The Law of Unintended Consequences

[David Lifton]

A Simple Question

The Zapruder film has been a thorn in the government's side since it first led the Secret Service and the FBI to conclude in December 1963 that Connally was hit by a separate bullet. When it was shown on TV by Bob Groden in 1975 it provided the muscle of public opinion to get the case reopened.

Let's say you are some mysterious intelligence outfit that brought off the assassination and now has to cover up the fact that JFK was shot in the head from the right front. Isn't the simplest and most effective solution to seize the Zapruder film as soon as anyone knows what it in it? "I'm sorry, Mr. Zapruder," says Forrest Sorrels, "but the Secret Servide will have to take this film as evidence." Doesn't that about take care of the whole problem. Why go to the trouble of faking up parts of the film when the simplest solution is just to seize the damn thing? Then weeks or months later some "accident" can befall the film while it's in storage... a fire, a flood, a loss in transit.

But let's say that the myserious intelligence outfit decided to fake up parts of the film.

Why on earth would they leave the massive left backward snap in the film and just cover up some blood and brain at the back of Kennedy's head? The left backward snap is the most graphic evidence of a shot from the right front. It was seeing that that brought about the formation of HSAC. Why leave that in and only paint in a little patch at the back of JFK's head?

JT

IMHO: the Zapruder film was altered to create evidence that would be considered superior to the eyewitness accounts. Without a film which could function as a "gold standard" (of sorts), the eyewitnesses testimony would rule the day, and that would lead one to conclude (for example) that the car stopped--and that would immediately implicate the Secret Service.

That could not be permitted; ergo, films had to be altered.

If all those eye-witnesses are correct, then that was certainly a primary motive for the "editing"--and I'm putting the word in quotes, because I no longer believe mere "editing" explains what we have here.

In any event, once one is faced with eliminating the car stop, then simple physics--i.e., Rate x time = distance--results in a most uncomfortable fact: that the car-stop (or even a serious slow down) can not be eliminated without introducing, as an artifact, an acceleration in the backward motion of JFK's body. There is really no way around that; unless one completely redraws all the imagery. And that's why I believe today--and have for many years--that the backward "snap" is an artifact of the editing/fabrication of the film.

But let's move on to another matter--and why I deliberately inserted the word "fabrication." Consider the account of a credible witness, AP Reporter Jack Bell, who was in the back seat of the press car, just behind Mayor Cabell's car (which was behind the LBJ followup car "Varsity").

THE JACK BELL ACCOUNT

Here is what Jack Bell wrote, as it appeared in the NY Times of Saturday morning, November 23, 1963:

"Four cars ahead, in the President’s Continental limousine, a man in the front seat rose for a moment. He seemed to have a telephone in [his] hand as he waved to a police cruiser ahead to go on."

Nowhere in the existing film is any footage showing this event; i.e., showing Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, who was the senior agent in charge, standing up, or "rising" for a moment, with a telephone in his hand, "as he waved to a police cruiser ahead to go on."

Not only is there no image of Kellerman rising, there is definitely no image of him "waving" to a police cruiser "to go on."

Did AP reporter Jack Bell imagine this?

Was he just confused?

Or is this another fact that --somehow--has been consigned to the dustbin of history (Trotsky's phrase), because of the "editing" of the Zapruder film.

So now we come face to face with the serious nature of the problem, and why I am putting the word "editing" in quotes.

I have examined this film meticulously, frame by frame. There is not the slightest hint that the image of Roy Kellerman rises, or shows him "as he waved to a police cruiser ahead." Yet we do have plenty of images of Kellerman, after JFK has been hit in the head. So. . . what's going on here? What happened to that event? How was it transformed into a "non-event"?

If what Jack Bell saw actually happened, then the extant "Zapruder film" has to be more than merely "edited." There has to be some serious fabrication, and graphics performed, in order that (a) an event that what was originally present to have disappeared, and then (b ) for the sequence of images we have of Kellerman to appear as they do: crouched over for some frames, perhaps on the radio, but certainly not "rising" up, or waving to the police cruiser up ahead, to move on.

But back to basics: If this film had been altered (and/or fabricated) in a manner that was "satisfactory", it would not have been locked up by Life, for 12 years. Furthermore: the number "12 years" is also misleading. Had Robert Groden not made copies from the 35mm copies made by Moses Weitzman, and then broadcast the Z fim on national TV (on Geraldo, March, 1975), the Zapruder film might have remained under wraps many years beyond March 1975. Without that national broadcast, and the subsequent public outcry, I wonder whether there would ever have been an HSCA investigation (1976 - 1979). A powerful lobbying tool for those who were meeting with members of Congress was Groden's film, and Groden, personally, and others (e.g., Josiah Thompson) met with various representatives screening the film, and urging legislation for a new . In addition to the Zapruder film, of course, there was another force at work: were the findings of the Schweiker-Hart subcommittee of the Church Committee. That group issued its report in mid-June, 1976, reporting that, with regard to the agencies investigating the JFK assassination, there had been a coverup.

NOT A PERFECT CRIME

Ultimately, the answer to the question you pose is that this was not a "perfect crime"--far from it--but that the imperfections were sufficiently hidden, and submerged, that they only surfaced over time. Body alteration and film alteration are two of those major areas. My book --focused on autopsy falsification via body alteration--was published in January 1981; and as far as film alteration goes, that has really only gotten traction with the advent of the Internet and then YouTube. Without these technical advances, there would be no "community" to debate these matters, because there would be no way of "video file sharing." I faced this problem when writing BEST EVIDENCE and that's why the insights I had re Zapruder film alteration--insights going back to 1970/71 when I was able to examine the key Weitzman materials at the Beverly Hills office Time-Life-- were put in a 1100 word footnote in Chapter 24. As a practical matter, there was simply no way to demonstrate what was in "the film" in book format.

Going back to the mid-sixties: I'm sure you remember the "good ole days" when simply attempting to prove there was a movement between frames 312 and 313 meant going to the National Archives, and bringing 35 mm slide projectors, and perhaps holding forth to three or four others who were also willing to travel by train to Washington, meet you there, and discuss what these images meant. That was the age of "Pony Express" when it came to discussing and debating the Zapruder film. At the end of such a session, maybe five people would be "enlightened" and maybe they would "pass the word" to others, by snail mail.

Now, the debate has advanced to a whole different level. There is a global community debating these matters out there in cyberspace. I would hope that people are starting to understand that getting to the bottom of what happened in Dallas means identifying what evidence has been falsified, and how that was accomplished--i.e., in "real time." Because what we now have before us is a false history, and a fair amount of bogus evidence.

