Alterationists: Thoughts from Gary Mack.

[Pat Speer]

Being ANTI-alteration is a state of mind. Those of that persuasion do NOT WANT to believe. For many year I was one of them.

Seeing that the film is altered is NOT COMPLICATED.

There are many things that happened in Dealey Plaza that NUMEROUS PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE said happened. The film does

not show these things. Why should the film be believed instead of the people?

A few SIMPLE thing are sufficient.

1. Zapruder said he filmed the limo turn onto Elm. The film does not show it.

2. People who were there said the limo made a wide turn, so it is not seen since the limo turn is not seen.

3. Connally said he turned to his LEFT when he heard a shot, then to his right. His left turn is not seen.

4. Mary Moorman and Jean Hill both said they STEPPED OFF THE CURB to shoot a Polaroid, but they are seen on the grass.

5. Jean Hill said she stepped into the street and waved and hollered at JFK; this is not seen as she stands motionless.

6. Dozens of people said the limo stopped. No limo stop is seen.

7. Numerous credible witnesses said Officer Chaney rode forward to the lead car. The lead car is seen, but no Chaney.

What is complicated about looking at the film and making these observations? Any child could do it, contrary to what

Lee and Kathy say.

Jack

Jack, Being PRO-ALTERATION is also a state of mind. The alteration argument that the film must have been altered because there are things in the film people don't remember, and things people remember that are not in the film, will NEVER hold water with historians, legal scholars, and the media. Those who've studied human cognition are more than aware we are flawed in our recollections. Horribly flawed.

Here is a link to a much discussed video.

Basketball video

This video was created to demonstrate just how flawed we are as recording devices. This video has been shown thousands of times to rooms full of students, etc. Before the showing, the professor will ask the students to count how many times the basketball is passed in the video, or whether the ball is touched more by the boys or the girls, etc. This gives them something to focus on.

Halfway through the video, however, a man in a gorilla suit walks across the room and stands in the middle of those passing the ball. And that's the whole point of the video. After the showing is over, when asked about the man in the gorilla suit, only a minority of the audience has ANY recollection of the man in the gorilla suit. The professor then replays the video, and the bulk of the audience gasps in amazement at their inability to recollect something as strange as a man in a gorilla suit walking across the room.

When given the choice of believing "people's memories are often incorrect" or believing "the film must have been faked because so many people couldn't be wrong" the vast majority of people are gonna go with the first. And be correct to do so.

Now, that doesn't mean you or anyone else who wants to study the film should stop doing so. There are several issues--including whether or not the back of the head was painted in--that, if clearly demonstrated--could make a substantial impact on the public's attitude towards alteration. But saying the film must have been faked because is doesn't show what we think it should isn't gonna pass the average person's smell test. IMHO.

This is a total non-sequitur used by those in general who want to discredit witness testimony,

and I think the relevance of the experiment is subject to various interpretations.

MURDER IN DEALY PLAZA is not a man in a gorilla suit at a basketball game. In Dealey Plaza

all attention was focused on the President and his activities in the motorcade. Hundreds of

people's eyes were riveted on JFK or Jackie and the limo. Even if a herd of gorillas had been

dancing down Main Street, nobody would have been able to tell you whether the gorillas had

been doing a waltz or polka...BUT EVERYONE COULD TELL YOU ABOUT JACKIE'S PINK HAT

AND WHITE GLOVES. So your gorilla argument falls flat, because nobody cared about gorillas

but everybody cared about JFK and Jackie.

If the limo stopped, they could report that accurately. If the gorillas stopped dancing and

started cartwheeling, most would not notice. So memories would depend on what the witness

interest was, not whether some irrelevance was happening.

Jack

Jack, the point is that people will often overlook things if they are not told to look for them. As a result, "how come the film shows (fill in the blank) even though no one noticed (fill in the blank)" type arguments hold little weight. Arguments of the "people said they saw this but it's not in the film" type are a bit stronger, one might assume, but it's not necessarily so. As pointed out by Duke Lane, many of the statements for the limo stop are really for a limo slow-down, etc. Same with the Parkland witnesses. People wanting to believe the Parkland witnesses are proof the autopsy photos are fake invariably ignore that a number of them deferred to the accuracy of the autopsy photos when put to the test, or insist these men wilted under pressure and did not really believe they were wrong. As if any of us can read the minds of those who were actually there...

I mean, how many Dealey Plaza witnesses have EVER come forward and stated that the Zapruder film does not depict the assassination they witnessed? There were hundreds of witnesses. How many have put their names to paper claiming the Zapruder film is fake?

[Jack White]

Being ANTI-alteration is a state of mind. Those of that persuasion do NOT WANT to believe. For many year I was one of them.

Seeing that the film is altered is NOT COMPLICATED.

There are many things that happened in Dealey Plaza that NUMEROUS PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE said happened. The film does

not show these things. Why should the film be believed instead of the people?

A few SIMPLE thing are sufficient.

1. Zapruder said he filmed the limo turn onto Elm. The film does not show it.

2. People who were there said the limo made a wide turn, so it is not seen since the limo turn is not seen.

3. Connally said he turned to his LEFT when he heard a shot, then to his right. His left turn is not seen.

4. Mary Moorman and Jean Hill both said they STEPPED OFF THE CURB to shoot a Polaroid, but they are seen on the grass.

5. Jean Hill said she stepped into the street and waved and hollered at JFK; this is not seen as she stands motionless.

6. Dozens of people said the limo stopped. No limo stop is seen.

7. Numerous credible witnesses said Officer Chaney rode forward to the lead car. The lead car is seen, but no Chaney.

What is complicated about looking at the film and making these observations? Any child could do it, contrary to what

Lee and Kathy say.

Jack

Jack, Being PRO-ALTERATION is also a state of mind. The alteration argument that the film must have been altered because there are things in the film people don't remember, and things people remember that are not in the film, will NEVER hold water with historians, legal scholars, and the media. Those who've studied human cognition are more than aware we are flawed in our recollections. Horribly flawed.

Here is a link to a much discussed video.

Basketball video

This video was created to demonstrate just how flawed we are as recording devices. This video has been shown thousands of times to rooms full of students, etc. Before the showing, the professor will ask the students to count how many times the basketball is passed in the video, or whether the ball is touched more by the boys or the girls, etc. This gives them something to focus on.

Halfway through the video, however, a man in a gorilla suit walks across the room and stands in the middle of those passing the ball. And that's the whole point of the video. After the showing is over, when asked about the man in the gorilla suit, only a minority of the audience has ANY recollection of the man in the gorilla suit. The professor then replays the video, and the bulk of the audience gasps in amazement at their inability to recollect something as strange as a man in a gorilla suit walking across the room.

When given the choice of believing "people's memories are often incorrect" or believing "the film must have been faked because so many people couldn't be wrong" the vast majority of people are gonna go with the first. And be correct to do so.

Now, that doesn't mean you or anyone else who wants to study the film should stop doing so. There are several issues--including whether or not the back of the head was painted in--that, if clearly demonstrated--could make a substantial impact on the public's attitude towards alteration. But saying the film must have been faked because is doesn't show what we think it should isn't gonna pass the average person's smell test. IMHO.

This is a total non-sequitur used by those in general who want to discredit witness testimony,

and I think the relevance of the experiment is subject to various interpretations.

MURDER IN DEALY PLAZA is not a man in a gorilla suit at a basketball game. In Dealey Plaza

all attention was focused on the President and his activities in the motorcade. Hundreds of

people's eyes were riveted on JFK or Jackie and the limo. Even if a herd of gorillas had been

dancing down Main Street, nobody would have been able to tell you whether the gorillas had

been doing a waltz or polka...BUT EVERYONE COULD TELL YOU ABOUT JACKIE'S PINK HAT

AND WHITE GLOVES. So your gorilla argument falls flat, because nobody cared about gorillas

but everybody cared about JFK and Jackie.

