Deconstructing The Lies

[Jon G. Tidd]

Robert,

I believe the whole extant Z-film is a fabrication. I believe it was fabricated to disguise the number and locations of shooters, to conceal wounds inflicted on JFK, to conceal the timing of the shots fired, and to conceal the slow-down and possible stopping of the limo. I'm not expert in photography but I do observe anomalies in the extant Z-film; for example, the static nature of the citizens shown to be lining Elm Street and the inconsistency between the head wound shown in the film and witness statements (e.g., Parkland medical doctor statements) re the condition of the head. I'm strongly persuaded as well by the relatively recent information provided by Dino Brugioni re NPIC activities on the assassination weekend.

The extant Nix film is in some obvious ways inconsistent with the Z-film. Gayle Nix says the existing Nix film is not the film Orville Nix recorded. The Nix film shows different movement for Clint Hill and Jackie Kennedy; shows a pronounced slowing of the limo; and IMO shows Mary Moorman standing in the street, contrary to the Z-film.

I'm not knowledgable to any extent about the Muchmore or Bronson film, although I have studied both a little.

I have no hesitation believing the Z-film and the Nix film were altered by the U.S. Government. It's clear to me the U.S. Government would stop at nothing in covering up the facts of the assassination.

[Robert Mady]

Robert,

I believe the whole extant Z-film is a fabrication. I believe it was fabricated to disguise the number and locations of shooters, to conceal wounds inflicted on JFK, to conceal the timing of the shots fired, and to conceal the slow-down and possible stopping of the limo. I'm not expert in photography but I do observe anomalies in the extant Z-film; for example, the static nature of the citizens shown to be lining Elm Street and the inconsistency between the head wound shown in the film and witness statements (e.g., Parkland medical doctor statements) re the condition of the head. I'm strongly persuaded as well by the relatively recent information provided by Dino Brugioni re NPIC activities on the assassination weekend.

The extant Nix film is in some obvious ways inconsistent with the Z-film. Gayle Nix says the existing Nix film is not the film Orville Nix recorded. The Nix film shows different movement for Clint Hill and Jackie Kennedy; shows a pronounced slowing of the limo; and IMO shows Mary Moorman standing in the street, contrary to the Z-film.

I'm not knowledgable to any extent about the Muchmore or Bronson film, although I have studied both a little.

I have no hesitation believing the Z-film and the Nix film were altered by the U.S. Government. It's clear to me the U.S. Government would stop at nothing in covering up the facts of the assassination.

Jon, I agree the government that was formed following the coup did do everything possible to conceal the truth including modifying films as well as withholding films and photographs from the public that were too revealing. But I find within the remaining photographic medias adaquate evidence to reveal the truth, there is much information remaining in the films to reveal what happened dispite the alterations.

What I find disturbing is this carte blanc belief that it has ALL been altered and therefore useless.

In an awkward debate I had with the OIC gang, they insisted that all the photographic media was altered, then they insisted all of the testimony was altered and unrealiable. The gang leader of the OIC insisted that only the autopsy material can be used, which to me is preposterous becuase that was the very first evidence that was altered.

What this sort of logic leads to is all theories developed will be without foundation, might as well go do something else because it turns the study of the assassination into efforts in futility.

Why not determine which aspects of the films would have most likely been altered and which aspects remain authentic and are corroborated by testimony?

Edited December 29, 2014 by Robert Mady

[Jon G. Tidd]

Robert,

In my professional life I find every time I'm asked to render an opinion that I'm short on the facts.

That's how I view the JFK assassination. We're all short on the facts.

In my professional life, sometimes I can interpolate. I can accurately posit facts without verification.

Without a dependable fact base, I cannot render precise advice. That again is how I feel about the JFK assassination.

I admire the work you do here. At every juncture I ask myself, however, what are Robert's assumptions? If I judge your assumptions are open to question, I have to question your conclusions. But not your intent.

[Robert Mady]

Jon, no one should believe anything I say, I have actually requested that the evidence posted should be honestly analyzed and that the researcher should discover the truth for themselves.

It is not truth unless it becomes self-evident and you come to know it, it would be another belief if you just think I might be right, I am not looking for drone followers, I want intelligent people to start waking up to the truth, so they know beyond doubt how the assassination occurred and that it was a conspiracy and a cover-up where the conspirators took over our government and have not let go.

What I have been pointing at is a stream of evidence that is in the same continuous vein.