That's what the "conspiracy to kill Kennedy" was all about--not just murdering the man, but then falsifying the facts about how he died. And this doesn't just apply to whether a rifle and three shells were placed by a phony sniper's nest, and whether the autopsy was deliberately falsified--but whether films of the event were (if necessary) altered as well.

DSL

1/20/12; 3:45 AM

Los Angeles, CA

Edited January 21, 2012 by David Lifton

[John Costella]

[Edit: David added a section to his post. See above for the full edited post. --JPC]

Agree completely, David. Apologies if I borrowed your argument about the head snap being the result of frame deletion -- I remember you explaining it well in the past.

Fascinating quote from Jack Bell. I am sure I've seen -- and glossed over -- the "rising with a telephone and waving" quote before. Is it only in this one place, and it's just been quoted many times? Or is there someone else who actually described this same event?

I wonder about those sorts of things too. Without corroboration, each of them is lower on the scale of evidence. It would be nice to see a genuine film one day, to see which of these "anomalous" observations did actually occur. (I have no doubt that some will be wrong. I doubt that most will be wrong.)

And I have to wonder if Chaney perhaps reacted to this "waving ahead", acting as a human messenger.

Anyway, enough for wondering. A useful activity, but no substitute for the hard evidence.

John

A Simple Question

The Zapruder film has been a thorn in the government's side since it first led the Secret Service and the FBI to conclude in December 1963 that Connally was hit by a separate bullet. When it was shown on TV by Bob Groden in 1975 it provided the muscle of public opinion to get the case reopened.

Let's say you are some mysterious intelligence outfit that brought off the assassination and now has to cover up the fact that JFK was shot in the head from the right front. Isn't the simplest and most effective solution to seize the Zapruder film as soon as anyone knows what it in it? "I'm sorry, Mr. Zapruder," says Forrest Sorrels, "but the Secret Servide will have to take this film as evidence." Doesn't that about take care of the whole problem. Why go to the trouble of faking up parts of the film when the simplest solution is just to seize the damn thing? Then weeks or months later some "accident" can befall the film while it's in storage... a fire, a flood, a loss in transit.

But let's say that the myserious intelligence outfit decided to fake up parts of the film.

Why on earth would they leave the massive left backward snap in the film and just cover up some blood and brain at the back of Kennedy's head? The left backward snap is the most graphic evidence of a shot from the right front. It was seeing that that brought about the formation of HSAC. Why leave that in and only paint in a little patch at the back of JFK's head?

JT

IMHO: the Zapruder film was altered to create evidence that would be considered superior to the eyewitness accounts. Without a film which could function as a "gold standard" (of sorts), the eyewitnesses testimony would rule the day, and that would lead one to conclude that the car stopped--and that would immediately implicate the Secret Service.

So if all those witnesses are correct, then that was certainly a primary motive for the "editing"--and I'm putting the word in quotes, because I no longer believe mere "editing" explains what we have here.

In any event, once one is faced with eliminating the car stop, then simple physics--i.e., Rate x time = distance--results in a most uncomfortable fact: that the car-stop (or even a serious slow down) can not be eliminated without introducing, as an artifact, an acceleration in the backward motion of JFK's body. There is really no way around that; unless one completely redraws all the imagery. And that's why I believe today--and have for many years--that the backward "snap" is an artifact of the editing/fabrication of the film.

But let's move on to another matter--and why I deliberately inserted the word "fabrication." Consider the account of a credible witness, AP Reporter Jack Bell, who was in the back seat of the press car, just behind Mayor Cabell's car (which was behind the LBJ followup car "Varsity").

Here is what Jack Bell wrote, as it appeared in the NY Times of Saturday morning, November 23, 1963:

"Four cars ahead, in the President's Continental limousine, a man in the front seat rose for a moment. He seemed to have a telephone in [his] hand as he waved to a police cruiser ahead to go on."

Nowhere in the existing film is any footage showing this event; i.e., showing Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, who was the senior agent in charge, standing up, or "rising" for a moment, with a telephone in his hand, "as he waved to a police cruiser ahead to go on."

Not only is there no image of Kellerman rising, there is definitely no image of him "waving" to a police cruiser "to go on."

Did Jack Bell imagine this?

Was he just confused?

Or is this another fact that --somehow--been consigned to the dustbin of history (Trotsky's phrase), because of the "editing" of the Zapruder film.

So now we come face to face with the serious nature of the problem, and why I am putting the word "editing" in quotes.

I have examined this film meticulously, frame by frame. There is not the slightest hint that the image of Roy Kellerman rises, or shows him "as he waved to a police cruiser ahead." Yet we do have plenty of images of Kellerman, after JFK has been hit in the head. So. . . what's going on here? What happened to that event? How was it made into a "non-event"?

If what Jack Bell saw actually happened, then the extant "Zapruder film" has to be more than merely "edited." There has to be some serious fabrication, and graphics performed, in order that (a) what was originally present to have disappeared, and then (b ) for the sequence of images we have of Kellerman to appear as they do: crouched over for some frames, perhaps on the radio, but certainly not "rising" up, or waving to the police cruiser up ahead, to move on.

But back to basics: If this film had been altered (and/or fabricated) in a manner that was "satisfactory", it would not have been locked up by Life, for 12 years. Furthermore: had Robert Groden not made copies from the 35mm copies made by Moses Weitzman, and then broadcast it on national TV (on Geraldo, March, 1975), the Zapruder film might have remained under wraps many years beyond March 1975. Without that national broadcast, I wonder whether there would ever have been an HSCA investigation.

DSL

1/20/12; 3:45 AM

Los Angeles, CA

Edited January 21, 2012 by John Costella

[Cliff Varnell]

To repeat: all you have done--or attempted to do (imho)--is erect an "error theory" to explain away the evidence.

Indeed.

Everyone who saw the cerebellum got it wrong?

Everyone who saw the throat wound as an entrance got it wrong?

Everyone who saw the low back wound got it wrong?

What are the chances of that? What was it about JFK's wounds that rendered all who witnessed them incapable of accurate perception?

[Calli Robertson]

Chaney never passed the limo before the underpass.

[Patrick Block]

A Simple Question

The Zapruder film has been a thorn in the government's side since it first led the Secret Service and the FBI to conclude in December 1963 that Connally was hit by a separate bullet. When it was shown on TV by Bob Groden in 1975 it provided the muscle of public opinion to get the case reopened.