If the limo stopped, they could report that accurately. If the gorillas stopped dancing and

started cartwheeling, most would not notice. So memories would depend on what the witness

interest was, not whether some irrelevance was happening.

Jack

Jack, the point is that people will often overlook things if they are not told to look for them. As a result, "how come the film shows (fill in the blank) even though no one noticed (fill in the blank)" type arguments hold little weight. Arguments of the "people said they saw this but it's not in the film" type are a bit stronger, one might assume, but it's not necessarily so. As pointed out by Duke Lane, many of the statements for the limo stop are really for a limo slow-down, etc. Same with the Parkland witnesses. People wanting to believe the Parkland witnesses are proof the autopsy photos are fake invariably ignore that a number of them deferred to the accuracy of the autopsy photos when put to the test, or insist these men wilted under pressure and did not really believe they were wrong. As if any of us can read the minds of those who were actually there...

I mean, how many Dealey Plaza witnesses have EVER come forward and stated that the Zapruder film does not depict the assassination they witnessed? There were hundreds of witnesses. How many have put their names to paper claiming the Zapruder film is fake?

HOW MANY HAVE PUT THEIR NAMES TO PAPER?

A few:

* James Chaney (motorcycle patrolman on right rear of the Presidential limousine): “I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. And then he instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hospital and that Parkland was standing by.”

* Bobby Hargis (motorcycle patrolman on left rear of the Presidential limousine): “The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward and announced to the Chief that the President had been shot.”

* Winston Lawson (Secret Service Agent in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “A motorcycle escort officer pulled along side our Lead Car and said the President had been shot. Chief Curry gave a signal over the radio for police to converge on the area of the incident.”

* Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service Agent in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “A motorcycle patrolman pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled, ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer responded in the affirmative.”

* Chief Jesse Curry (in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “. . . about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney, rode up beside us and I asked if something happened back there and he said, ‘Yes,’ and I said ‘Has somebody been shot?” And he said, ‘I think so.’”

I believe all these witnesses to be credible and not likely mistaken. Their statements all concur. The odds of ALL of

them lying in unison becomes exponentially unlikely.

Jack

[Jack White]

Being ANTI-alteration is a state of mind. Those of that persuasion do NOT WANT to believe. For many year I was one of them.

Seeing that the film is altered is NOT COMPLICATED.

There are many things that happened in Dealey Plaza that NUMEROUS PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE said happened. The film does

not show these things. Why should the film be believed instead of the people?

A few SIMPLE thing are sufficient.

1. Zapruder said he filmed the limo turn onto Elm. The film does not show it.

2. People who were there said the limo made a wide turn, so it is not seen since the limo turn is not seen.

3. Connally said he turned to his LEFT when he heard a shot, then to his right. His left turn is not seen.

4. Mary Moorman and Jean Hill both said they STEPPED OFF THE CURB to shoot a Polaroid, but they are seen on the grass.

5. Jean Hill said she stepped into the street and waved and hollered at JFK; this is not seen as she stands motionless.

6. Dozens of people said the limo stopped. No limo stop is seen.

7. Numerous credible witnesses said Officer Chaney rode forward to the lead car. The lead car is seen, but no Chaney.

What is complicated about looking at the film and making these observations? Any child could do it, contrary to what

Lee and Kathy say.

Jack

Jack, Being PRO-ALTERATION is also a state of mind. The alteration argument that the film must have been altered because there are things in the film people don't remember, and things people remember that are not in the film, will NEVER hold water with historians, legal scholars, and the media. Those who've studied human cognition are more than aware we are flawed in our recollections. Horribly flawed.

Here is a link to a much discussed video.

Basketball video

This video was created to demonstrate just how flawed we are as recording devices. This video has been shown thousands of times to rooms full of students, etc. Before the showing, the professor will ask the students to count how many times the basketball is passed in the video, or whether the ball is touched more by the boys or the girls, etc. This gives them something to focus on.

Halfway through the video, however, a man in a gorilla suit walks across the room and stands in the middle of those passing the ball. And that's the whole point of the video. After the showing is over, when asked about the man in the gorilla suit, only a minority of the audience has ANY recollection of the man in the gorilla suit. The professor then replays the video, and the bulk of the audience gasps in amazement at their inability to recollect something as strange as a man in a gorilla suit walking across the room.

When given the choice of believing "people's memories are often incorrect" or believing "the film must have been faked because so many people couldn't be wrong" the vast majority of people are gonna go with the first. And be correct to do so.

Now, that doesn't mean you or anyone else who wants to study the film should stop doing so. There are several issues--including whether or not the back of the head was painted in--that, if clearly demonstrated--could make a substantial impact on the public's attitude towards alteration. But saying the film must have been faked because is doesn't show what we think it should isn't gonna pass the average person's smell test. IMHO.

This is a total non-sequitur used by those in general who want to discredit witness testimony,

and I think the relevance of the experiment is subject to various interpretations.

MURDER IN DEALY PLAZA is not a man in a gorilla suit at a basketball game. In Dealey Plaza

all attention was focused on the President and his activities in the motorcade. Hundreds of

people's eyes were riveted on JFK or Jackie and the limo. Even if a herd of gorillas had been

dancing down Main Street, nobody would have been able to tell you whether the gorillas had

been doing a waltz or polka...BUT EVERYONE COULD TELL YOU ABOUT JACKIE'S PINK HAT

AND WHITE GLOVES. So your gorilla argument falls flat, because nobody cared about gorillas

but everybody cared about JFK and Jackie.

If the limo stopped, they could report that accurately. If the gorillas stopped dancing and

started cartwheeling, most would not notice. So memories would depend on what the witness

interest was, not whether some irrelevance was happening.

Jack

Hi Jack

Hope you've had a good day.

In 1998 I was an eyewitness to the robbery of a jewelers in Derby, England. Two guys wearing balaclavas ran out with shotguns. I was petrified but my eyes stayed on them as they got into a getaway car. To cut a long story short during the trial it came to my attention that although I got the car type correct (a Ford Escort) I got the color wrong. It was red and I thought it was green.

Maybe nonsense and doesn't mean anything to you but it's quite personal and I bear it in mind when I read the Warren Commission testimonies.

Lee

Thanks for the anecdote, but again it is somewhat irrelevant. That was in Derby. This was in Dealey.

Let me ask a theoretical. In your robbery scenario...if the car drove away...THEN STOPPED...then drove away again,

would you have noticed that? Or would you have testified that the car DID NOT STOP?

That would be a relevant observation to Dealey.

In Dealey, many witnesses MIGHT have testified that JFK was in a BLACK limo. It was dark blue.

But 59 of them SAID THE LIMO STOPPED or PAUSED. The Z film shows NO such event.

Jack

[Jack White]

Lee...read this. Are all these people mistaken or lying?

.........

59 Witnesses: Delay on Elm Street

(Revised update-1998)

by Vince Palamara

-UPI's "Four Days" (1964), p. 17---In the right hand picture [a frame from the Muchmore film], the driver slams on the brakes and the police escort pulls up."

-"Newsweek", 12/2/63, p. 2---"For a chaotic moment, the motorcade ground to an uncertain halt."

-"Time", 11/29/63, p. 23---"There was a shocking momentary stillness, a frozen tableau."

-"Case Closed" by Gerald Posner (1993), p. 234---"Incredibly, SA Greer, sensing that something was wrong in the back of the car, slowed the vehicle to almost a standstill." AND -Gerald Posner, with Dan Rather, on CBS' "Who Killed JFK: The Final Chapter?", 11/19/93---By turning around the second time and looking at JFK as the car slows down, Posner says that "What he [Greer] has done is inadvertently given Oswald the easiest of the three shots."