There is no one else that is connecting as much information on the mechanics of the assassination. And ALL of it contrary to every known theory, how is it possible to connect the abundance of testimony and photographic evidence in support of a theory that is contrary to all known dogma, how is this possible, unless, it is true?

Jon, look at this logically, why hasn't any researcher discovered a reasonable explanation as to how they assassinated KENNEDY?

I am proposing to you that the reason is the foundation the WC and Conspiracy theorist both start with; three shots ending at Z-313, is a fundamental flaw that prevents any chance to discover the truth, the evidence of this is; in 51 years no one has successfully solved the puzzle. Until now.

Please don't believe me concerning the conclusions I post on the evidence, but if you want to understand the assassination, please take my suggestion and carefully analyze the evidence posted and reflect on what it means with out being fettered to current dogma.

Edited December 28, 2014 by Robert Mady

[Robert Mady]

Myth #5

Secret Service agents claimed the shots came from the TSBD.

No SSA agent claimed the shots came from the TSBD or any building.

When statements are analyzed it becomes apparent that most of the agents adopted a phrase that is deceptive and seems to imply they were looking back toward the TSBD when the phrase 'right rear' may also be intrepreted to mean toward the monument area.

If the SSA statements are re-examined in the light of the first rifle shot heard occuring at Z-313 and other shots following, it is clear that the agents are more specifically claiming the shots came from the monument area.

SSA Reports

BENNETT “We peered towards the rear and particularly the right side of the area.”

GREER : no claim made as to location of shooter

HICKEY “It appeared to come from the right and rear and seemed to me to be at ground level.”

HILL “The sound came from my right rear”

JOHNS “When the shots sounded, I was looking to the right and saw a man standing and then being thrown or hit to the ground,”

KELLERMAN : no claim made as to location of shooter

KINNEY : no claim made as to location of shooter

KIVITT “As I was looking in the direction of the noise, which was to my right rear”

LANDIS “At this moment I heard what sounded like the report of a high-powered rifle from behind me, over my right shoulder.”

LAWSON “I noticed Agent Hickey standing up in the follow-up car with the automatic weapon and first thought he had fired at someone.”

MCINTYRE “None of us could determine the origin of the shots, and no shots were fired by any agent.”

READY “I immediately turned to my right rear trying to locate the source but was not able to determine the exact location.”

ROBERTS “I could not determine from what direction the shots came, but felt they had come from the right side.”

TAYLOR “the sound coming from my right rear”

YOUNGBLOOD “I observed a grassy plot to my right in back of the small crowd of bystanders on the sidewalk- some tall buildings- a downhill grade ahead where the street went under what appeared to be a railroad overpass. We were about two car lengths behind the Presidential follow-up car at this time.

I heard an explosion--I was not sure whether it was a firecracker, bomb, bullet, or other explosion. I looked at whatever I could quickly survey, and could not see anything which would indicate the origin of this noise. I noticed that the movements in the Presidential car were very abnormal and, at practically the same time, the movements in the Presidential follow-up car were abnormal.”

SORRELS “I just said, "What's that?" And turned around to look up on this terrace part there, because the sound sounded like it came from the back and up in that direction.

The dominent direction to describe the TSBD if this were the location, would probably be shots came from 'behind' or just the 'rear', the dominent word or direction used in all of these claims is from the 'right'. Look at a map, the TSBD was almost directly behind the limo not to the right, the phrase 'right rear' would be significantly less correct than claiming shots came from the rear, yet almost all these witnesses used the same phrase, like they conspired to use the same terminology.

This is how deception works, they did not outright lie, they told a half truth, you did the rest by believing they meant something else, something that followed the lies already implanted in your brains, that the shots came from the TSBD when the reality is not one agent claimed the shots came from the TSBD.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Robert Mady

[Robert Mady]

WC: Mr. O'DONNELL. My reaction in part is reconstruction---is that they came from the right rear.

O'Donnell is saying this is not his experience, this claim had been purposely created to conform to the WC, this statement is verified in a conversation he later had with Tip O'Neill where he claimed to have changed his story so as to align with the WC, and that he believed shots had come from the front.

Reports

PO JACKS: "At that time I heard a shot ring out which appeared to come from the right rear of the Vice President's car"

PO RICH: "when I heard the first shot. I noticed a lot of confusion up ahead of me"

PO WRIGHT: "When the second shot was fired I noticed a number of people running away from the Motorcade and I saw several Dallas motorcycle policemen had their guns drawn."

