DID ZAPRUDER FILM "THE ZAPRUDER FILM"?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Robin,

The images in your posts #498 and #499 do not appear to be the same. Take another look. Meanwhile,

here is page 436, where you can see that at least four windshields were involved: the original, which is

seen in Altgens; the replacement, which was completely new; the third, described in the Ferguson memo;

and the fourth, which is the one that you believe was the original. Take a closer look, if you don't mind:

Once again, if you have HOAX, I would be grateful if you would post a better version of this page, too.

This photo, notice, as I've explained above, does not have the same pattern of cracks as the substitute:

NARA Limo windscreen close up.

Edited April 11, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Robin Unger]

I have looked at all the windscreen images, including a very large blowup of the Altgen's 6 windscreen area.

What i do see in many of the images, is a pattern of spider web cracks.

most probably caused by a metal fragement hitting the inside of the windscreen

Hi Jim

I don't have "HOAX" sorry.

I beleive the B&W image above to be authentic as it still shows the blood drops on the Windshield.

[Robin Unger]

Altgens 6 Crop

Edited April 11, 2011 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

NARA Limo windscreen close up.

As i understand it, this is the windscreen after it was kicked out, which caused the original cracks to extend.

http://www.maryferre...ce_-_Windshield

Edited April 11, 2011 by Robin Unger

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Robin,

Compare your post #504 with post #506. They look nothing at all alike. The patterns are not the same.

NARA Limo windscreen close up.

As i understand it, this is the windscreen after it was kicked out, which caused the original cracks to extend.

http://www.maryferre...ce_-_Windshield

Edited April 11, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

Robin,

Compare your post #504 with post #506. They look nothing at all alike. The patterns are not the same.

Perspective is your friend...IF you understand it.

[Martin Hinrichs]

Perspective is your friend...IF you understand it.

I take a sword for you Craig.

Perspective is important to understand the photographic evidence.

Martin

[Mark Knight]

As distasteful as it is for me to support Craig Lamson, we cannot honestly compare the images in post 507 without knowing the exact orientation of the windshield in the second image. In the second image, there's simply no reference to what's top or bottom of the windshield, and as to whether the image is taken from what was the inside or the outside of the windshield. The second image in post 499 would seem to IMPLY that the second image in post 506 may have been taken from what would've been the INSIDE of the car.

So until/unless we can document the orientation of the second image in post 507, it's hard to say whether it's a match or not. AND without tilting the image [and inducing the corresponding distortion] to correspond with the INSTALLED angle of the windshield, even a "near" match may appear to look completely differently...i.e., some of the cracks in the windshield may not be visible in the Parkland [?] photo because of the angle of the sun in relation to the edge of the crack, for example.

But Lamson's correct...until we take perspective into consideration, ANY comparison is moot.

[Martin Hinrichs]

As distasteful as it is for me to support Craig Lamson, we cannot honestly compare the images

But Lamson's correct...until we take perspective into consideration, ANY comparison is moot.

You are correct Mark.

[Cliff Varnell]

I can't see anyone aiming through the windshield. Any hole there was the result of a miss, imo.

The throat shot was a perfect hit.

Why shoot someone in the throat on purpose, if desiring a perfect hit?

Allow me to re-phrase the statement.

"If the intent was to paralyze JFK to prevent him from ducking down from a non-fatal shot,

the throat shot was a perfect hit that paralyzed him in about two seconds."

If the intent was to kill JFK with the first shot, I can't think of anything more far-fetched than to plan to shoot through the windshield with a small caliber firearm.

Edited April 11, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

As distasteful as it is for me to support Craig Lamson,

You miss the entire point Mark. NONE of this is or should be about support for ANYONE.

[Mark Knight]

I find it distasteful to be on the side of Mr. Lamson because of his tendancy to ridicule those who disagree with him...much as I find it distasteful to find myself on the same side as a few others who post here and use the same technique to "argue" their points. But I generally support what I understand the truth to be, no matter WHO states it. So let's let this be the last on who I support, or why I support any person's arguments, and let's get back to discussing the subject at hand...which originally was the Z-film, and branched into the hole/absence of hole/spiral nebulae/absence of such in the windshield of SS100.