Let's say you are some mysterious intelligence outfit that brought off the assassination and now has to cover up the fact that JFK was shot in the head from the right front. Isn't the simplest and most effective solution to seize the Zapruder film as soon as anyone knows what it in it? "I'm sorry, Mr. Zapruder," says Forrest Sorrels, "but the Secret Servide will have to take this film as evidence." Doesn't that about take care of the whole problem. Why go to the trouble of faking up parts of the film when the simplest solution is just to seize the damn thing? Then weeks or months later some "accident" can befall the film while it's in storage... a fire, a flood, a loss in transit.

But let's say that the myserious intelligence outfit decided to fake up parts of the film.

Why on earth would they leave the massive left backward snap in the film and just cover up some blood and brain at the back of Kennedy's head? The left backward snap is the most graphic evidence of a shot from the right front. It was seeing that that brought about the formation of HSAC. Why leave that in and only paint in a little patch at the back of JFK's head?

JT

That's a perfectly logical question, and I'll take a shot at it.

The Conspiracy was carefully planned and polished by professionals- that mysterious intelligence agency you describe- it was the CIA. They had already accounted for or stopped any real investigation of the crime by insuring that the search would stop with Oswald, by creating the "Oswald visit's the Soviet Chief Assassin" scenario in Mexico City. Everyone would be head over-heels in their enthusiasm to blame Oswald alone to avoid a conflict of massive proportions with the Soviets.

With their man already pre-planned and waiting in the wings to lead the WC to the "correct" conclusion, those that planned the coup knew only the most shallow of purely political "investigations" would take place.

They made sure that they got full control over the film, by having a company "friendly" to them (Life Magazine, headed by former psyops and propaganda guru C. D. Jackson) purchase it, and insuring that the film would never be shown publicly as a motion picture by this huge news giant- ever.

Haven't you ever found it curious that Life Magazine paid all this additional money (100,000.00 of additional cash), and never even bothered to try and recoup it's additional investment with a documentary or news program?

Why purchase the motion picture rights for an additional 100k $ if they weren't going to publish it? Does anyone believe the fairy tale that they were saving the country from the horror of publishing the images? I mean...really?

Look at the publishing history of frame #317. How many times have decent color images of it popped up, in the early decades after the assassination?

Why is it missing? It's among the clearest images of Jackie and the rest after the head shot.

Those dealing with the film would have had to deal with honest law enforcement /intelligence/Secret Service agents not involved in the plot. What if Forrest Sorrels was not a part of the plot? Under these conditions, could they just destroy the film?

Once outsiders knew the film existed, it couldn't very well be destroyed altogether. All it would take is one honest individual's interest in the film's existence to keep it from being destroyed.

In my opinion, as someone who has worked with both super8 and 16mm film- these "blacked out" back of head frames suggest a shortage of time to do much work on the film. They most likely used self-matting aerial imaging to accomplish their work with the film, rather than more complex and multi-step matte work.

This is not a super advanced process. It is relatively simple, obvious work that could be done quickly with a small team and more basic equipment--- one optical printer modified for aerial imaging with a condenser and an animation stand.

It suggests to me the conspirators were on a very tight schedule.

I know Mr. Fetzer and others have theories that a lot more advanced, traveling matte work was done with the film. I am personally not convinced of this. I'm not inclined to argue against it...but in my opinion aerial imaging is a more likely solution that answers your astute questions about the obvious artwork on the back of JFK's head.

I've carefully read Doug Horne's information about the film's trek to Rochester, and his work tends to confirm my opinion that the more likely scenario is one hectic day of frantic work to make the film merely passable for the consumption of an expressed few who might have the "honor" of watching it. After all, Mr. Thompson, this was a film that was heavily suppressed from the public- and yet it is a part of American History, and it's hard to argue that this basic evidence doesn't belong to every American citizen.

Perhaps a few frames of the film were dropped completely to get rid of obvious evidence of clear strikes. That would be a matter of making invisible optical cuts of individual frames when the new movie was assembled using an optical printer- difficult, but an editing matter a good technician could overcome without a spate of animators. Maybe a cut to eliminate the turn and a visible street hit. It would also be possible, without too much time, to blur a couple of damning frames.

These are the kinds of alterations that harried conspirators could make on the fly rather quickly.

It's also quite possible that those altering the Zapruder film could also have pulled off adding the perceived "blob" to the film via aerial imaging. The process allows for opaque artwork to be added "on top" on an existing image...and this area of the film is quite alarmingly inconsistent from frame to frame, as if it were painted-in art on top of the real film. This would have been done on animation cels using an animation stand, installed as part of an optical printer modified for aerial imaging work.

They would need talent to accomplish this though, of the sort you associate with Hollywood.

If the "blob" is artwork, suddenly most everything Mr. Lifton has theorized for all these years rather logically and neatly works.

I am not 100% sold on the blob being artwork, but it is really the only viable alternative to logically solve the issues with the huge mass of witnesses who saw only the rearward wound- in my opinion, of course.

On the matter of the headsnap.

How would someone remove this using aerial imaging? You couldn't. You can't just drop out the frames....the car would jump down the road. Removing the headsnap required more time and resources than these conspirators had to work with. They just couldn't pull it off, and had to move ahead with a less than perfect film. That is why it remains. 

There are limitations to what could be accomplished with the technology available in 1963- especially under the time considerations involved here.

They knew that Life Magazine was compromised at the top and in the service of their organization, so that a clear copy of the film wouldn't fall into public hands in their lifetimes- and it didn't.

"So what, if the truth came out in fifty years?", they might have thought.

I understand your initial concerns, Mr. Thompson, and I think this quite specifically and logically addresses all of your well thought out questions.

Now, we will eventually be able to look at the very best available possible copy of the film, outside of traveling to NARA ourselves, thanks to the patriotic and motivated Ms. Wilkinson and her willingness to shell out the cash for research purposes. (Unless someone nefarious and treasonous stops her before she does so.)

I wish her Godspeed in her work.

[Craig Lamson]

In my opinion, as someone who has worked with both super8 and 16mm film- these "blacked out" back of head frames suggest a shortage of time to do much work on the film. They most likely used self-matting aerial imaging to accomplish their work with the film, rather than more complex and multi-step matte work.

This is not a super advanced process. It is relatively simple, obvious work that could be done quickly with a small team and more basic equipment--- one optical printer modified for aerial imaging with a condenser and an animation stand.

Please tell us how you deal with the inter-sprocket images in this theory.

