. While I might have misstated what I thought happened, here's what Doug Horne says, with the approrpriate sentences hightlighted:

Addendum: The Zapruder Film Goes to Hollywood

It is misleading to claim that scientific advances and scholarly experiments can causeall photo fakes to be unmasked. Questions about authenticity remain. Many photosthat once were considered genuine have recently been determined to be faked.

—Dino Brugioni of NPIC, the authorof Photofakery: The History andTechniques of Photographic Deceptionand Manipulation (1999).

Synchronicity sometimes plays an important role in human affairs; things occasionally come together in such a way, and with such timing, that the circumstances could not be more fortuitous, or more beneficial. Some would call it fate; others would call it luck; and I prefer to call it synchronicity, which falls somewhere in-between fate (or destiny) and pure luck. Consider the events described below, and you will see what I mean.

At precisely the time when I was 99% finished with my Zapruder film chapter, and thought there was nothing remaining to do but a bit of word smithing and fact checking, Good Fortune descended upon me in a way that was almost too good to be true; and yet, if not for my earlier involvement with Zapruder film issues while a member of the ARRB staff, none of this would have happened to me, and someone else would be writing about these experiences today.

On June 2, 2009 I was notified by researcher and author Dick Russell (author of The Man Who Knew Too Much and On the Trail of the JFK Assassins) that Jim Marrs (author of Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy) was trying to contact me on behalf of a personal friend of his who was involved in a Zapruder film research effort. I subsequently found out through both Dick Russell and Jim Marrs that researcher Ed Sherry in Florida (Meeting Coordinator for the South Florida Research Group) had put out an “all points bulletin” for me in his blog on behalf of Jim Marrs’ friend in the Los Angeles greater metropolitan area. Because I am a semi-recluse, and was also industriously trying to finish my manuscript, normally I would not have been interested, but there were two reasons why this occasion was different: (1) Jim Marrs personally vouched for the character of the person seeking me out, and (2) she was conducting Zapruder film research. Having been deeply immersed in Zapruder film issues for the preceding three months, I was amazed at how fortuitous the timing was. I decided to contact Jim Marrs’ friend in Los Angeles at the e-mail address he provided to me.

On June 3, 2009 I exchanged introductory e-mails with one Sydney Wilkinson, an accomplished professional in film and video post-production in Hollywood—specifically, in the marketing of postproduction services within the motion picture film industry. She has decades of experience under her belt in dealing with editors, experts in film restoration, and film studio executives. She lives and breathes the professional culture of the motion picture film industry, and has working relationships with many of the major players involved in post-production in Hollywood. When she first introduced herself to me she insisted that she was neither a researcher, author, nor a historian; and in spite of her

1353

continued self-deprecation, I have explained to her on numerous occasions since that day that she is now indeed a JFK assassination researcher, by simple virtue of what she is doing, whether she ever publishes a word or not! We are what we do, and what Sydney Wilkinson has done is truly extraordinary.

Sydney revealed to me in short order that she had purchased a dupe negative on 35 mm film of the Forensic Copy of the Zapruder film created by the National Archives. She did so purely for research purposes, to satisfy her own curiosity about whether or not the extant film in the Archives was the authentic out-of-camera original, or whether it was an altered film masquerading as the original. She had already purchased a copy of the Zavada report from the National Archives and knew its contents backwards and forwards, and was also familiar with the interviews of Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter of NPIC conducted by the ARRB staff in 1997. She was aware of my former role as the ARRB’s liaison with Kodak and Rollie Zavada, and was also very familiar with the existing literature about the film’s possible alteration. In short, she was simply a very curious American citizen who, out of both natural curiosity and a sense of patriotism, wanted to know the truth about this famous film.