Proofs have been provided that bystanders showed no reactions to gunfire until after Z-313, what WRIGHT and RICH are describing is actions observed following the shot at Z-313, the rifle shot heard at Z-313 being the first shot heard.

'Right rear' became the key phrase to obscure the truth.

and Congressman

YARBOROUGH “I heard three shots and no more. All seemed to come from my right rear.”

LADY BIRD "It seemed to me to come from the right, above my shoulder, from a building."

Question would the monument be considered a building? Why would anyone assume LADYBIRD meant the TSBD?

The building to LADY BIRDS right is not the TSBD it is the monument, the building where Zapruder is filming from, the shot would have come from above LADY BIRDS position.

As I have tried to point out 'they' were careful not to lie, but 'they' mislead by the half-truths they told.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Robert Mady

[Jon G. Tidd]

Robert,

Your post #20 re Myth #5 is persuasive. The SS agent statements back your argument IMO.

In post #20 you write:

"I am proposing...that the reason is the foundation the WC and Conspiracy theorist both start with; three shots ending at Z-313, is a fundamental flaw that prevents any chance to discover the truth...."

No quarrel from me on this.

[Robert Mady]

Robert,

Your post #20 re Myth #5 is persuasive. The SS agent statements back your argument IMO.

In post #20 you write:

"I am proposing...that the reason is the foundation the WC and Conspiracy theorist both start with; three shots ending at Z-313, is a fundamental flaw that prevents any chance to discover the truth...."

No quarrel from me on this.

Jon, thank you for taking the time to read the thread and posting comments.

[Robert Mady]

Myth #6 witnesses claimed to see a shots fired from the TSBD

Mrs. CABELL. I saw a projection out of one of those windows. Those windows on the sixth floor are in groups of twos.

Mr. HUBERT. So that you were not looking in the direction of that window when the second and third shots were fired?
Mrs. CABELL. No.

Mr. HUBERT - Did you turn in the direction of the shots?
Mr. CABELL - I turned then, rather looking down toward the Presidential car, and then I saw the people scattering and some throwing themselves on the ground. One man threw himself over a child that was sitting in the grass there. I did not observe anything in connection with the building itself.
Mr. HUBERT - You did not see anybody in any of the windows?
Mr. CABELL - No.

Mrs. CABELL claimed to look up after the first shot was fired and see 'something', then does not look back again....humm?

MR CABELL does not look at the TSBD, he looks in the direction of were the shots came from, the monument area and observes NEWMAN family throw themselves on the ground even though his wife claims to have announced a rifle in the window. Hummm?

Also note ->Mr. CABELL claims to see NEWMANS fall to the ground after the first shot...yet NEWMANS we know are still standing when the limo passed them, they do not move to the ground until after Z-313...

Five men from news media riding in camera car #3

Mr. JACKSON - Right here approximately. And as we heard the first shot, I believe it was Tom Dillard from the Dallas News who made some remark as to that sounding like a firecracker, and it could have been somebody else who said that. But someone else did speak up and make that comment and before he actually the sentence we heard the other two shots. Then we realized or we thought it was gunfire, and then we could not at that point see the President's car. We were still moving slowly, and after the third shot the second two shots seemed much closer together than the first shot, than they were to the first shot. Then after the last shot, I guess all of us were just looking all around and I just looked straight up ahead of me which would have been looking at the School Book Depository and I noticed two Negro men in a window straining to see directly above them, and my eyes followed right on up to the window above them and I saw the rifle, or what looked like a rifle approximately half of weapon, I guess I saw. and just looked at it, it was drawn fairly slowly back into the building, and I saw no one in the window with it. I didn't even see a form in the window.
Mr. SPECTER - What did you do next?
Mr. JACKSON - I said "There is the gun," or it came from that window. I tried to point it out. But by the time the other people looked up, of course, it was gone

Mr. COUCH - Nothing unusual between the shots. Uh - as I say, the first shot, I had no particular impression; but the second shot, I remember turning - several of us turning - and looking ahead of us. It was unusual for a motorcycle to backfire that close together, it seemed like. And after the third shot, Bob Jackson who was as I recall, on my right, yelled something like, "Look up in the window! There's the rifle!" And I remember glancing up to a window on the far right, which at the time impressed me as the sixth or seventh floor. And seeing about a foot of a rifle being - the barrel brought into the window. I saw no one in the window - just a quick 1-second glance at the barrel.