[Pat Speer]

Pat,

I only have time to respond to two points. With regard to what Dr. Humes testified to, re the size of the head wound, you write:

(a) Dr. Humes claimed, from the get-go, that the calvarium crumpled in his hands as he peeled back the scalp.

(b ) The HUGE WOUND he measured is obviously the large wound he saw afterward. This wound, as admitted in the autopsy report, extended into the occipital region. This was a wound so large he could just pull out the brain. The large size of this wound, furthermore, was confirmed by Custer, O'Connor, and Jenkins.\\

I have serious problems with both of these statements of yours.

Re (a):

The intransitive verb crumple is defined as: "to become or make something full of irregular creases and wrinkles." Merriam Webster defines it as "to press, bend, or crush out of shape."

Now compare what you wrote with what Humes testified to, before the Warren Commission:

"“We had to do virtually no work with a saw to remove these portions of the skull, they came apart in our hands very easily . . . as we moved the scalp about, fragments of various sizes would fall to the table.” (WC volume 2, p. 354)

Your description is entirely incorrect, because it fails to note the fact that, by the time Humes received the body, a major portion of the skull cap was in numerous separate pieces. As Humes noted in his testimony (and Liebeler repeated this in his memorandum that went to the Earl Warren et al, Robert Kennedy, and the White House), the fractures "taxed satisfactory verbal description."

I don't suppose you misrepresented this situation deliberately--not at all--but what your choice of language (which is seriously inadequate) suggests is that you do not have a proper conception of the condition of President Kennedy's skull at the time the body was first examined by Commander Humes. It wasn't "crumpled"--it was smashed into many separate pieces, and held together--as the Sibert and O'Neill FBI report described-- by a second "additional wrapping which was saturated with blood." (CD 7, p. 288 et seq) In short the top of President Kennedy's head was, in effect, held together by a tightly wrapped blood-soaked wrapping,and when that wrapping was removed, and the scalp moved about, "fragments of various sizes would fall to the table."

What I have just quoted is entirely different from your description, which avoids numerous issues (i.e., just how did the body get this way?) by using the word "crumpled" instead of the words used by FBI Agents Sibert and O'Neill, and by Humes himself.

Re (b ):

Surely you do understand that just because a wound was "so large" does not in any way mean that, as a consequence "he could just pull out the brain."

Surely you realize that there are a host of anatomic structures that have to be cut or somehow severed to remove the brain--e.g., the spinal cord (but other structures as well). Surely you do realize that the brain cannot be removed from the skull as if one were removing a volleyball from one's gym bag. (So, if the hole is "large" enough, why the brain just "falls out" (!). Not at all. The various structures that have to be cut are described and listed, numerically, in Chapter 18 of Best Evidence ("The Pre-Autopsy Autopsy") . The point being that just because the skull wound was large does NOT explain--I repeat, does NOT explain--why Humes or Finck would state that the brain was removed "without recourse to surgery." So your reconstruction of what you apparently believe happened (if that's how you think the brain was removed that night at the autopsy) is medically inaccurate, and in fact rather fanciful. Also (and this gets back to my own interpretation of the data), you have not accounted for the "crushed vomer" (per Boswell's diagram) or the manner in which the falx was "loose" from the coronal suture, on back, or the contre coup injury on the base of the brain, or the stellate fracture pattern--of all which, as I argue in Chapter 18, indicates that the skull was struck (post-mortem) by a blow from above; after the scalp was parted in a quadrilateral manner, which accounts for the four scalp tears, which Humes laid out in "a" "b" "c" "d" fashion, indicating that the scalp was "flapped" prior to the time he received the body.

(And, just to avoid any misunderstanding: No, I do not think Humes did the pre-autopsy surgery. This gruesome "alteration" was not done in the autopsy room. I think Humes received the body exactly as he reported it. I do not believe he created that damage. I do believe, however, that he (and/or Boswell) were knowledgeable about, and very likely complicit in, the reconstruction that preceded the post-midnight autopsy photography, but that is another issue entirely).

Re the cerebellum:

One other matter: you write: "My conclusion the doctors were mistaken about the cerebellum was not arrived at easily, and without months of introspection, if that's what you're implying." Your conclusion may have been arrived at after "months of introspection" but it is still wrong, and is in complete contradiction to the historical record; i.e., the medical reports and sworn testimony of those who were there, and who were perfectly competent to identify the cerebellum, and who were perfectly competent to distinguish between cerebral and cerebellar tissue. (FYI: This is all laid out, in detail, in Chapter 13 of Best Evidence, in the subsection: "What was Visible Through the Skull?" starting on page 321 of the Macmillan hardcover, or the Carroll and Graf edition). You refuse to believe what the doctors say--so you have indulged yourself in an exercise of positing a hypothesis as to why they are all wrong; in effect, why all the primary data is wrong. So we should ignore what they report, based on what they observed with their own eyes, aand instead substitute your revisionist interpretation, based on your theory about why they were wrong. To repeat: all you have done--or attempted to do (imho)--is erect an "error theory" to explain away the evidence. What you have done--or, should I say (once again) attempted to do-would never fly in a court of law, and would receive low marks in any legal course. Someone can't walk into the Hayden Planetarium and assert that the moon isn't where the telescope shows it to be, and give everyone a lecture on why the optics are faulty. To my mind, that's the kind of exercise in which you are engaged. Its the willful and unjustified substitution of your interpretations, backed by pretty graphics, for facts that are carved in stone, and based on anatomic terminology that goes back a thousand years, and which all medical students learn at the start of their medical education.

DSL

1/20/12; 12:20 AM PST

Los Angeles, California

Three quick responses.

1) When I used the word "crumpled" I was not intending to imply the skull was not badly fractured. When I used the word "crumpled" I was thinking of "crumpled potato chips" or a recipe instruction "1. Crumple Graham crackers into a small bowl." In this use of the word, the "crumpled" object is not left intact, but badly fractured, in pieces.

I, in fact, was quoting Dr. Humes. Here is what he told JAMA in 1992. “The head was so devastated by the exploding bullet…that we did not even have to use a saw to remove the skullcap…We peeled the scalp back and the calvarium crumpled in my hands from the fracture lines…”

2. As far as the removal of the brain, yes, I know quite well that the brain does not just fall out of the skull. When I wrote that Humes "could just pull out the brain" I meant that he did not have to remove the skull cap in the normal fashion. This is significant because, as you know, the "official" story is that the so-called mystery photo of the president's skull was taken from the front, and that it depicts a typical skull cap removal, with the scalp reflected over the face. Humes never said as much, and Jenkins and O'Connor, the assistants normally tasked with removing the brain, confirmed that the normal procedure was not performed. This lends credence to OUR position--yeah! something we agree upon--that the mystery photo was indeed taken from behind.