She had literally “put her money where her mouth was” by forking out $ 795.90 for a 35 mm dupe negative of the Zapruder film from a source whose honesty and integrity could not be challenged by any future researchers: the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

Counting the extant film as zero, she had obtained a fifth generation copy (as explained earlier in this chapter). If she had requested a projection print (i.e., a positive) she would have purchased a fourth generation copy; but the preferred medium for studying film characteristics in Hollywood is a motion picture negative, so she settled for a dupe negative of a fourth generation projection print. She wanted a dupe negative because her intent from the beginning was to subject the Zapruder film to the serious, professional scrutiny of Hollywood film professionals in an attempt to resolve the ongoing debate about its authenticity. Sydney’s attitude going into this effort was similar to my own attitude about the Zapruder film when I began working for the ARRB in 1995; she was very curious about the issues that had been raised about the Zapruder film’s authenticity, and simply wanted to know the answer, one way or the other.

I was stunned by the simplicity and power of the concept behind her ongoing research effort: only Hollywood visual effects technicians or other film professionals familiar with the optical effects techniques of the 1960s would be truly qualified to say whether or not there was evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film’s image content! While Rollie Zavada was a film chemist and a Kodak project manager (and was eminently qualified to study film density and edge print), he had no practical experience with the creation of motion picture visual effects, and I therefore viewed him as unqualified to make a final determination as to whether or not the Zapruder film was an altered film. (The ARRB’s senior management understood this also, which was why he was not asked to comment upon the film’s image content in his limited authenticity study.) I immediately wondered:

Why hadn’t anyone ever attempted this before? If anyone had attempted it before 2003 (the year that Monaco in San Francisco made the Forensic Copy of the extant film for NARA), the only tool available for study in Hollywood would have been a multi-generation bootleg copy of one of the Moses Weitzman blowups (from 8 mm to 35 mm) made circa 1968; because the provenance of the bootleg copy would have been suspect, so would any results obtained from such a study. If anyone had attempted this subsequent to 2003, neither Sydney nor I was aware of such an effort. Intuitively, I felt that this was a “first.” A big first......

[Jerry Logan]

Bill,

Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't trying to hijack your thread! I just wanted to be sure everyone was clear about what kind of copy the Hollywood group viewed. It's important because the first line of response to the group's findings is going to be that everything looks faked on a fifth generation copy. Horne makes the strongest case for the technical expertise of Sydney and the others, but Zavada has examined the actual film with a densitometer and microscope. So the first thing we're going to hear is that it's not surprising to learn that someone looked at a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy and determined that it was a copy.

Best to you,

Jerry

..."In Chapter 14 of IARRB Volume IV, Doug Horne does get into the micro analysis of anomalies, describing each one in detail, and adding a new one to the mix – the edge of the Stemmons Freeway sign, which was recently uncovered by Sydney Wilkerson, who works on Hollywood movies. Sydney bought some first generation large 35 mm stills of the Z-film from the NARA and with a team of professional Hollywood special effects producers, has examined the film closely. They are preparing a yet to be released report on their study which could include positive scientific proof of tampering, or at the very least will show how the film could have been tampered with, - eliminating the brief stop that over 50 witnesses claim they saw, fudging up JFK's head wound to indicate a large frontal exit wound, and eliminating the blowout of the back of the head."...

Just to keep things technically accurate ... It is impossible to purchase first generation copies of the Zapruder film or frames of the Zapruder film from the NARA. The NARA does not drag out the original every time someone requests a copy. The NARA made archival prints of the Zapruder film and all copies are generated from the archival prints. Therefore, under the very best circumstances, Sydney is examining a copy of a copy and may well be examining a copy of a copy of a copy.

Best to you,

Jerry

Hey Jerry, Good to hear from you.

While I'd like to keep this thread focused on the film's chain of custody and not the conent or anamolies, certainly making a 35 mm copy of the original from the NARA qualifies as a chain of custody issue. While I might have misstated what I thought happened, here's what Doug Horne says, with the approrpriate sentences hightlighted:

Addendum: The Zapruder Film Goes to Hollywood

It is misleading to claim that scientific advances and scholarly experiments can causeall photo fakes to be unmasked. Questions about authenticity remain. Many photosthat once were considered genuine have recently been determined to be faked.