Mr. COUCH - Yes; I recall seeing - uh - some people standing in some of the other windows - about, roughly, third or fourth floor in the middle of the south side. I recall one - it looked like a negro boy with a white T-shirt leaning out one of those windows looking up - up to the windows above him.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Yes, sir; the last two. Now, the first was just a loud explosion but it sounded like a giant firecracker or something had gone off. By the time the third shot was fired, the car I was in stopped almost through the intersection in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building and I leaped out of the car before the car stopped. Bob Jackson from the Herald said he thought he saw a rifle in the window and I looked where he pointed and I saw nothing. Below the window he was pointing at, I saw two colored men leaning out there with their heads turned toward the top of the building, trying, I suppose, to determine where the shots were coming from.

---

Mr. BALL. He reports that you told him that you heard a shot and that you stuck your head from the window and looked upward toward the roof but could see nothing because small particles of dirt were falling from above you. Did you tell him that?
Mr. NORMAN. I don't recall telling him that.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever put your head out the window?
Mr. NORMAN. No, sir; I don't remember ever putting my head out the window.
Mr. BALL. And he reports that you stated that two additional shots were fired after you pulled your head back in from the window. Do you remember telling him that?
Mr. NORMAN. No, sir; I don't.

Neither JARMAN nor WILLIAMS were asked if they looked upwards, but I think we know what their answers would have been, so did the WC.

---

Mr. DILLARD - Well, after the third shot I know my comment was, "They killed him." I don't know why I said that but Jackson - there was some running comment about what can we do or where is it coming from and we were all looking. We had an absolutely perfect view of the School Depository from our position in an open car, and Bob Jackson said, "There's a rifle barrel up there." I said, "Where?" I had my camera ready. He said, "It's in that open window." Of course, there were several open windows and I scanned the building

Jimmy Darnell, a cameraman for WBAP, sat on the back seat behind the driver. (12-2-63 FBI report, CD7 p.29) “stated he heard the first shot and thought it was a backfire from an automobile. The second shot he thought was a firecracker. He stated, however, after the second shot he realized from the confusion that something had happened and he jumped out of the car and ran towards the President’s car...He said he noticed parents were throwing children to the ground and covering them with their bodies.”

Darnell was not asked to provide testimony, I wonder if he would have corroborated JACKSONS and COUCHs Texas tall tales?
None of these people reported that shots had come from the TSBD or witness a rifle shoot.

COUCH, JACKSON and UNDERWOOD are impeached by the testimony of NORMAN and lack of testimony from JARMAN and WILLIAMS.

It is possible they witnessed NORMANS arm and thought it was a barrel of a weapon or they just out right lied to help the WC build a case.

The point being in what was supposed to have been three rifle shots fired during 6 seconds that COUCH, JACKSON and UNDERWOOD (DILLARD and DARNELL) do not look to the TSBD until all of the shooting was over. Human nature is to look to the source of a noise immediately. The actions of COUCH, JACKSON and UNDERWOOD are contrary to human nature.

The fact that COUCH, JACKSON and UNDERWOOD lied about NORMAN and WILLIAMS poking their heads out the window and looking up should be proof that these newsmen just made up another story.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Robert Mady

[Robert Mady]

Mr. CABELL. No; because there was too much confusion. But I mentioned it to Congressman Roberts when we were in Washington a couple of weeks ago.
Mr. HUBERT. Did he say that he had observed it?
Mr. CABELL. As well as I remember, he said "Yes." We were in a group, a large group, and there was much conversation.

It would seem that this was not an important issue to request that Congressman Roberts make a formal statement.

The WC seemed to be satisfied with cabal hearsay that amounts to nothing more than fuzzy innuendo.

[Robert Mady]

Myth #7

Three reliable witnesses saw the rifle shoot from the SN

I would vehemently argue against reliability of these witnesses, I won't go into many specifics, you must read each transcript to gain a full appreciation of how wacky these three witnesses were. But to get you started

BRENNAN claimed hearing only two rifle shots.

(The first shot occurred when the limo was 50 yards from the corner or at ~Z-313, restated this claim a second time and said limo was 30 yards from his position which also equates to limo position being at ~Z-313. <-> Corroborates the four shot model)

EUINS and WORRELL claimed to hear 4 rifle shots.

The descriptions these three witnesses provided for what they claimed to have seen are simply preposterous.