3. All this stuff about my ignoring the doctors' statements and erecting an "error theory" is self-serving, David, as you have done the same thing. If I'm not mistaken, you claim the Dealey Plaza witnesses noting an explosion from the right side of Kennedy's skull, and no such explosion from the back of Kennedy's head, were all mistaken. You also claim or have presented the wound as seen at Parkland as an occipital wound almost entirely below the top of the ear, while the statements of the witnesses and their subsequent demonstrations of where they saw the wound prove they thought it was mostly above the ear, even on the top of the head. So you clearly think they were mistaken as well, without admitting as much.

And there are other head wound witnesses noting a wound at a location other than the far back of the head, that you apparently also believe were mistaken.

On November 22, 1963, Assistant Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff announced President Kennedy’s death from Parkland Hospital. He told the country: “President John F. Kennedy died at approximately one o’clock Central Standard Time today here in Dallas. He died of a gunshot wound in the brain…Dr. Burkley [Kennedy's personal physician] told me it is a simple matter…of a bullet right through the head.(at which time, he pointed to his right temple) . . . It is my understanding that it entered in the temple, the right temple.” That no one at the time of Kilduff's statement had noted a bullet entrance other than the large head wound undoubtedly suggests that Burkley had seen but one wound, a wound by the temple, exactly where numerous Dealey Plaza witnesses had seen the wound. Coincidence?

On 11-28-63, less than a week after the assassination, the driver of Johnson's limo, Hurchel Jacks, filed a report on the shooting and aftermath (18H801) and noted: "Before the President's body was covered it appeared that the bullet had struck him above the right ear or near the temple." Was he lying?

Over the last decade, Clint Hill has repeatedly demonstrated where he recalled the wound. He places his hand on top of his head above his ear. Lying? Or terribly mistaken?

And then we have the Parkland witnesses who later claimed they'd been wrong? Lying? Or mistaken?

And what about those, like Baxter, Salyer, and Giesecke, whose statements and testimony suggest the wound was not on the far back of the head, but on the side or top of the head? Lying? Mistaken?

And what about Dr. Clark? While he clearly believed the wound to be in the occipito-parietal region of the skull, and thought it appeared to be both an entrance and an exit, the depiction of the wound in your book is one of an obvious exit wound almost entirely on the occipital bone. Now, was this a mistake on your part? Or had you simply decided he'd been mistaken?

Edited January 20, 2012 by Pat Speer

[David G. Healy]

In my opinion, as someone who has worked with both super8 and 16mm film- these "blacked out" back of head frames suggest a shortage of time to do much work on the film. They most likely used self-matting aerial imaging to accomplish their work with the film, rather than more complex and multi-step matte work.

This is not a super advanced process. It is relatively simple, obvious work that could be done quickly with a small team and more basic equipment--- one optical printer modified for aerial imaging with a condenser and an animation stand.

Please tell us how you deal with the inter-sprocket images in this theory.

considering Z-film inner sprocket imagery was published later -- irrelevant for LIFE's 1963-64-65 use of published Z-film frames.... btw, the "theory" in reality is called optical film printing techniques, I believe you've been made well aware of Society of Motion Picture Engineers (now Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) and their 1930-on publications covering optical film printing, yes? Techniques seem as old as Methusla...

[Craig Lamson]

In my opinion, as someone who has worked with both super8 and 16mm film- these "blacked out" back of head frames suggest a shortage of time to do much work on the film. They most likely used self-matting aerial imaging to accomplish their work with the film, rather than more complex and multi-step matte work.

This is not a super advanced process. It is relatively simple, obvious work that could be done quickly with a small team and more basic equipment--- one optical printer modified for aerial imaging with a condenser and an animation stand.

Please tell us how you deal with the inter-sprocket images in this theory.

considering Z-film inner sprocket imagery was published later -- irrelevant for LIFE's 1963-64-65 use of published Z-film frames.... btw, the "theory" in reality is called optical film printing techniques, I believe you've been made well aware of Society of Motion Picture Engineers (now Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) and their 1930-on publications covering optical film printing, yes? Techniques seem as old as Methusla...

I'm well aware David, but this IS theory, that is the so called alteration as described by Block.

You wanna take a stab at it?

[Pat Speer]

So everyone is wrong except for Pat Speer! Generations of experts studying the case have missed what

ONLY YOU have properly understood--that there was a side wound gushing cerebrum and cerebellum!

The witnesses are wrong, the doctors are wrong, Mantik's studies are wrong, frame 374 is wrong--even

Clint Hill's consistent description of the wound is wrong! What is vague or ambiguous about his report?

Even in this, your most recent post, you grossly distorted what we know about Clint Hill's actions and observations that day, as I have reported them in "Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?"

Anyone who is serious about getting to the truth of these matters has to take to heart what Clint Hill has been telling us for nearly 50 years now. Get a grip on yourself, Pat. There is NOTHING "vague or ambiguous" here:

"As I approached the vehicle there was a third shot. It hit the President in the head, upper right rear of the right ear, caused a gaping hole in his head, which caused brain matter, blood, and bone fragments to spew forth out over the car, over myself. At that point Mrs. Kennedy came up out of the back seat onto the trunk of the car. She was trying to retrieve something that had gone off to the right rear. She did not know I was there. At that point I grabbed Mrs. Kennedy, put her in the back seat. The President fell over into her lap, to his left.

"His right side of his head was exposed. I could see his eyes were fixed. There was a hole in the upper right rear portion of his head about the size of my palm. Most of the gray matter in that area had been removed, and was scattered throughout the entire car, including on Mrs. Kennedy. I turned and gave the follow-up car crew the thumbs-down, indicating that we were in a very dire situation. The driver accelerated; he got up to the lead car which was driven by Chief Curry, the Dallas Chief of Police . . .”.

Not only does Clint's description of the wound contradict your characterization, but his account is consistent with what Bobby Hargis, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Jesse Curry have told us about about Chaney, which refutes the film's authenticity.

Tink has repeatedly claimed this happened AFTER the limo had already passed the TUP and that we have simply not been thinking about the temporal relationship here. My three favorites are Bobby Hargis, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Jesse Curry:

(1) Forrest Sorrels: "A motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer replied in the affirmative, and Chief Curry immediately broadcast to surround the building. By that time we had gotten just about under the underpass when the President’s car pulled up alongside, . . ."