—Dino Brugioni of NPIC, the authorof Photofakery: The History andTechniques of Photographic Deceptionand Manipulation (1999).

Synchronicity sometimes plays an important role in human affairs; things occasionally come together in such a way, and with such timing, that the circumstances could not be more fortuitous, or more beneficial. Some would call it fate; others would call it luck; and I prefer to call it synchronicity, which falls somewhere in-between fate (or destiny) and pure luck. Consider the events described below, and you will see what I mean.

At precisely the time when I was 99% finished with my Zapruder film chapter, and thought there was nothing remaining to do but a bit of word smithing and fact checking, Good Fortune descended upon me in a way that was almost too good to be true; and yet, if not for my earlier involvement with Zapruder film issues while a member of the ARRB staff, none of this would have happened to me, and someone else would be writing about these experiences today.

On June 2, 2009 I was notified by researcher and author Dick Russell (author of The Man Who Knew Too Much and On the Trail of the JFK Assassins) that Jim Marrs (author of Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy) was trying to contact me on behalf of a personal friend of his who was involved in a Zapruder film research effort. I subsequently found out through both Dick Russell and Jim Marrs that researcher Ed Sherry in Florida (Meeting Coordinator for the South Florida Research Group) had put out an “all points bulletin” for me in his blog on behalf of Jim Marrs’ friend in the Los Angeles greater metropolitan area. Because I am a semi-recluse, and was also industriously trying to finish my manuscript, normally I would not have been interested, but there were two reasons why this occasion was different: (1) Jim Marrs personally vouched for the character of the person seeking me out, and (2) she was conducting Zapruder film research. Having been deeply immersed in Zapruder film issues for the preceding three months, I was amazed at how fortuitous the timing was. I decided to contact Jim Marrs’ friend in Los Angeles at the e-mail address he provided to me.

On June 3, 2009 I exchanged introductory e-mails with one Sydney Wilkinson, an accomplished professional in film and video post-production in Hollywood—specifically, in the marketing of postproduction services within the motion picture film industry. She has decades of experience under her belt in dealing with editors, experts in film restoration, and film studio executives. She lives and breathes the professional culture of the motion picture film industry, and has working relationships with many of the major players involved in post-production in Hollywood. When she first introduced herself to me she insisted that she was neither a researcher, author, nor a historian; and in spite of her

1353

continued self-deprecation, I have explained to her on numerous occasions since that day that she is now indeed a JFK assassination researcher, by simple virtue of what she is doing, whether she ever publishes a word or not! We are what we do, and what Sydney Wilkinson has done is truly extraordinary.

Sydney revealed to me in short order that she had purchased a dupe negative on 35 mm film of the Forensic Copy of the Zapruder film created by the National Archives. She did so purely for research purposes, to satisfy her own curiosity about whether or not the extant film in the Archives was the authentic out-of-camera original, or whether it was an altered film masquerading as the original. She had already purchased a copy of the Zavada report from the National Archives and knew its contents backwards and forwards, and was also familiar with the interviews of Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter of NPIC conducted by the ARRB staff in 1997. She was aware of my former role as the ARRB’s liaison with Kodak and Rollie Zavada, and was also very familiar with the existing literature about the film’s possible alteration. In short, she was simply a very curious American citizen who, out of both natural curiosity and a sense of patriotism, wanted to know the truth about this famous film.