Edited April 11, 2011 by Mark Knight

[Robin Unger]

As distasteful as it is for me to support Craig Lamson, we cannot honestly compare the images in post 507 without knowing the exact orientation of the windshield in the second image. In the second image, there's simply no reference to what's top or bottom of the windshield, and as to whether the image is taken from what was the inside or the outside of the windshield. The second image in post 499 would seem to IMPLY that the second image in post 506 may have been taken from what would've been the INSIDE of the car. So until/unless we can document the orientation of the second image in post 507, it's hard to say whether it's a match or not. AND without tilting the image [and inducing the corresponding distortion] to correspond with the INSTALLED angle of the windshield, even a "near" match may appear to look completely differently...i.e., some of the cracks in the windshield may not be visible in the Parkland [?] photo because of the angle of the sun in relation to the edge of the crack, for example. But Lamson's correct...until we take perspective into consideration, ANY comparison is moot.

Mark The orientation can be seen in this image i posted originally in this thread. It shows the crack is on the INSIDE OF THE WINDSCREEN This image more correctly align's with Altgens 7 NOT altgens 6

NARA image flipped and placed over the top of the whitehouse garage image so as to approximate the Altgens 6 orientation

NARA color image resized only ( no rotation )

Small GIF ( 3-frames )

Edited April 12, 2011 by Robin Unger

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

Well, I am very favorably disposed toward you because you are far more rational in your response to the

witnesses and other evidence than many others. I am glad you have both ASSASSINATION SCIENCE

and MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA. Since that is the case, tell me whether you think that the substitute

windshield shown on page 157 bears any resemblance to the hole seen in the Altgens on page 149?

Jim, I don't have access to my books right now. Again, I'm not challenging the t&t windshield hole.

What's the probability that a hole in the windshield, JFK's grasping his throat, the sound of a fire-cracker, and these tiny "shrapnel wounds" in the face are causally unrelated?

You've forgotten about Connally, who was also struck at least once in this time frame.

So he have the following hits between Z190 and Z255 -- JFK in the throat, JFK in the back,

JBC in the torso, JBC in the wrist, JBC in the thigh, the hole in the windshield.

I think we both agree that JFK's wounds and JBC's wounds were not related.

I see no evidence to conclude that the windshield strike and JFK's throat wound were related. There were just too many rounds fired into the limo at that point.

Tracing the throat wound and the windshield hole leads back to the location half-way between the road and the top of the Triple Underpass. How do you explain this evidence?

Coincidence. I don't buy the notion that a first/shot kill shot would have been planned to hit Kennedy through the windshield, especially at that distance.

Where did that windshield bullet go?

I don't know. I also don't know how many times Connally was hit, or the position of the Connally shooter(s).

The back shot and the throat shot were very closely spaced in time.

Ascertaining the timing of the back shot is a little tricky, since we only have one

eye-witness to it and no photographic evidence of it. According to SSA Glenn Bennett

he heard two firecracker sounds, the second one hit JFK in the back.

Someone behind hearing the sound of a firecracker caused by the bullet passing through the windshield but witnessing instead the hit to his back might very well associate them. But what would have been the cause of such a sound from the shot that hit him in the back? We know a windshield hit would cause that sound.

Evidently shots that don't go through windshields also cause a similar sound.

It is quite common for gunfire to be described as "sounded like firecrackers."

So I think you are not doing as good a job of thinking this through as I would like to have from you.

Did I not think you are a very smart guy whose work is usually quite good--including in relation to

the back wound, which I discuss in "Reasoning about Assassinations"--I wouldn't continue pursuing

this with you. Check out page 436 of HOAX when you have the chance and get back to me about it.

I do have a copy of (what purports to be) the chest X-ray in MORTAL ERROR, which, of course, was

why I asked if you thought JFK had been shot by a Secret Service agent by accident. I would like it

if you could elaborate on the sketch you have given of your views on the shot sequence, which is:

Throat shot -- right front.

Back shot -- Dal-Tex

Head shot(s) -- right front, possible multiple directions including South Knoll, the Dal-Tex, and

west corner of the TSBD, 6th fl.