DID JOHN F. KENNEDY'S LIMOUSINE COME TO A STOP DURING THOSE TERRIBLE SIX SECONDS ON ELM STREET, OR DID IT SLOW DOWN? OR NEITHER? I INVITE THE READER TO LOOK AT THE STATEMENTS OF THE FOLLOWING WITNESSES; THEIR TESTIMONY AND COMMENTS, AS WE SEEK TO FIND THE TRUTH:

1) Houston Chronicle Reporter Bo Byers (rode in White House Press Bus)---twice stated that the Presidential Limousine "almost came to a stop, a dead stop"; in fact, he has had nightmares about this. [C-SPAN, 11/20/93, "Journalists Remember The Kennedy Assassination"; see also the 1/94 "Fourth Decade": article by Sheldon Inkol];

2) ABC Reporter Bob Clark (rode in the National Press Pool Car)---Reported on the air that the limousine stopped on Elm Street during the shooting [WFAA/ ABC, 11/22/63];

3) UPI White House Reporter Merriman Smith (rode in the same car as Clark, above)---"The President's car, possibly as much as 150 or 200 yards ahead, seemed to falter briefly" [uPI story, 11/23/63, as reported in "Four Days", UPI, p. 32];

4) DPD motorcycle officer James W. Courson (one of two mid-motorcade motorcycles)--"The limousine came to a stop and Mrs. Kennedy was on the back. I noticed that as I came around the corner at Elm. Then the Secret Service agent [Clint Hill] helped push her back into the car, and the motorcade took off at a high rate of speed." ["No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), p. 129];

5) DPD motorcycle officer Bobby Joe Dale (one of two rear mid-motorcade motorcycles)---"After the shots were fired, the whole motorcade came to a stop. I stood and looked through the plaza, noticed there was commotion, and saw people running around his [JFK's] car. It started to move, then it slowed again; that's when I saw Mrs. Kennedy coming back on the trunk and another guy [Clint Hill] pushing her back into the car." ["No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), p. 134];

6) Clemon Earl Johnson---"You could see it [the limo] speed up and then stop, then speed up, and you could see it stop while they [sic; Clint Hill] threw Mrs. Kennedy back up in the car. Then they just left out of there like a bat of the eye and were just gone." ["No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), p. 80];

7) Malcolm Summers---"Then there was some hesitation in the caravan itself, a momentary halt, to give the Secret Service man [Clint Hill] a chance to catch up with the car and jump on. It seems to me that it started back up by the time he got to the car "["No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), p. 104];

8) NBC reporter Robert MacNeil (rode in White House Press Bus)---"The President's driver slammed on the brakes---after the third shot " ["The Way We Were, 1963: The Year Kennedy Was Shot" by Robert MacNeil (1988), p. 193];

9) AP photographer Henry Burroughs (rode in Camera Car #2)---" we heard the shots and the motorcade stopped." [letter, Burroughs to Palamara, dated 10/14/98];

10) DPD Earle Brown---" The first I noticed the [JFK's] car was when it stopped..after it made the turn and when the shots were fired, it stopped." [6 H 233];

11) DPD motorcycle officer Bobby Hargis (one of the four Presidential motorcyclists)---" At that time [immediately before the head shot] the Presidential car slowed down. I heard somebody say 'Get going.' I felt blood hit me in the face and the Presidential car stopped almost immediately after that." [6 H 294; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams (1974), p. 71; 6/26/95 videotaped interview with Mark Oakes & Ian Griggs: "That guy (Greer) slowed down, maybe his orders was to slow down slowed down almost to a stop." Like Posner, Hargis feels Greer gave Oswald the chance to kill Kennedy.];

12) DPD D.V. Harkness---" I saw the first shot and the President's car slow[ed] down to almost a stop I heard the first shot and saw the President's car almost come to a stop and some of the agents [were] piling on the car." [6 H 309];

13) DPD James Chaney (one of the four Presidential motorcyclists)---stated that the Presidential limousine stopped momentarily after the first shot (according to the testimony of Mark Lane; corroborated by the testimony of fellow DPD motorcycle officer Marion Baker: Chaney told him that " at the time, after the shooting, from the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped Now I have heard several of them say that, Mr. Truly was standing out there, he said it stopped. Several officers said it stopped completely." [2 H 44-45 (Lane)---referring to Chaney's statement as reported in the "Houston Chronicle" dated 11/24/63; 3 H 266 (Baker)];

14) DPD motorcycle officer B.J. Martin (one of the four Presidential motorcyclists)---saw JFK's car stop " just for a moment." ["Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 71];

15) DPD motorcycle officer Douglas L. Jackson (one of the four Presidential motorcyclists)---stated " that the car just all but stopped just a moment." ["Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 71];

16) Texas Highway Patrolman Joe Henry Rich (drove LBJ's car)---stated that " the motorcade came to a stop momentarily." ["Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 71];

17) DPD J.W. Foster---stated that " immediately after President Kennedy was struck the car in which he was riding pulled to the curb." [CD 897, pp. 20, 21; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 97];

18) Secret Service Agent Sam Kinney (driver of the follow-up car behind JFK's limo)---indicates, via his report to Chief Rowley, that Greer hit the gas after the fatal head shot to JFK and after the President's slump to the left toward Jackie. [18 H 731-732]. From the HSCA's 2/26/78 interview of Kinney: "He also remarked that 'when Greer (the driver of the Presidential limousine) looked back, his foot must have come off the accelerator' Kinney observed that at the time of the first shot, the speed of the motorcade was '3 to 5 miles an hour.'" [RIF#180-10078-10493; author's interviews with Kinney, 1992-1994];

19) Secret Service Agent Clint Hill (follow-up car, rear of limo)---" I jumped from the follow-up car and ran toward the Presidential automobile. I heard a second firecracker-type noise SA Greer had, as I jumped onto the Presidential automobile, accelerated the Presidential automobile forward." [18 H 742; Nix film; "The Secret Service" and "Inside The Secret Service" videos from 1995];

20) Secret Service Agent John Ready (follow-up car)---" I heard what sounded like fire crackers going off from my post on the right front running board. The President's car slowed " [18 H 750];

21) Secret Service Agent Glen Bennett (follow-up car)---after the fatal head shot "the President's car immediately kicked into high gear." [18 H 760; 24 H 541-542]. During his 1/30/78 HSCA interview, Bennett said the follow-up car was moving at "10-12 m.p.h.", an indication of the pace of the motorcade on Elm Street [RIF#180-10082-10452];

22) Secret Service Agent "Lem" Johns (V.P. follow-up car)---" I felt that if there was danger [it was] due to the slow speed of the automobile." [18 H 774]. During his 8/8/78 HSCA interview, Johns said that "Our car was moving very slowly", a further indication of the pace of the motorcade on Elm Street [RIF# 180-10074-10079; Altgens photo];

23) Secret Service Agent Winston Lawson (rode in the lead car)---" I think it [the lead car on Elm Street] was a little further ahead [of JFK's limo] than it had been in the motorcade, because when I looked back we were further ahead." [4 H 352], an indication of the lag in the limo during the assassination.;

24) Secret Service Agent William "Tim" McIntyre (follow-up car)---"He stated that Greer, driver of the Presidential limousine, accelerated after the third shot." [RIF#180-10082-10454: 1/31/78 HSCA interview];

25) Mrs. Earle ("Dearie") Cabell (rode in the Mayor's car)---the motorcade "stopped dead still when the noise of the shot was heard." [7 H 487; "Accessories After the Fact" by Sylvia Meagher (1967), p. 4; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 71];

26) Phil Willis---" The [Presidential] party had come to a temporary halt before proceeding on to the underpass." [7 H 497; "Crossfire" by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 24];

27) Mrs. Phil (Marilyn) Willis---after the fatal head shot, "she stated the Presidential limousine paused momentarily and then sped away under the Triple Underpass." [FBI report dated 6/19/64; "Photographic Whitewash" by Harold Weisberg (1967), p. 179];

28) Mrs. John (Nellie) Connally (rode in JFK's limo)---JFK's car did not accelerate until after the fatal head shot. [4 H 147; WR 50; "Best Evidence" by David Lifton (1988), p. 122];