She had literally “put her money where her mouth was” by forking out $ 795.90 for a 35 mm dupe negative of the Zapruder film from a source whose honesty and integrity could not be challenged by any future researchers: the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

Counting the extant film as zero, she had obtained a fifth generation copy (as explained earlier in this chapter). If she had requested a projection print (i.e., a positive) she would have purchased a fourth generation copy; but the preferred medium for studying film characteristics in Hollywood is a motion picture negative, so she settled for a dupe negative of a fourth generation projection print. She wanted a dupe negative because her intent from the beginning was to subject the Zapruder film to the serious, professional scrutiny of Hollywood film professionals in an attempt to resolve the ongoing debate about its authenticity. Sydney’s attitude going into this effort was similar to my own attitude about the Zapruder film when I began working for the ARRB in 1995; she was very curious about the issues that had been raised about the Zapruder film’s authenticity, and simply wanted to know the answer, one way or the other.

I was stunned by the simplicity and power of the concept behind her ongoing research effort: only Hollywood visual effects technicians or other film professionals familiar with the optical effects techniques of the 1960s would be truly qualified to say whether or not there was evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film’s image content! While Rollie Zavada was a film chemist and a Kodak project manager (and was eminently qualified to study film density and edge print), he had no practical experience with the creation of motion picture visual effects, and I therefore viewed him as unqualified to make a final determination as to whether or not the Zapruder film was an altered film. (The ARRB’s senior management understood this also, which was why he was not asked to comment upon the film’s image content in his limited authenticity study.) I immediately wondered:

Why hadn’t anyone ever attempted this before? If anyone had attempted it before 2003 (the year that Monaco in San Francisco made the Forensic Copy of the extant film for NARA), the only tool available for study in Hollywood would have been a multi-generation bootleg copy of one of the Moses Weitzman blowups (from 8 mm to 35 mm) made circa 1968; because the provenance of the bootleg copy would have been suspect, so would any results obtained from such a study. If anyone had attempted this subsequent to 2003, neither Sydney nor I was aware of such an effort. Intuitively, I felt that this was a “first.” A big first......

Edited January 5, 2010 by Jerry Logan

[Jerry Logan]

Hello Tink!

Yes, every generation adds grain and contrast to the image and the Zapruder film was high contrast to begin with by the nature of the film itself. It will be interesting to see what the Hollywood group has to say about the contrast issue because I suspect that's why they believe that the back of the President's head has been pasted over - it looks like a featureless black patch by this generation. The real question is what does the original look like under high magnification and proper illumination.

If they can't get to the original, I think the 4x5s that MPI took for the DVD project would be a much better copy than what they're working with now or the Life 4x5s might even be better. So maybe we should try to get Gary Mack together with Doug Horne and see what they can work out. At the least, short of examining the original, everyone who knows what they're doing is going to want to check the Hollywood group findings against the earlier and better 4x5s.

Best to you Tink - glad to see you posting again.

Jerry

Hi Bill and Jerry,

"Counting the extant film as zero, she had obtained a fifth generation copy (as explained earlier in this chapter). If she had requested a projection print (i.e., a positive) she would have purchased a fourth generation copy; but the preferred medium for studying film characteristics in Hollywood is a motion picture negative, so she settled for a dupe negative of a fourth generation projection print.."

Wow! A fifth generation copy! Isn't the image quite degraded as one goes from copy to copy of copy to copy of copy of copy to copy of copy of copy of copy? Aren't better copies than this available from other sources... for example, the DVD made by the Zapruder family a few years ago. I can understand why one would want to use a copy certified as a copy by NARA. But a 5th generation copy? Some time ago people were looking at Z film copies of copies and coming up with a chrome revolver in Bill Greer's hand.

Josiah Thompson

[Josiah Thompson]

Cool Jerry. Sounds good to me.

Tink

Hello Tink!

Yes, every generation adds grain and contrast to the image and the Zapruder film was high contrast to begin with by the nature of the film itself. It will be interesting to see what the Hollywood group has to say about the contrast issue because I suspect that's why they believe that the back of the President's head has been pasted over - it looks like a featureless black patch by this generation. The real question is what does the original look like under high magnification and proper illumination.