(2) Bobby Hargis: "I remembered seeing Officer Chaney. Chaney put his motor in first gear and accelerated up to the front to tell them to get everything out of the way, that he [the President] was coming through, and that is when the Presidential limousine shot off . . . .”

(3) Chief Jesse Curry: "at that time I looked in my rear view mirror and I saw some commotion in the President’s caravan and realized that probably something was wrong, and it seemed to be speeding up, and about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney rode up beside us and I asked if something happened back there . . ."

You not only reject all of those sources I have cited above but you even discount Thomas Evan Robinson!

Each post illustrates a degree of detachment from reality normally not observed outside a clinical setting.

Apparently you are unaware that it was Robinson who informed the ARRB that this much larger defect had

been created by Humes using a cranial saw! So you quite literally have no idea what you are talking about!

No serious student of the assassination would go so far out of his way to try to prove every witness was not

speaking the truth. Among your other failings, you do not understand anything about the use of language.

I hate to say it, Pat, but you are the single most incompetent student of the assassination in the nearly

50 years since study commenced. I have never known anyone less rational and impervious to evidence!

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.

Person B makes an attack on person A.

Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Description of Special Pleading

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.

Person A is in circumstance(s) C.

Therefore A is exempt from S.

The person committing Special Pleading is claiming that he is exempt from certain principles or standards yet he provides no good reason for his exemption.

P.S. The following slide shows where Clint Hill recalls the head wound. Clint Hill's recollection is exactly as I have said, and not on the FAR back of the head where you claim it was. You should find a way to deal with this other than putting your head in the sand and claiming I'm making stuff up, and am the biggest fool ever, etc.

[Karl Kinaski]

Chaney never passed the limo before the underpass.

I agree. There is no Chaney in the motoring forward

KK

PS I believe in the black patch to disguise the backwound, the pink blurb, to disguise the location of the wound and an (for whatever reason)inserted background of dealy plaza which made the Lincoln Limo look like as if there is no stop. (But there was one...)

There is enough prove for Zappi-film alteration. There is no need for a Chaney motoring forward on Elm...he did: but after the triple underpass...

Edited January 20, 2012 by Karl Kinaski

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat,

You need better resources. Is it possible that, having taught this stuff for 35 years, I might have a better definition of "special pleading" than what you have advanced? My source is Alex Michalos, PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC (1969). The cases you mention are variations on the more general point about appealing to just the evidence (or principles or whatever) that are favorable to your side while suppressing the rest. If you want to debate about the nature of fallacies, that would be my pleasure. You are too dependent on sources you are unable to evaluate because you don't know enough about them to get them right. Same for the medical evidence. The Clint Hill images are an excellent example. You take for granted that what Clint is illustrating--around 48 years after the event, where HE HAS UNDOUBTEDLY BEEN WARNED AGAINST GOING TOO FAR--where the shot hit, even though his demonstration is seriously at odds with his consistent reports and testimony over all those years. To cite such a much more recent illustration over the consistent written record--which really leaves no doubt--is a methodological blunder. As I have pointed out before, earlier reports are generally more reliable than later reports, which is one reason that I fault you. That is not the only methodological blunder which you commit, of course, but it is a rather important one.

The second is that, while you are willing to build your case selectively on the basis of this illustration, you have shown no respect whatsoever for the mass of other witnesses who contradict that depiction. How often to I have to post and re-post the witnesses you nitpick to try to revise the evidence in this case? That is massively objectionable. We have literally dozens of witnesses who reports, testimony, and illustrations contradict the one from Clint Hill that you like to cite. Your theory of a side wound is anatomically inconsistent with extruding cerebral and cerebellar tissue. YOU JUST DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE WITNESSES WHO WERE REALLY THERE. It is beyond my comprehension how you can think anyone is going to take you seriously when all you do is REVISE AND REVISE AND REVISE THE EVIDENCE TO SHAPE IT TO FIT YOUR PREDETERMINED CONCLUSIONS. You are like a little duckling who was imprinted by the first moving object it saw and took it to be its mother. The Newmans observed the skull flap blowing out, but did not witness the blow-out to the left/rear--and you have made a career of trying to force all the evidence to support an indefensible theory. This is your most serious blunder, but at least one more is worth noting.

As I have pointed out AGAIN AND AGAIN, you should be taking into account the unexpectedness of the assassination, differences in location, position and such, which led to minor variations in the locations provided by these eyewitnesses and treat them as a statistical phenomenon. Instead of pitting one against another to manipulate the evidence to support a blow out at the side FROM WHICH CEREBRUM AND CEREBELLUM WERE EXTRUDING, we find that they by and large agree with Clint Hill's description: "There was a hole in the upper right rear portion of his head about the size of my palm." Elsewhere in THE KENNEDY DETAIL (2010), we also read, "And slumped across the seat, President Kennedy lay unmoving, a bloody, gaping, fist-sized hole clearly visible in the back of his head", where only Clint Hill was in the position to make that specific observation (p. 217). Ordinary conversational contexts--non-adversarial exchanges--are governed by several principles, including "the principle of charity", which requires of us that we interpret what others say in ways that make them true, unless there are good reasons that override that presumption. You treat one witness after another as wrong, mistaken, lying or deluded. Those who violate this convention, alas, are most unlikely to make serious contributions to the study of this case or of any other.

So everyone is wrong except for Pat Speer! Generations of experts studying the case have missed what

ONLY YOU have properly understood--that there was a side wound gushing cerebrum and cerebellum!

The witnesses are wrong, the doctors are wrong, Mantik's studies are wrong, frame 374 is wrong--even

Clint Hill's consistent description of the wound is wrong! What is vague or ambiguous about his report?

Even in this, your most recent post, you grossly distorted what we know about Clint Hill's actions and observations that day, as I have reported them in "Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?"

Anyone who is serious about getting to the truth of these matters has to take to heart what Clint Hill has been telling us for nearly 50 years now. Get a grip on yourself, Pat. There is NOTHING "vague or ambiguous" here:

"As I approached the vehicle there was a third shot. It hit the President in the head, upper right rear of the right ear, caused a gaping hole in his head, which caused brain matter, blood, and bone fragments to spew forth out over the car, over myself. At that point Mrs. Kennedy came up out of the back seat onto the trunk of the car. She was trying to retrieve something that had gone off to the right rear. She did not know I was there. At that point I grabbed Mrs. Kennedy, put her in the back seat. The President fell over into her lap, to his left.