In particular, where do you think the throat shot originated? As you know, I believe the back shot

originated from the top of the County Records Building, not the Dal-Tex, but that three shots were

fired from the Dal-Tex--the miss that injured James Tague, the miss that hit the chrome strip on

the windshield, the hit to the back of his head near the EOP. I believe one to three shots were from

the west side of the Book Depository, which hit John Connally. Tell me more about the throat shot.

I think the throat shot occurred circa Z190. Recall that the HSCA analysis of the Willis #5 photo noted a "distinct straight-line feature" in the region of the hands of Black Dog Man. Either BDM was the throat shooter, dressed as a cop with a firearm in his hand, or BDM was a young black woman with a pop bottle in her hand.

According to Rosemary Willis, BDM was a "conspicuous" person who happened to "disappear the next instant."

Either the shooter ducked down after taking the shot, or the young black woman ducked because the round was fired right behind her, in back of the picket fence.

[Greg Burnham]

So he have the following hits between Z190 and Z255 -- JFK in the throat, JFK in the back,

JBC in the torso, JBC in the wrist, JBC in the thigh, the hole in the windshield.

I think we both agree that JFK's wounds and JBC's wounds were not related.

I see no evidence to conclude that the windshield strike and JFK's throat wound were related. There were

just too many rounds fired into the limo at that point.

I very much appreciate this exchange, Cliff & Jim. A lot of good stuff here, IMO. Cliff, correct me if

I'm wrong, but for clarity--I placed an emphasis on one of the words you used above, namely, the word:

CONCLUDE.

I agree with you... however, with a few minor (yet significant) clarifications. These may or may not jibe with

your position, I don't know. But it is the way I see it.

IMO: "The evidence is insufficient to conclude that the windshield strike is related to the throat wound."

IOW: There is evidence that such a strike to the windshield was related to the throat wound, but the evidence

is insufficient to conclude that the two are definitely related.

Fetzer says:

Tracing the throat wound and the windshield hole leads back to the location half-way between the road and

the top of the Triple Underpass. How do you explain this evidence?

Varnell said: Coincidence. I don't buy the notion that a first/shot kill shot would have been planned

to hit Kennedy through the windshield, especially at that distance.

BURNHAM says:

It may have indeed been coincidence. That's a hard one to "nail down"...and the term "coincidence" is hardly

anything but imprecise. I remember commenting on the JFKresearch Forum that I would reject a shot through

the windshield as a "first choice" when other--more desirable--positions were available. John Ritchson retorted

something that I find very compelling. He said that firing a sniper shot through a windshield is not a problem at

all. The glass is a non-issue. The broader issue is this: If a shot needed to originate from that spot in order to

establish triangulation...then so be it. Done deal.

FETZER said:

Where did that windshield bullet go?

Varnell said: I don't know. I also don't know how many times Connally was hit, or the position of the

Connally shooter(s).

Burnham says: Agreed. We also don't know how many bullets (total) were recovered, nor do we know all of their types.

FETZER said:

The back shot and the throat shot were very closely spaced in time.

Varnell said: Ascertaining the timing of the back shot is a little tricky, since we only have one eye-witness to it

and no photographic evidence of it. According to SSA Glenn Bennett he heard two firecracker sounds, the second one

hit JFK in the back.

FETZER said:

Someone behind hearing the sound of a firecracker caused by the bullet passing through

the windshield but witnessing instead the hit to his back might very well associate them.

But what would have been the cause of such a sound from the shot that hit him in the back?

We know a windshield hit would cause that sound.

Varnell said: Evidently shots that don't go through windshields also cause a similar sound.

It is quite common for gunfire to be described as "sounded like firecrackers."

BURNHAM says: You are entirely correct, Cliff. I was shot at on the freeway while off duty riding a police

motorcycle years ago. The first 2 shots sounded like a backfire or firecracker. I definitely heard the shots, but I

didn't become alarmed as my detail was done and I was on my way home. However, the third shot blew the

windshield off of my motorcycle--wham! I knew they were shots fired because of the obliterated windshield, but

not because of the sound they made. Now, there is a difference between sounds on the freeway and sounds on a

city street, but I had just entered the freeway and wasn't even up to speed yet.