If they can't get to the original, I think the 4x5s that MPI took for the DVD project would be a much better copy than what they're working with now or the Life 4x5s might even be better. So maybe we should try to get Gary Mack together with Doug Horne and see what they can work out. At the least, short of examining the original, everyone who knows what they're doing is going to want to check the Hollywood group findings against the earlier and better 4x5s.

Best to you Tink - glad to see you posting again.

Jerry

Hi Bill and Jerry,

"Counting the extant film as zero, she had obtained a fifth generation copy (as explained earlier in this chapter). If she had requested a projection print (i.e., a positive) she would have purchased a fourth generation copy; but the preferred medium for studying film characteristics in Hollywood is a motion picture negative, so she settled for a dupe negative of a fourth generation projection print.."

Wow! A fifth generation copy! Isn't the image quite degraded as one goes from copy to copy of copy to copy of copy of copy to copy of copy of copy of copy? Aren't better copies than this available from other sources... for example, the DVD made by the Zapruder family a few years ago. I can understand why one would want to use a copy certified as a copy by NARA. But a 5th generation copy? Some time ago people were looking at Z film copies of copies and coming up with a chrome revolver in Bill Greer's hand.

Josiah Thompson

[Peter McGuire]

One should really be able to see, with your own eyes, that the Zapruder Film, the Backyard Photos are faked; and that the Secret Service did nothing when the shots rang out.

Jack White has commented on this recently and produced work on the photos decades ago. Even the mainstream media members at the time and current and previous members of the Secret Service commented on the strange behavior in Dealy. I have given you the quote from the retired Chief of the Service and his comment about the South "knoll" area. They simply did not protect President Kennedy. The only reason they had a job was to do so, so to think otherwise is naïveté in the extreme. These were not mistakes or human shortcomings.

In the case of the Service, they were actions of men who had no choice to do what they have done.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Peter McGuire

[J. Raymond Carroll]

One should really be able to see, with your own eyes, that the Zapruder Film, the Backyard Photos are faked; and that the Secret Service did nothing when the shots rang out.

By far the most important thing the Secret Service did wrong was to slow down the limo and thereby enable the assassination to succeed. The PROOF that the SS slowed down the limo is the Zapruder film (Cf. Alvarez 1976)

As for the backyard photos, they have no bearing on who shot JFK, and have been proven genuine UMPTEEN times over.

[Peter McGuire]

One should really be able to see, with your own eyes, that the Zapruder Film, the Backyard Photos are faked; and that the Secret Service did nothing when the shots rang out.

By far the most important thing the Secret Service did wrong was to slow down the limo and thereby enable the assassination to succeed. The PROOF that the SS slowed down the limo is the Zapruder film (Cf. Alvarez 1976)

As for the backyard photos, they have no bearing on who shot JFK, and have been proven genuine UMPTEEN times over.

And here you go again. Mr. Carroll. Are you trying to tell us that arguing these events that have no bearing on who shot JFK should be suspended? Like the case of the New Orleans actors?

I am really just asking that question.

What needs to be addressed is that even if I or the rest of the crowd is wrong about events that are not related, it does not change the relevant event.

So as a lawyer, are you saying to just focus on the relevant events?

If you are, I do not agree since an intelligent mind should be able to conclude that event x, if not dependent on proving event y, can still be debated.

"By far the most important thing the Secret Service did wrong was to slow down the limo and thereby enable the assassination to succeed. The PROOF that the SS slowed down the limo is the Zapruder film (Cf. Alvarez 1976)"

That being said. Thank you for the above citation. I believe that the limousine driven by native Irishman William Greer, Methodist, slowed down instead of speeding up after the shots rang out, thus enabling the shots that killed John Fitzgerald Kennedy, President of the United States on November 22, 1963.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Peter McGuire

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I believe that the limousine driven by native Irishman William Greer, Methodist, slowed down instead of speeding up after the shots rang out, thus enabling the shots that killed John Fitzgerald Kennedy, President of the United States on November 22, 1963.

Except that the late Mr. Greer was born in Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK, so it might be more accurate to refer to him as a native Britisher.