29) Texas Governor John Connally (rode in JFK's limo and himself a victim of the assassination)---" After the third shot, I heard Roy Kellerman tell the driver, 'Bill, get out of line.' And then I saw him move, and I assumed he was moving a button or something on the panel of the automobile, and he said 'Get us to a hospital quick' at about this time, we began to pull out of the cavalcade, out of line." [4 H 133; WR50; "Crossfire" by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 13];

30) Dallas Morning News reporter Robert Baskin (rode in the National Press Pool Car)---stated that " the motorcade ground to a halt." ["Dallas Morning News", 11/23/63, p. 2; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 71];

31) Dallas Morning News reporter Mary Woodward (Pillsworth)---" Instead of speeding up the car, the car came to a halt."; she saw the President's car come to a halt after the first shot. Then, after hearing two more shots, close together, the car sped up. [2 H 43 (Lane); DMN, 11/23/63; 24 H 520; "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" 1988]. She spoke forcefully about the car almost coming to a stop and the lack of proper reaction by the Secret Service in 1993. [C-SPAN, 11/20/93, "Journalists Remember The Kennedy Assassination"; see also the 1/94 "Fourth Decade": article by Sheldon Inkol];

32) AP photographer James Altgens---"He said the President's car was proceeding at about ten miles per hour at the time [of the shooting] Altgens stated the driver of the Presidential limousine apparently realized what had happened and speeded up toward the Stemmons Expressway." [FBI report dated 6/5/64; "Photographic Whitewash" by Harold Weisberg (1967), p. 203] "The car's driver realized what had happened and almost if by reflex speeded up toward the Stemmons Expressway." [AP dispatch, 11/22/63; "Cover-Up" by Stewart Galanor (1998), Document 28];

33) Alan Smith---" the car was ten feet from me when a bullet hit the President in the forehead the car went about five feet and stopped." ["Chicago Tribune", 11/23/63, p. 9; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 71];

34) Mrs. Ruth M. Smith---confirmed that the Presidential limousine had come to a stop. [CD 206, p. 9; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 97];

35) TSBD Supervisor Roy Truly---after the first shot " I saw the President's car swerve to the left and stop somewheres down in the area [it stopped] for a second or two or something like that I just saw it stop." [3 H 221, 266];

36) L.P. Terry---" The parade stopped right in front of the building [TSBD]." ["Crossfire" by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 26];

37) Ochus V. Campbell---after hearing shots, "he then observed the car bearing President Kennedy to slow down, a near stop, and a motorcycle policeman rushed up. Immediately following this, he observed the car rush away from the scene." [22 H 845];

38) Peggy Joyce Hawkins---she was on the front steps of the TSBD and " estimated that the President's car was less than 50 feet away from her when he was shot, that the car slowed down almost coming to a full stop." ["Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 97];

39) Billy Lovelady---"I recall that following the shooting, I ran toward the spot where President Kennedy's car had stopped." [22 H 662];

40) An unnamed witness---from his vantage point in the courthouse building, stated that "The cavalcade stopped there and there was bedlam." ["Dallas Times Herald", 11/24/63; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 97];

41) Postal Inspector Harry Holmes (from the Post Office Annex, while viewing through binoculars)---"The car almost came to a stop, and Mrs. Kennedy pulled loose of him and crawled out over the turtleback of this Presidential car." [7 H 291]. He noticed the car pull to a halt, and Holmes thought: "They are dodging something being thrown." ["The Day Kennedy Was Shot" by Jim Bishop (1967), p. 176];

42) Peggy Burney---she stated that JFK's car had come to a stop. ["Dallas Times Herald", 11/24/63; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 97; interestingly, during the 11/20/93 C-SPAN "Journalists Remember" conference, Vivian Castleberry of the Dallas Times Herald made the claim that her first cousin, Peggy Burney, was Abraham Zapruder's assistant "and was next to him when he shot his famous film. She called and said, 'Vivian, today I saw the President die.'"!---See Sheldon Inkol's article on this conference in the January 1994 "Fourth Decade"];

43) David Broeder--"The President's car paused momentarily, then on orders from a Secret Service agent, spurted ahead." ["Washington Evening Star", 11/23/63, p. 8];

44) Sam Holland---stated that the Presidential limousine slowed down on Elm Street. [taped interview with Holland conducted in April, 1965];

45) Maurice Orr---noted that the motorcade stopped. [Arch Kimbrough, Mary Ferrell, and Sue Fitch, "Chronology", unpublished manuscript; see also "Conspiracy" by Anthony Summers, pages 20 & 23];

46) Mrs. Herman (Billy P.) Clay---"When I heard the second and third shots I knew someone was shooting at the President. I did not know if the President had been hit, but I knew something was wrong. At this point the car President Kennedy was in slowed and I, along with others, moved toward the President's car. As we neared the car it sped off." [22 H 641];

47) Mrs. Rose Clark---"She noted that the President's automobile came almost to a halt following the three shots, before it picked up speed and drove away." [24 H 533];

48) Hugh Betzner---"I looked down the street and I could see the President's car and another one and they looked like the cars were stopped then the President's car sped on under the underpass." [19 H 467];

49) John Chism---after the shots he saw "the motorcade beginning to speed up." ["Crossfire" by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 29];

50) Bill Newman---after the fatal head shot "the car momentarily stopped and the driver seemed to have a radio or phone up to his ear and he seemed to be waiting on some word. Some Secret Service men reached into their car and came out with some sort of machine gun. Then the cars roared off "; "I've maintained that they stopped. I still say they did. It was only a momentary stop, but" ["Crossfire" by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 70; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 96] "I believe Kennedy's car came to a full stop after the final shot." ["JFK: Breaking The Silence" by Bill Sloan (1993), p. 169] "I believe it was the passenger in the front seat [Roy Kellerman]---there were two men in the front seat---had a telephone or something to his ear and the car momentarily stopped. Now everywhere that you read about it, you don't read anything about the car stopping. And when I say "stopped" I mean very momentarily, like they hit the brakes and just a few seconds passed and then they floorboarded [sic] and accelerated on." [11/20/97 videotaped interview with Bill Law, Mark Row, & Ian Griggs, as transcribed in "November Patriots" by Connie Kritzberg & Larry Hancock (1998), p. 362] "One of the two men in the front seat of the car had a telephone in his hand, and as I was looking back at the car covering my son, I can remember seeing the tail lights of the car, and just for a moment they hesitated and stopped, and then they floorboarded [sic] the car and shot off." ["No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), p. 96];

51) Charles Brehm---"Brehm expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move some 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of sight." [22 H 837-838];

52) Mary Moorman---"She recalls that the President's automobile was moving at the time she took the second picture, and when she heard the shots, and has the impression that the car either stopped momentarily or hesitated and then drove off in a hurry." [22 H 838-839];

53) Jean Hill---"The motorcade came to almost a halt at the time the shots rang out and I would say it [JFK's limo] was just approximately, if not---it couldn't have been in the same position, I'm sure it wasn't, but just a very, very short distance from where it had been. It [JFK's limo] was just almost stunned." [6 H 208-209; Hill's testimony on this matter was dramatized in the Oliver Stone movie "JFK" (1991): "The driver had stopped-I don't know what was wrong with that driver." See also "JFK: The Book of the Film" (1992), p. 122. Therein is referenced a March 1991 conversation with Jean Hill.];

54) James Leon Simmons---"The car stopped or almost stopped." [2/15/69 Clay Shaw trial testimony; "Forgive My Grief Vol. III" by Penn Jones, p. 53; "High Treason" by Groden & Livingstone (1990 Berkley Edition), p. 22];

55) Norman Similas---"The Presidential limousine had passed me and slowed down slightly." ["Liberty" Magazine, 7/15/64, p. 13; "Photographic Whitewash" by Harold Weisberg (1967), p. 233];