"His right side of his head was exposed. I could see his eyes were fixed. There was a hole in the upper right rear portion of his head about the size of my palm. Most of the gray matter in that area had been removed, and was scattered throughout the entire car, including on Mrs. Kennedy. I turned and gave the follow-up car crew the thumbs-down, indicating that we were in a very dire situation. The driver accelerated; he got up to the lead car which was driven by Chief Curry, the Dallas Chief of Police . . .”.

Not only does Clint's description of the wound contradict your characterization, but his account is consistent with what Bobby Hargis, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Jesse Curry have told us about about Chaney, which refutes the film's authenticity.

Tink has repeatedly claimed this happened AFTER the limo had already passed the TUP and that we have simply not been thinking about the temporal relationship here. My three favorites are Bobby Hargis, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Jesse Curry:

(1) Forrest Sorrels: "A motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer replied in the affirmative, and Chief Curry immediately broadcast to surround the building. By that time we had gotten just about under the underpass when the President’s car pulled up alongside, . . ."

(2) Bobby Hargis: "I remembered seeing Officer Chaney. Chaney put his motor in first gear and accelerated up to the front to tell them to get everything out of the way, that he [the President] was coming through, and that is when the Presidential limousine shot off . . . .”

(3) Chief Jesse Curry: "at that time I looked in my rear view mirror and I saw some commotion in the President’s caravan and realized that probably something was wrong, and it seemed to be speeding up, and about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney rode up beside us and I asked if something happened back there . . ."

You not only reject all of those sources I have cited above but you even discount Thomas Evan Robinson!

Each post illustrates a degree of detachment from reality normally not observed outside a clinical setting.

Apparently you are unaware that it was Robinson who informed the ARRB that this much larger defect had

been created by Humes using a cranial saw! So you quite literally have no idea what you are talking about!

No serious student of the assassination would go so far out of his way to try to prove every witness was not

speaking the truth. Among your other failings, you do not understand anything about the use of language.

I hate to say it, Pat, but you are the single most incompetent student of the assassination in the nearly

50 years since study commenced. I have never known anyone less rational and impervious to evidence!

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.

Person B makes an attack on person A.

Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Description of Special Pleading

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.

Person A is in circumstance(s) C.

Therefore A is exempt from S.

The person committing Special Pleading is claiming that he is exempt from certain principles or standards yet he provides no good reason for his exemption.

P.S. The following slide shows where Clint Hill recalls the head wound. Clint Hill's recollection is exactly as I have said, and not on the FAR back of the head where you claim it was. You should find a way to deal with this other than putting your head in the sand and claiming I'm making stuff up, and am the biggest fool ever, etc.

Edited January 21, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Isn't it obvious? They created a quick and sloppy version, then took their time to refine it. What could be more obvious?

In my opinion, as someone who has worked with both super8 and 16mm film- these "blacked out" back of head frames suggest a shortage of time to do much work on the film. They most likely used self-matting aerial imaging to accomplish their work with the film, rather than more complex and multi-step matte work.

This is not a super advanced process. It is relatively simple, obvious work that could be done quickly with a small team and more basic equipment--- one optical printer modified for aerial imaging with a condenser and an animation stand.

Please tell us how you deal with the inter-sprocket images in this theory.

considering Z-film inner sprocket imagery was published later -- irrelevant for LIFE's 1963-64-65 use of published Z-film frames.... btw, the "theory" in reality is called optical film printing techniques, I believe you've been made well aware of Society of Motion Picture Engineers (now Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) and their 1930-on publications covering optical film printing, yes? Techniques seem as old as Methusla...

I'm well aware David, but this IS theory, that is the so called alteration as described by Block.

You wanna take a stab at it?

[Craig Lamson]

What could be more obvious?[/b]

That you are a master of ridiculous posts.

Yea, that's the ticket. lets alter it TWICE.... got any more silly theories to post?

Of course you do. Why did I even ask.

[Josiah Thompson]

David,

Thanks a lot for giving me a really good example to work with. Let’s take the Jack Bell example you gave and work with it a little.

You give the order of the cars and Jack Bell’s placement as follows: (1) Presidential limousine, (2) SS Follow-up car, (3) Vice- President’s car, (4) Vice-Presidential Follow-up car, (5) Mayor Cabell’s car, (6) Press car with Jack Bell aboard.

You quote AP reporter Jack Bell as saying in a newspaper story on November 23rd: "Four cars ahead, in the President’s Continental limousine, a man in the front seat rose for a moment. He seemed to have a telephone in [his] hand as he waved to a police cruiser ahead to go on."

Let’s, for just a moment, assume that the Zapruder film was never taken or it was seized by the government on November 22nd and locked away. Let’s also say that we’re trying to figure out whether what Bell reported ever happened. What sort of questions would we ask? How about asking whether or not “a police cruiser” was in a position to be “waved ahead to go on” by Kellerman with a telephone in his hand? Did anyone see “a police cruiser” in any position where this could have happened? Did any of the still photos or films of the assassination show any “police cruiser” in such a position? Now ask the very same questions about the claim that Kellerman rose up in the front seat. All those questions would come back with the answer “no” attached to them. Lacking any corroboration from any source, one might very well say, “Well, we can’t be sure, but it probably never happened.”

Now let’s have the Zapruder film appear on the scene and ask it the same question set of questions. Like the witnesses and like the other films, it delivers a series of “no” answers to the questions asked. Yet in your presentation, you conclude from the absence of anything like this in the Zapruder film that it has been tampered with? Huh? Double-huh??

Left with just eye-witness testimony, the government would have come out just fine. There would be all the confusions and contradictions that we are all aware of. What happened in Dealey Plaza would be left in a permanent haze of ambiguity with no way out. That is not bad for the proposed conspiritors but good. The history of the case is clear that but for the amazing luck of Abraham Zapruder climbing up on that pedestal we would be denied most of the solid arguments made against the Warren Commission scenario of three shots from the 6th floor window. I still think it boggles the imagination to claim that conspiritors who wanted to change the film to accord with shots from the rear would paint a patch on the back of Kennedy’s head and forget to do anything about the left-backward snap.

Finally, simply seizing the film solves all sorts of problems. It gives you unlimited time to alter the film so that it will accord with other films, photos and witness reports. Seizing it does not mean that you have to do anything with it. It leaves open the possibility, as I outlined earlier, that it could become missing through various ruses later on. Seizure leaves all this open and would not have thrown up any red flags in 1963. The alteration claim assumes that the conspiritors concerned about the film were both stupid and ineffective... stupid because they didn’t choose to just seize the film and keep all their options open; ineffective because they painted in the back of Kennedy’s head and left the shocking head-snap in where it stood out like a sore thumb.