[Karl Kinaski]

I believe that the limousine driven by native Irishman William Greer, Methodist, slowed down instead of speeding up after the shots rang out, thus enabling the shots that killed John Fitzgerald Kennedy, President of the United States on November 22, 1963.

Except that the late Mr. Greer was born in Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK, so it might be more accurate to refer to him as a native Britisher.

I always thought, Greer brought the limo to a halt to give the SS-men of the follow-up car the opportunity to get onto the Lincoln-Limo, and protect JFK with their body's...but the SS-men didn't move...following an order by Emory Roberts..."Don't move!"

To me Greer did the right thing, while Roberts order, and behavior is more than questionable...

KK

Edited January 5, 2010 by Karl Kinaski

[Paul Rigby]

Some time ago people were looking at Z film copies of copies and coming up with a chrome revolver in Bill Greer's hand.

Josiah Thompson

Censored and misleading summaries of eyewitness testimony in Six Seconds in Dallas

“How the hell can we use a witness who saw it happening a way it couldn’t have happened?”

Josiah Thompson. Gumshoe: Reflections in a Private Eye (London: Pan Books Ltd, 1988), p.185.

Six Seconds In Dallas (Bernard Geis, 1967), Appendix A, “Master List of Assassination Witnesses”: Witness Austin Miller, witness 96, p.262:

Location: RR overpass

No. of shots: 3

Bunching of shots: 2 & 3

Direction of sound/shots: ---

Date of report: 11/22/63

Total time of shots: “few seconds”

References: 6H223-227; 19H485; 24H217; Archives CD 205, p.27

Remarks: Saw “smoke or steam” coming from a group of trees N. of Elm; saw shot hit street past car

Inspect the first testimony cited by Thompson and you find Miller not offering the following opinion on the origin of the shots on Elm St:

Mr. Belin: “Where did the shots sound like they came from?”

Miller: “Well, the way it sounded like, it came from the, I would say right there in the car,”6WCH225

http://www.jfk-assassination.com/warren/wch/vol6/page225.php

Unscrupulous coves, these people who quote eyewitness testimony accurately.

Not that you would know, of course, having sought systematically to expunge any testimony you found inconvenient.

[Peter McGuire]

I believe that the limousine driven by native Irishman William Greer, Methodist, slowed down instead of speeding up after the shots rang out, thus enabling the shots that killed John Fitzgerald Kennedy, President of the United States on November 22, 1963.

Except that the late Mr. Greer was born in Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK, so it might be more accurate to refer to him as a native Britisher.

I always thought, Greer brought the limo to a halt to give the SS-men of the follow-up car the opportunity to get onto the Lincoln-Limo, and protect JFK with their body's...but the SS-men didn't move...following an order by Emory Roberts..."Don't move!"

To me Greer did the right thing, while Roberts order, and behavior is more than questionable...

KK

Interesting. I have never heard that one!

[William Kelly]

Some time ago people were looking at Z film copies of copies and coming up with a chrome revolver in Bill Greer's hand.

Josiah Thompson

Censored and misleading summaries of eyewitness testimony in Six Seconds in Dallas

"How the hell can we use a witness who saw it happening a way it couldn't have happened?"

Josiah Thompson. Gumshoe: Reflections in a Private Eye (London: Pan Books Ltd, 1988), p.185.

Six Seconds In Dallas (Bernard Geis, 1967), Appendix A, "Master List of Assassination Witnesses": Witness Austin Miller, witness 96, p.262:

Location: RR overpass

No. of shots: 3

Bunching of shots: 2 & 3

Direction of sound/shots: ---

Date of report: 11/22/63

Total time of shots: "few seconds"

References: 6H223-227; 19H485; 24H217; Archives CD 205, p.27

Remarks: Saw "smoke or steam" coming from a group of trees N. of Elm; saw shot hit street past car

Inspect the first testimony cited by Thompson and you find Miller not offering the following opinion on the origin of the shots on Elm St:

Mr. Belin: "Where did the shots sound like they came from?"