56) Presidential Aide Ken O'Donnell (rode in the follow-up car)---" If the Secret Service men in the front had reacted quicker to the first two shots at the President's car, if the driver had stepped on the gas before instead of after the fatal third shot was fired, would President Kennedy be alive today? [as quoted in Marrs' "Crossfire", p. 248, based off a passage from O'Donnell & Powers' book "Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye"] On page 40 of O'Donnell's book "Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye", the aide reports that "Greer had been remorseful all day, feeling that he could have saved President Kennedy's life by swerving the car or speeding suddenly after the first shots." Indeed, William E. Sale, an airman first class aircraft mechanic assigned to Carswell AFB and who was stationed at Love Field before, during, and after the assassination, stated that "when the agent who was driving JFK's car came back to Air Force One he was as white as a ghost and had to be helped back to the plane *[undated Sale letter, provided to the author by Martin Shackelford];

57) Presidential aide Dave Powers (rode in the follow-up car)---" At that time we were traveling very slowly At about the time of the third shot, the President's car accelerated sharply." [7 H 473-475]. On 11/22/88, Powers was interviewed by CBS' Charles Kuralt. Powers remarked about the remorse Greer felt about not speeding up in time to save JFK"s life and agreed with Kuralt that, if Greer had sped up BEFORE the fatal head shot instead of afterwards, JFK might still be alive today [CBS, 11/22/88---this is a very dramatic and compelling short interview]. If that weren't enough, the ARRB's Tom Samoluk told me that, during the course of an interview he conducted in 1996 in which the Board was in the process of obtaining Powers' film, Powers said that he agreed with my take on the Secret Service!;

58) Texas Senator Ralph Yarborough (rode in LBJ's car)---" When the noise of the shot was heard, the motorcade slowed to what seemed to me a complete stop (though it could have been a near stop) After the third shot was fired, but only after the third shot was fired, the cavalcade speeded up, gained speed rapidly, and roared away to the Parkland Hospital."; " The cars all stopped. I put in there [his affidavit], 'I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but for the protection of future Presidents, they [the Secret Service] should be trained to take off when a shot is fired." [7 H 439-440; "Crossfire" by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 482; see also "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" 1988: "The Secret Service in the car in front of us kind of casually looked around and were rather slow to react."];

59) First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy (rode in the Presidential limousine)---"We could see a tunnel in front of us. Everything was really slow then [immediately after shooting] And just being down in the car with his head in my lap. And it just seemed an eternity And finally I remember a voice behind me, or something, and then I remember the people in the front seat, or somebody, finally knew something was wrong, and a voice yelling, which must have been Mr. Hill, "Get to the hospital," or maybe it was Mr. Kellerman, in the front seat.We were really slowing turning the corner [Houston&Elm] I remember a sensation of enormous speed, which must have been when we took off those poor men in the front" [5 H 179-181] Mary Gallagher reported in her book: "She mentioned one Secret Service man who had not acted during the crucial moment, and said bitterly to me, 'He might just as well have been Miss Shaw!'" ["My Life With Jacqueline Kennedy" by Mary Barelli Gallagher (1969), p. 342---Secret Service Agent Marty Venker and Jackie biographer C. David Heymann confirm that this unnamed agent was indeed Greer ("Confessions of an Ex-Secret Service Agent", p. 25; "A Woman Called Jackie", p. 401)] Jackie also told Gallagher that "You should get yourself a good driver so that nothing ever happens to you" [ibid., p. 351] * William Manchester, who interviewed Greer, tells us what the driver told Jackie on 11/22/63 at Parkland Hospital: "Oh, Mrs. Kennedy, oh my God, oh my God. I didn't mean to do it[?!?!], I didn't hear[who, Kellerman?], I should have swerved the car[how about hitting the gas!], I couldn't help it[!]. Oh, Mrs. Kennedy, as soon as I saw it[?] I swerved. If only I'd seen it in time! Oh!" (Manchester, p.290). 59 witnesses (10 police officers, 7 Secret Service agents, 37 spectators, 2 Presidential aides, 1 Senator, Governor Connally, and Jackie Kennedy) and the Zapruder film document Secret Service agent William R. Greer's deceleration of the presidential limousine, as well as his two separate looks back at JFK during the assassination (Greer denied all of this to the Warren Commission-2HGREER[see his entire testimony]). By decelerating from an already slow 11.2 mph, Greer greatly endangered the President's life, and, as even Gerald Posner admitted, Greer contributed greatly to the success of the assassination. When we consider that Greer disobeyed a direct order from his superior, Roy Kellerman, to get out of line BEFORE the fatal shot struck the President's head, it is hard to give Agent Greer the benefit of the doubt. As ASAIC Roy H. Kellerman said: "Greer then looked in the back of the car. Maybe he didn't believe me"("The Death of a President" by William Manchester, p.160). Clearly, Greer was responsible, at fault, and felt remorse. In short, Greer had survivor's guilt.

[Jack White]

In Palamara's list is this:

33) Alan Smith---" the car was ten feet from me when a bullet hit the President in the forehead the car went about five feet and stopped." ["Chicago Tribune", 11/23/63, p. 9; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 71];

Can anyone identify Alan Smith? No photos show anyone within 10 feet of JFK at the time of the head shot.

Jack

[Jack White]

Lee...what YOU THINK about what the witnesses said is irrelevant. Most make very CLEAR statements.

Your thinking that they MEANT something other than what they said is not relevant.

What they said either HAPPENED or DID NOT HAPPEN. Are all 59 of them mistaken?

Read this list:

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v5n1/v5n1costella.pdf

Jack

[Pat Speer]

Being ANTI-alteration is a state of mind. Those of that persuasion do NOT WANT to believe. For many year I was one of them.

Seeing that the film is altered is NOT COMPLICATED.

There are many things that happened in Dealey Plaza that NUMEROUS PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE said happened. The film does

not show these things. Why should the film be believed instead of the people?

A few SIMPLE thing are sufficient.

1. Zapruder said he filmed the limo turn onto Elm. The film does not show it.

2. People who were there said the limo made a wide turn, so it is not seen since the limo turn is not seen.

3. Connally said he turned to his LEFT when he heard a shot, then to his right. His left turn is not seen.

4. Mary Moorman and Jean Hill both said they STEPPED OFF THE CURB to shoot a Polaroid, but they are seen on the grass.

5. Jean Hill said she stepped into the street and waved and hollered at JFK; this is not seen as she stands motionless.

6. Dozens of people said the limo stopped. No limo stop is seen.

7. Numerous credible witnesses said Officer Chaney rode forward to the lead car. The lead car is seen, but no Chaney.

What is complicated about looking at the film and making these observations? Any child could do it, contrary to what

Lee and Kathy say.

Jack

Jack, Being PRO-ALTERATION is also a state of mind. The alteration argument that the film must have been altered because there are things in the film people don't remember, and things people remember that are not in the film, will NEVER hold water with historians, legal scholars, and the media. Those who've studied human cognition are more than aware we are flawed in our recollections. Horribly flawed.

Here is a link to a much discussed video.

Basketball video

This video was created to demonstrate just how flawed we are as recording devices. This video has been shown thousands of times to rooms full of students, etc. Before the showing, the professor will ask the students to count how many times the basketball is passed in the video, or whether the ball is touched more by the boys or the girls, etc. This gives them something to focus on.

Halfway through the video, however, a man in a gorilla suit walks across the room and stands in the middle of those passing the ball. And that's the whole point of the video. After the showing is over, when asked about the man in the gorilla suit, only a minority of the audience has ANY recollection of the man in the gorilla suit. The professor then replays the video, and the bulk of the audience gasps in amazement at their inability to recollect something as strange as a man in a gorilla suit walking across the room.

When given the choice of believing "people's memories are often incorrect" or believing "the film must have been faked because so many people couldn't be wrong" the vast majority of people are gonna go with the first. And be correct to do so.

Now, that doesn't mean you or anyone else who wants to study the film should stop doing so. There are several issues--including whether or not the back of the head was painted in--that, if clearly demonstrated--could make a substantial impact on the public's attitude towards alteration. But saying the film must have been faked because is doesn't show what we think it should isn't gonna pass the average person's smell test. IMHO.