Anyhow, it’s always fun to discuss things with you. I always end up learning something.

JT

A Simple Question

The Zapruder film has been a thorn in the government's side since it first led the Secret Service and the FBI to conclude in December 1963 that Connally was hit by a separate bullet. When it was shown on TV by Bob Groden in 1975 it provided the muscle of public opinion to get the case reopened.

Let's say you are some mysterious intelligence outfit that brought off the assassination and now has to cover up the fact that JFK was shot in the head from the right front. Isn't the simplest and most effective solution to seize the Zapruder film as soon as anyone knows what it in it? "I'm sorry, Mr. Zapruder," says Forrest Sorrels, "but the Secret Servide will have to take this film as evidence." Doesn't that about take care of the whole problem. Why go to the trouble of faking up parts of the film when the simplest solution is just to seize the damn thing? Then weeks or months later some "accident" can befall the film while it's in storage... a fire, a flood, a loss in transit.

But let's say that the myserious intelligence outfit decided to fake up parts of the film.

Why on earth would they leave the massive left backward snap in the film and just cover up some blood and brain at the back of Kennedy's head? The left backward snap is the most graphic evidence of a shot from the right front. It was seeing that that brought about the formation of HSAC. Why leave that in and only paint in a little patch at the back of JFK's head?

JT

IMHO: the Zapruder film was altered to create evidence that would be considered superior to the eyewitness accounts. Without a film which could function as a "gold standard" (of sorts), the eyewitnesses testimony would rule the day, and that would lead one to conclude (for example) that the car stopped--and that would immediately implicate the Secret Service.

That could not be permitted; ergo, films had to be altered.

If all those eye-witnesses are correct, then that was certainly a primary motive for the "editing"--and I'm putting the word in quotes, because I no longer believe mere "editing" explains what we have here.

In any event, once one is faced with eliminating the car stop, then simple physics--i.e., Rate x time = distance--results in a most uncomfortable fact: that the car-stop (or even a serious slow down) can not be eliminated without introducing, as an artifact, an acceleration in the backward motion of JFK's body. There is really no way around that; unless one completely redraws all the imagery. And that's why I believe today--and have for many years--that the backward "snap" is an artifact of the editing/fabrication of the film.

But let's move on to another matter--and why I deliberately inserted the word "fabrication." Consider the account of a credible witness, AP Reporter Jack Bell, who was in the back seat of the press car, just behind Mayor Cabell's car (which was behind the LBJ followup car "Varsity").

THE JACK BELL ACCOUNT

Here is what Jack Bell wrote, as it appeared in the NY Times of Saturday morning, November 23, 1963:

"Four cars ahead, in the President’s Continental limousine, a man in the front seat rose for a moment. He seemed to have a telephone in [his] hand as he waved to a police cruiser ahead to go on."

Nowhere in the existing film is any footage showing this event; i.e., showing Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, who was the senior agent in charge, standing up, or "rising" for a moment, with a telephone in his hand, "as he waved to a police cruiser ahead to go on."

Not only is there no image of Kellerman rising, there is definitely no image of him "waving" to a police cruiser "to go on."

Did AP reporter Jack Bell imagine this?

Was he just confused?

Or is this another fact that --somehow--been consigned to the dustbin of history (Trotsky's phrase), because of the "editing" of the Zapruder film.

So now we come face to face with the serious nature of the problem, and why I am putting the word "editing" in quotes.

I have examined this film meticulously, frame by frame. There is not the slightest hint that the image of Roy Kellerman rises, or shows him "as he waved to a police cruiser ahead." Yet we do have plenty of images of Kellerman, after JFK has been hit in the head. So. . . what's going on here? What happened to that event? How was it made into a "non-event"?

If what Jack Bell saw actually happened, then the extant "Zapruder film" has to be more than merely "edited." There has to be some serious fabrication, and graphics performed, in order that (a) an event that what was originally present to have disappeared, and then (b ) for the sequence of images we have of Kellerman to appear as they do: crouched over for some frames, perhaps on the radio, but certainly not "rising" up, or waving to the police cruiser up ahead, to move on.

But back to basics: If this film had been altered (and/or fabricated) in a manner that was "satisfactory", it would not have been locked up by Life, for 12 years. Furthermore: the number "12 years" is also misleading. Had Robert Groden not made copies from the 35mm copies made by Moses Weitzman, and then broadcast the Z fim on national TV (on Geraldo, March, 1975), the Zapruder film might have remained under wraps many years beyond March 1975. Without that national broadcast, and the subsequent public outcry, I wonder whether there would ever have been an HSCA investigation.

NOT A PERFECT CRIME

Ultimately, the answer to the question you pose is that this was not a "perfect crime"--far from it--but that the imperfections were sufficiently hidden, and submerged, that they only surfaced over time. Body alteration and film alteration are two of those major areas. My book --focused on autopsy falsification via body alteration--was published in January 1981; and as far as film alteration goes, that has really only gotten traction with the advent of the Internet and then YouTube. Without these technical advances, there would be no "community" to debate these matters, because there would be no way of "video file sharing." I faced this problem when writing BEST EVIDENCE and that's why the insights I had re Zapruder film alteration--insights going back to 1970/71 when I was able to examine the key Weitzman materials at the Beverly Hills office Time-Life-- were put in a 1100 word footnote in Chapter 24. As a practical matter, there was simply no way to demonstrate what was in "the film" in book format.

Going back to the mid-sixties: I'm sure you remember the "good ole days" when simply attempting to prove there was a movement between frames 312 and 313 meant going to the National Archives, and bringing 35 mm slide projectors, and perhaps holding forth to three or four others who were also willing to travel by train to Washington, meet you there, and discuss what these images meant. That was the age of "Pony Express" when it came to discussing and debating the Zapruder film. At the end of such a session, maybe five people would be "enlightened" and maybe they would "pass the word" to others, by snail mail.

Now, the debate has advanced to a whole different level. I would hope that people are starting to understand that getting to the bottom of what happened in Dallas means identifying what evidence has been falsified, and how that was accomplished--i.e., in "real time." Because what we now have before us is a false history, and a fair amount of bogus evidence.

That's what the "conspiracy to kill Kennedy" was all about--not just murdering the man, but then falsifying the facts about how he died. And this doesn't just apply to whether a rifle and three shells were placed by a phony sniper's nest, and whether the autopsy was deliberately falsified--but whether films of the event were (if necessary) altered as well.

DSL

1/20/12; 3:45 AM

Los Angeles, CA