Miller: "Well, the way it sounded like, it came from the, I would say right there in the car,"6WCH225

http://www.jfk-assassination.com/warren/wch/vol6/page225.php

Unscrupulous coves, these people who quote eyewitness testimony accurately.

Not that you would know, of course, having sought systematically to expunge any testimony you found inconvenient.

Paul,

I have to take exception to your characterization, as over the years, decades now, I've found TT to be an exceptionally good mind to bounce ideas off of, get precise answers from, and to try to determine the best way to proceed to our mutual goal of getting to the total truth. He was there, he had access, he knew all the original researchers - God Bless them!, and he is still here with us to continue the quest for the truth.

As you have pointed out, Doug Horne does explore the eyewitness and earwitness reports of a gun being fired from within the car, and I'm sure it will be used to discredit him, but that will come with the territory.

TT has also stuck his neck out on sensitive issues and has been called on it many times, but to his credit he keeps coming back.

I've tried to post Doug Horne's take on Six Seconds on the Six Seconds thread, but both times I've posted it Prof. Fetzer has stepped on it, intent on keeping up his now one-sided debate with TT.

I thought it was a great tribute to John Simpkin for sponsoring such a forum that not only could include the Great Fetzer-TT debate, but also bring in David Lifton for good measure.

Horne says at one point that it has been difficult to deal with people with great egos, like Fetzer, Livingstone and somebody else, but Livingstone interviewed now dead witnesses and Fetzer published anthologies that included some very significant chapters, and he couldn't have written his book without referencing them.

Doug Horne says that both TT's Six Seconds and David Lifton's Best Evidence were paradigum changers, that made you look at the assassination from a different perspective than ever before, and that made it possible to move on to the next level and helped get to where we are now.

And it is a great tribute to John Simkin for hosting a forum that includes both of these paradigum shifters - TT and DL, and bringing them together and asking and trying to answer mutual questions of interest all takes the whole effort to another level.

And it isn't an accident, as Doug Horne writes as another one of his influences, The Nature of Scientific Revolutions, which I too remember as a Paradigum shifter in my education at Dayton, in which the study of scientific revolutions indicate that it is those who approach the question and subject from an entirelly different angle that allows for the breakout of a new revolution in any field of inquiry.

I don't know whether to attribute it to Doug Horne alone, but there is a new line in the sand, and those "Conspiracy Theorists" who want to continue the debate with the "Lone-Nuts" and promote the idea that "we'll never know," will be left in the dust as others firgure it all out.

And God Bless TT and DL for sticking around and staying in the game, even if you disagree.

Don't we live in interesting times?

BK

Edited January 6, 2010 by William Kelly

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I always thought, Greer brought the limo to a halt to give the SS-men of the follow-up car the opportunity to get onto the Lincoln-Limo, and protect JFK with their body's...but the SS-men didn't move...following an order by Emory Roberts..."Don't move!"

To me Greer did the right thing, while Roberts order, and behavior is more than questionable...

KK

Where did you get the idea that Greer slowed the limo for that reason?

Did Greer say anything like that in his testimony or anywhere else?

Is there anything in Secret Service protocols that would require him to do such a thing?

[Dean Hagerman]

I believe that the limousine driven by native Irishman William Greer, Methodist, slowed down instead of speeding up after the shots rang out, thus enabling the shots that killed John Fitzgerald Kennedy, President of the United States on November 22, 1963.

Except that the late Mr. Greer was born in Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK, so it might be more accurate to refer to him as a native Britisher.

I always thought, Greer brought the limo to a halt to give the SS-men of the follow-up car the opportunity to get onto the Lincoln-Limo, and protect JFK with their body's...but the SS-men didn't move...following an order by Emory Roberts..."Don't move!"

To me Greer did the right thing, while Roberts order, and behavior is more than questionable...

KK