This is a total non-sequitur used by those in general who want to discredit witness testimony,

and I think the relevance of the experiment is subject to various interpretations.

MURDER IN DEALY PLAZA is not a man in a gorilla suit at a basketball game. In Dealey Plaza

all attention was focused on the President and his activities in the motorcade. Hundreds of

people's eyes were riveted on JFK or Jackie and the limo. Even if a herd of gorillas had been

dancing down Main Street, nobody would have been able to tell you whether the gorillas had

been doing a waltz or polka...BUT EVERYONE COULD TELL YOU ABOUT JACKIE'S PINK HAT

AND WHITE GLOVES. So your gorilla argument falls flat, because nobody cared about gorillas

but everybody cared about JFK and Jackie.

If the limo stopped, they could report that accurately. If the gorillas stopped dancing and

started cartwheeling, most would not notice. So memories would depend on what the witness

interest was, not whether some irrelevance was happening.

Jack

Jack, the point is that people will often overlook things if they are not told to look for them. As a result, "how come the film shows (fill in the blank) even though no one noticed (fill in the blank)" type arguments hold little weight. Arguments of the "people said they saw this but it's not in the film" type are a bit stronger, one might assume, but it's not necessarily so. As pointed out by Duke Lane, many of the statements for the limo stop are really for a limo slow-down, etc. Same with the Parkland witnesses. People wanting to believe the Parkland witnesses are proof the autopsy photos are fake invariably ignore that a number of them deferred to the accuracy of the autopsy photos when put to the test, or insist these men wilted under pressure and did not really believe they were wrong. As if any of us can read the minds of those who were actually there...

I mean, how many Dealey Plaza witnesses have EVER come forward and stated that the Zapruder film does not depict the assassination they witnessed? There were hundreds of witnesses. How many have put their names to paper claiming the Zapruder film is fake?

HOW MANY HAVE PUT THEIR NAMES TO PAPER?

A few:

* James Chaney (motorcycle patrolman on right rear of the Presidential limousine): “I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. And then he instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hospital and that Parkland was standing by.”

* Bobby Hargis (motorcycle patrolman on left rear of the Presidential limousine): “The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward and announced to the Chief that the President had been shot.”

* Winston Lawson (Secret Service Agent in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “A motorcycle escort officer pulled along side our Lead Car and said the President had been shot. Chief Curry gave a signal over the radio for police to converge on the area of the incident.”

* Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service Agent in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “A motorcycle patrolman pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled, ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer responded in the affirmative.”

* Chief Jesse Curry (in the lead car in front of the Presidential limousine): “. . . about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney, rode up beside us and I asked if something happened back there and he said, ‘Yes,’ and I said ‘Has somebody been shot?” And he said, ‘I think so.’”

I believe all these witnesses to be credible and not likely mistaken. Their statements all concur. The odds of ALL of

them lying in unison becomes exponentially unlikely.

Jack

How many of these witnesses specified that this happened in Dealey Plaza? And were willing to swear to it even though it's not shown in the film?

Did any of these men ever even say they thought the film was fake? Of course not.

Most of them were Oswald didiots.

But Hargis is alive. He is willing to contradict the official story and continues to claim there were but two bursts of gunfire. Have you contacted him? Is he willing to now claim the film is fake?

Of course not.

Making a statement that is potentially at odds with a film of an event is one hundred million miles away from swearing your recollection could not be in error, and claiming the film is fake.

If none of these men believed the film to be a fake, why should we?

[Craig Lamson]

replying directly to your post Lifton, my replies in red[/color]

Craig Lamson:

I notice the clear difference between your argument and that of Gary Mack. Gary was claiming that test films were ALREADY shot; ergo, no need to shoot new test films. Now that sounded promising, did it not? But here we are, and your argument is quite different.

Your argument: the test films are useless because they were not shot on a full sun day.

Now which is it?

No argument from me at all, only statements of fact. Sorry those pesky facts are getting in the way of your very silly and ignorantly formed “full flush left” claim.

The facts about the test films: If the footage shot with Zapruder’s camera in Dallas and in the speed tests was not taken using the same F-STOP as was used when the zfilm was taken, those films are USELESS for the use you suggest for them.

No argument…just fact. Deal with it.

Rollie Zavada recognized that if enough light was blasted through the lens, AND it was on full zoom, one might get full penetration of the inter sprocket area. Apparently, he got it on one frame with the red truck.

No that not what he knew at all. <Removed by moderator>

Rollie KNEW that automatic meter was used the LIMIT the amount of light that passed through the lens and reached the film. The system was designed to allow a VERY SPECFIC and constant amount of light to “blast through the lens” and reach the film regardless of the light level...that’s how EXPOSURE is controlled. (I just love watching you make such silly statements). You simply don’t have the first clue what is it you are talking about.

But that's not what the Zapruder film frames show--just about every single frame (read that again, Mr. Lamson, "every single frame") is "full flush left" and many of them (if not just about all of them) are "BEYOND full full left."

Now what are we to make of that?

What do I make of it? Simple, it’s exactly what we would expect given the size of the aperture plate design and construction 414 B&H camera and the fact that the light in the plaza was constant on the day the z film was taken.

Given the constant light, if had the frames NOT showed a constant state of image forming in the left margin, THEN you might have had something to wonder about. As it is you got it totally BACKWARDS

What is the problem here--my knowledge of photography, or your lack of logic?

MY logic is fine, but your ignorance about the photographic process is well documented…now.

This is not about my ignorance of the interplay of these various factors, but rather your unwillingness to face the fact that there is good reason to suspect that what is called the "original Zapruder film" was not the film made by Abraham Zapruder, but rather an optically edited copy made on an optical printer, and then reduction printed to Kodachrome II.

As I’ve shown there really is no good reason to suspect alteration based on the foolish and ignorantly formed “full flush left” argument posited by Lifton and Horne. Both are woefully out of their depth.

There is enough difference in "image content" (car stop, wounds that are on JFK's head, but were not seen 4 minutes later at Parkland, etc.) to suspect optical forgery. And one simple way to see if that is in fact the case is this matter of full flush left.

Clearly that’s your opinion, and like smelly parts of the human anatomy everyone has one…well almost everyone has one. But quite frankly I’m just not interested in your opinions.

Given the shoddy manner in which you came to the “full flush left “ opinion, I put no faith in any of the rest.

An accurate test would include BOTH full zoom setting of the lens AS WELL AS the lighting conditions on 11/22/63.

Yep, no doubt about that...but it will also need equal film iso or filtration to equalize the test film iso to the z film…or did that one slip by you?

You're setting up a straw man. I never suggested that the lighting conditions should not be duplicated. If the FBI test films were not shot on a full sun day, then new test films would have to be shot. (But please don't reason circularly and tell me that because the U-Tube videos are of such poor quality, that means the test films were not shot on a full sun day. Apparently, Gary Mack believed those test films were fine, thankyou. Now maybe he is wrong; maybe he didn't bother to look up the weather on that day--and candidly, I have not done so.) Have you concluded it was not a sunny day because the U-tube videos are so lousy? Or because you checked with the records kept by the U.S.Weather Bureau. (That would make a difference, I hope you know).

I’ve not set up a strawman at all. I’ve made a simple statement of fact…The test images from the Z camera shown on Youtube where not shot in Full Sun and thus are worthless for use in the silly “full flush left” argument, even with the use of hte original film. I’ve made no claim about the quality of the Youtube video. It’s quite good enough to tell cloudy from full sun.

As for Mack , the message he sent to me said nothing of the sort. His exact words:

Craig,

Worthless? Hardly. There are multiple reels at NARA II and the study was conducted over two days. At least one of the days was mostly or completely clear, according to other news films I have seen. The partly cloudy/cloudy conditions were merely temporary.

While the technical limitations you list may be a problem in some scenes, they won’t be in all scenes.

Gary

So the actual fact is he does not know if the film shot with the Zapruder camera is fine or not. He has no idea if either of the two test runs (remember there were only two running tests) was in full sun or not.

So let's dispense with the straw man argument(s), and try to reign in your compulsion to display your erudition when it comes to lenses and light.

Well given this is a very technical argument and you have shown without a doubt that you are blindly ignorant of the technical asperts, my “compulsion” is justified. Sorry I’m not genuflecting like those blindly following you.

The simple question is this: when the Zapruder camera is used, and when lens is set at full zoom, and when the light is at a level comparable to 11/22/63, will the camera produce--repeatedly, frame after frame--a sequence of frames that are full flush left, and in fact "beyond full flush left"--such as we see on the frames from the supposedly "original Zapruder film"?

The simple answer is that the Zapruder film shows image penetration to the left side of the frame in exact accordance with design and construction of the camera.

That's the test that must be conducted--and ought to have been conducted--before the taxpayers forked over $16 million for what may well be a forgery, an optically edited film that is supposedly "camera original."

No, It’s not the “test that must be conducted”. You have not made the case that an anomaly exists in the first place. In fact It’s abundantly clear you don’t have they first clue about what you see and why you see it.

Sure, I know, Lamson. You will now respond to this post with another effusion of words, designed to advertise your erudition, but it will be lacking in logic, and steeped in denial.

Exactly what am I denying? Oh yea…that you have an actual argument.

You seem not to comprehend that your prediction(s) about what such a test will show are not equivalent to actually conducting the test and examining the results.

At the track, do you bet on horses, and then go and try to collect at the betting window, BEFORE the race is run?

Since we Are NOT dealing with RANDON events, but rather dealing with a process with well defined traits and proven actions, the predictions of the vignette changing size and darkness are well taken. Too bad your limited knowledge precludes you from understanding.

In any case I fully support testing…done properly. Test to your hearts content. Buy a dozen B&H cameras and test them and see what they show. If you find none of them can produce a usable image circle that fills the entire aperture plate THEN you MIGHT have a case to test the actual Zapruder camera.

Why in the world anyone would even consider giving someone that does not even understand the technical aspects of their own argument a valued historical artifact?

Are you so ego-centric that you genuinely believe that your knowledge (and predictions) about "how things work" are a substitute for actually conducting the appropriate test(s)?

No, I test things constantly.

And yes, I'd love to conduct an "indoor test" with the camera (at full zoom) facing a clock, and the minute hand going round and round--and then increasing the light levels, a notch at a time, to see just when (and if) full flush penetration occurs. And when (and if) "beyond full flush" is even possible.

Then why have you not done i?. There are cameras and film available. Or do you just prefer to bluster and wave your hands?

Eventually, with enough light blasting through, it will happen. But when will that be, Lamson--after the camera has melted??

We're dealing with the Zapruder camera--this is not the test of a laser weapon. (Do you understand?)

See there you go again, proving your infantile grasp of the subject. You do understand the camera will pass the SAME amount of light to the film in full sun and full shadow conditions...right?

So please: stop erecting straw men, and stop using your knowledge of photography to invent excuses to avoid proper testing.

Can you get ANYTHING correct? I’m not trying to prevent testing, in fact I’m SCOLDING you for not doing any before you made your silly claims. That’s pretty poor work on your part…but then again it is the “industry standard” for alterationists.

And one other thing: should you attend the test, do bring some heavy dark goggles, and be sure to wear them during the test. I know, you'd prefer not to because you may look like a character in a Peanuts cartoon, but I'm afraid you may need the protection, since those may well be the light levels that are going to be needed before "beyond full flush left" penetration is achieved.

Na, its just going to need a full sun, high noon and cloudlees day. I’ve spent over 30 years doing professional photography and never once had a full sun day “melt a camera”.

BTW, you really should “bone up” on the process of expanding the usable image circle of a lens by using a smaller aperture. It’s pretty standard stuff. You think you can handle it? Might save you the embarrassment you took when you failed film terminology 101 with “edge fog”…I’m just sayin….

DSL

1/13/2010; 1 AM

Los Angeles, CA

Edited January 15, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Jack White]

Lee...what YOU THINK about what the witnesses said is irrelevant. Most make very CLEAR statements.

Your thinking that they MEANT something other than what they said is not relevant.

What they said either HAPPENED or DID NOT HAPPEN. Are all 59 of them mistaken?

Read this list:

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v5n1/v5n1costella.pdf

Jack

I believe it slowed down Jack as I mentioned in my previous e-mail...I don't believe it stopped dead.

1) "ALMOST came to...a dead stop"

3) "SEEMED to falter BRIEFLY"

4) Witness was only just turning the corner onto Elm

5) Witness was further away than witness 4

7) "A MOMENTARY halt

8) "Slammed on the brakes" doesn't say for how long

9) Witness says the motorcade stopped - not the presidential limo

11) "SLOWED down"

12) "SLOWED to ALMOST a complete stop"

13) I believe this is in reference to the turn onto Elm

14) "Stopped for a moment"

15) "ALL BUT stopped for a MOMENT"

16) "...came to a stop momentarily"

17) "...pulled to the curb"

18) Suggests Greer's foot came off the accelerator

19) "Accelerated forward"

20) The car SLOWED

21) "...kicked into high gear"

22) "...slow speed of automobile"

23) Indicates a LAG in the limo

24) "Accelerated after the third shot"

26) "Temporary halt"

27) "Paused momentarily"

28) "Car did not ACCELERATE (speed up) until after the head shot"

29) Witness doesn't mention speed of limo

30) Witness says motorcade ground to a halt - doesn't mention limo

31) "...came to a halt"

32) "...speeded up" I believe Altgens was one of the closest witnesses to observe any such stop/start

36) Witness is talking about the "parade"

37) "...slow down. A NEAR stop"

38) "Slowed down, ALMOST coming to a STOP"

40) Unnamed witness "Cavalcade stopped" - not limo

41) "ALMOST came to a halt"

43) "PAUSED MOMENTARILY"

44) "Slowed down on Elm"

46) "SLOWED"

47) "Came ALMOST to a halt"

48) "Looked like they were stopped"

49) "...speed up"

50) "...MOMENTARY stop"

51) "ALMOST came to a stop" This was after the FIRST shot

52) "...had the IMPRESSION it stopped MOMENTARILY

53) "ALMOST to a halt"

54) "Stopped or ALMOST stopped"

55) "Slowed down SLIGHTLY"

56) Witness doesn't mention the car slowing or stopping

57) "Traveling SLOWLY"

58) "...the MOTORCADE SLOWED"

59) Doesn't mention the car stopping but mentions accelaration

Show me ANY of these in the Zfilm.

Jack

[Dean Hagerman]

In Palamara's list is this:

33) Alan Smith---" the car was ten feet from me when a bullet hit the President in the forehead the car went about five feet and stopped." ["Chicago Tribune", 11/23/63, p. 9; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 71];

Can anyone identify Alan Smith? No photos show anyone within 10 feet of JFK at the time of the head shot.

Jack

GinAndTonicMan?

Even though he was more then 10 feet away during the head shot he could have exagerated the distance

One of the two teenage kids seen in Moorman?

Interesting that I have never heard of Alan Smith

Edited January 14, 2010 by Dean Hagerman

[Paul Rigby]

Lee...what YOU THINK about what the witnesses said is irrelevant. Most make very CLEAR statements.

Your thinking that they MEANT something other than what they said is not relevant.

What they said either HAPPENED or DID NOT HAPPEN. Are all 59 of them mistaken?

Read this list:

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v5n1/v5n1costella.pdf

Jack

I believe it slowed down Jack as I mentioned in my previous e-mail...I don't believe it stopped dead.

Not so much a question of whether it stopped, but for how long exactly:

1) Earl Cabell: “No; we couldn't tell. We could tell, of course, there was confusion in the presidential car--activity. The Secret Service men ran to that car,” Source: 7WCH479.

2) James Chaney and other unnamed Dallas officers, as related by fellow motorcycle outrider, Marrion L. Baker: “I talked to Jim Chaney…during the time that the Secret Service men were trying to get into the car…from the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped…I heard several of them say that, Mr. Truly he was standing out there, he said it stopped. Several officers said it stopped completely,” Source: 3WCH265.

3) Norman Similas: “I swung back to look at the car. A Secret Service man ran up with his gun drawn…The Secret Service man opened the car door and I saw the President slumped down to the floor…,” Source: “‘I saw president fall’ – Willowdale man,” Toronto Daily Star, (All Star Night edition), Friday, 22 November 1963, pp.1&13

4) Robert Baskin: “The motorcade ground to a halt. There was a good deal of activity round the President’s car, with Secret Service men running about,” Source: “Day Began As Auspiciously As Any in Kennedy’s Career,” The Dallas Morning News, 23 November 1963, p.2

5) DPD motorcycle officer Bobby Joe Dale (one of two rear mid-motorcade motorcycles): "After the shots were fired, the whole motorcade came to a stop. I stood and looked through the plaza, noticed there was commotion, and saw people running around his [JFK's] car. It started to move, then it slowed again; that's when I saw Mrs. Kennedy coming back on the trunk and another guy [Clint Hill] pushing her back into the car, " Source: Larry Sneed. No More Silence (1998), p. 134

[David Lifton]

DSL COMMENTARY:

As set forth in Pig on a Leash, In November, 1971, I interviewed five of what I shall call the car-stop witnesses:

Mary Moorman

Bill Newman

Gayle Newman

Chism

Franzen

It was pretty obvious to me, from the accounts of these witnesses, that the car stopped, momentarily.

My interviews with Bill and Gayle Newman were particularly important. After they gave me their accounts, I pointed out that the Zapruder film, (then) available at National Archives, did not show such a stop. Bill Newman emphasized to me that they were standing right there, that the car stopped, and that it didn't matter what the film showed.

One statement from Franzen I remember vividly: that the car was moving so slowly that a man could comfortably walk besides it. FYI: 15 miles per hour corresponds to a four minute mile. Just to understand the key issue: Imagine someone running a 4 minute mile down Elm Street and that being confused with someone slowing sharply, much less stopping. Even 11 mph (the measured speed, during some part of the traverse down Elm) would be far to fast for Franzen to have that perception. And the notion that, after the shooting, Clint Hill overtook an accelerating vehicle--regardless of what the edited film frames show--is (to me) not just improbable, but ludicrous.

Anyway, I would strongly suggest that your list(s) be modified to include BOTH Newman's as car stop witnesses. They are both on record in November 1971 as having maintained that the car stopped.

As I pointed out in Pig on a Leash, I used a SONY TC-800 tape recorder for all these interviews (except Moorman, whose husband would not permit me to tape, but I have notes), and those interviews are on a 33 CD set that was made for the ARRB and is under seal at NARA as part of the JFK Collection.

As far as I'm concerned, the issue of the car slowly sharply (to practically 1-2 mph, at most) or stopping completely, is not a "perception" problem; it is a problem for the integrity of the Zapruder film.

DSL

1/14/10 4 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

[Jack White]

Lee...what YOU THINK about what the witnesses said is irrelevant. Most make very CLEAR statements.

Your thinking that they MEANT something other than what they said is not relevant.

What they said either HAPPENED or DID NOT HAPPEN. Are all 59 of them mistaken?

Read this list:

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v5n1/v5n1costella.pdf

Jack

I believe it slowed down Jack as I mentioned in my previous e-mail...I don't believe it stopped dead.

1) "ALMOST came to...a dead stop"

3) "SEEMED to falter BRIEFLY"

4) Witness was only just turning the corner onto Elm

5) Witness was further away than witness 4

7) "A MOMENTARY halt

8) "Slammed on the brakes" doesn't say for how long

9) Witness says the motorcade stopped - not the presidential limo

11) "SLOWED down"

12) "SLOWED to ALMOST a complete stop"

13) I believe this is in reference to the turn onto Elm

14) "Stopped for a moment"

15) "ALL BUT stopped for a MOMENT"

16) "...came to a stop momentarily"

17) "...pulled to the curb"

18) Suggests Greer's foot came off the accelerator

19) "Accelerated forward"

20) The car SLOWED

21) "...kicked into high gear"

22) "...slow speed of automobile"

23) Indicates a LAG in the limo

24) "Accelerated after the third shot"

26) "Temporary halt"

27) "Paused momentarily"

28) "Car did not ACCELERATE (speed up) until after the head shot"

29) Witness doesn't mention speed of limo

30) Witness says motorcade ground to a halt - doesn't mention limo

31) "...came to a halt"

32) "...speeded up" I believe Altgens was one of the closest witnesses to observe any such stop/start

36) Witness is talking about the "parade"

37) "...slow down. A NEAR stop"

38) "Slowed down, ALMOST coming to a STOP"

40) Unnamed witness "Cavalcade stopped" - not limo

41) "ALMOST came to a halt"

43) "PAUSED MOMENTARILY"

44) "Slowed down on Elm"

46) "SLOWED"

47) "Came ALMOST to a halt"

48) "Looked like they were stopped"

49) "...speed up"

50) "...MOMENTARY stop"

51) "ALMOST came to a stop" This was after the FIRST shot

52) "...had the IMPRESSION it stopped MOMENTARILY

53) "ALMOST to a halt"

54) "Stopped or ALMOST stopped"

55) "Slowed down SLIGHTLY"

56) Witness doesn't mention the car slowing or stopping

57) "Traveling SLOWLY"

58) "...the MOTORCADE SLOWED"

59) Doesn't mention the car stopping but mentions accelaration

Show me ANY of these in the Zfilm.

Jack

I get quite a strong perceptible sense of slow-down in the limo between frames 299-340 Jack

A "sense of a slowdown" does not fit the witness statements. You are unfamiliar with the

witness statements.

Jack

[Jack White]

In Palamara's list is this:

33) Alan Smith---" the car was ten feet from me when a bullet hit the President in the forehead the car went about five feet and stopped." ["Chicago Tribune", 11/23/63, p. 9; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 71];

Can anyone identify Alan Smith? No photos show anyone within 10 feet of JFK at the time of the head shot.

Jack

GinAndTonicMan?

Even though he was more then 10 feet away during the head shot he could have exagerated the distance

One of the two teenage kids seen in Moorman?

Interesting that I have never heard of Alan Smith

A possiblity! Where can we find more about Alan Smith???

Jack

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I believe Greer hit the brakes. I believe the limousine slowed - possibly stopped for the briefest of moments.

Hi Lee and welcome to the forum. I enjoy reading your posts, and look forward to your contributions.

I would enjoy your posts MUCH MORE, however, if you would only go to JOHN SIMKIN"S recent thread on USING THE FORUM, and apply the guidelines suggested.

Re Greer: He is, in Vince Palamara's words, THE MOST IMPORTANT AGENT of the conspirators, even ahead of any one marksman. Without the complicity of Greer -- or some other Secret Service driver -- the plot to kill JFK would have had to take an entirely different direction.

But Greer was too smart and too cool to SLAM ON THE BRAKES. He only tapped them gently, though enough to cause the passengers to lurch forward. I think he probably hit the brakes more than once during the shooting, depending on the car's default acceleration.

A big welcome also to Doug Weldon, whose famed expertise in the field of limos is especially welcome . Of course Doug's posts would also be better enjoyed if he too read the thread on USING THE FORUM.

Doug: I hope you are reading this. Can you tell us anything about the car's default accelleration rate?. Although it was 2 ton weight, if I remember correctly, it was a VERY POWERFUL CAR which must have had a helluva rate of accelleration.e.g. zero to 40 in X seconds?

What can you tell us about that, or can you refer us to the best sources(s)?