Out of the multitude of witnesses on Houston and in front of the TSBD, only these three claimed to witness a rifle discharge.

Of the witnesses that claimed the TSBD as the source of the shots only these witnesses claimed to look to the 6th floor window and only these witnesses claimed to see something.

Mrs. CABELL

JACKSON

COUCH

BRENNAN

EUINS

WORRELL

Edited December 29, 2014 by Robert Mady

[Robert Mady]

Lies

Chief CURRY did not claim where he believed the shots came from, but he did make a radio broadcast to all cars directing them to where the shots originated from:

Mr. CURRY - I said what was that, was that a firecracker, or someone said this, I don't recall whether it was me or someone else, and from the report I couldn't tell whether it was coming from the railroad yard or whether it was coming from behind but I said over the radio, I said, "Get someone up in the railroad yard and check."

Mr. BAKER - And then I ran, kind of running walk, went all the way around. First I glanced over this side here, because the last thing I heard here on the radio was the chief saying, "Get some men up on that railroad track."
Mr. BELIN - Did you hear that on your police radio?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; that was the last thing I heard.
Mr. BELIN - As you were getting off your motorcycle?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.

verses

SSA SORRELS: "And the chief took his microphone and told them to alert the hospital, and said, "Surround the building." He didn't say what building. He just said, "Surround the building." And by that time we had gotten almost in under the underpass, and the President's car had come up and was almost abreast of us."

SSA LAWSON: " I heard Chief Curry broadcast to some units to converge on the area of the incident down by where it happened. I don't recall how he phrased it, so that they would know to go to the Texas Book Depository area. He told them to converge on a certain area, and that is what it turned out to be."

[Chris Davidson]

Myth #7

Three reliable witnesses saw the rifle shoot from the SN

I would vehemently argue against reliability of these witnesses, I won't go into many specifics, you must read each transcript to gain a full appreciation of how wacky these three witnesses were. But to get you started

BRENNAN claimed hearing only two rifle shots.

(The first shot occurred when the limo was 50 yards from the corner or at ~Z-313, restated this claim a second time and said limo was 30 yards from his position which also equates to limo position being at ~Z-313. <-> Corroborates the four shot model)

EUINS and WORRELL claimed to hear 4 rifle shots.

The descriptions these three witnesses provided for what they claimed to have seen are simply preposterous.

Out of the multitude of witnesses on Houston and in front of the TSBD, only these three claimed to witness a rifle discharge.

Of the witnesses that claimed the TSBD as the source of the shots only these witnesses claimed to look to the 6th floor window and only these witnesses claimed to see something.

Mrs. CABELL

JACKSON

COUCH

BRENNAN

EUINS

WORRELL

Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, on one of your interviews with the FBI, they record a statement that you estimated your distance between the point you were seated and the window from which the shots were fired as approximately 90 yards.

At that time did you make that statement to the FBI--and this would be on 22 November. To the best of your recollection?

Mr. BRENNAN. There was a mistake in the FBI recording there. He had asked me the question of how far the shot was fired from too, and also he had asked me the question of how far I was from the shot that was fired. I calculated the distance at the angle his gun was resting that he must have been firing 80 to 90 yards. Now, I--

Mr. BELIN. You mean 80 or 90 yards from where?

Mr. BRENNAN. From Kennedy's position.

Mr. BELIN. But could you see Kennedy's position?

Mr. BRENNAN. No; I could not. But I could see before and after.

Robert,

50 yards from the corner or Station C = 2+34.5 +150ft = Station# 3+84.5ft

The Dec5, 1963 SS determination of a shot at Station# 3+81.3 (extant Z218) or approx 3ft from where Brennan's Nov22, 1963 affidavit puts it.

Which shot (1st or 2nd) does he change later to LOS 265ft (90yards) from the snipers nest?

If he changed the 1st shot initially 50 yards away from him, to the Z313 shot, why?

The 50 yard shot could have been shot #1 and the 90 yard shot #2 if they wanted him to stick with the official WC scenario. No reason to change it.

Or, maybe he actually heard his first shot 50 yards from the limo.

And, someone could have stuck a rifle out of the window, doesn't mean they fired a rifle or that it was Oswald.

chris

Edited December 29, 2014 by Chris Davidson

[Chris Davidson]

Robert,

I believe the whole extant Z-film is a fabrication. I believe it was fabricated to disguise the number and locations of shooters, to conceal wounds inflicted on JFK, to conceal the timing of the shots fired, and to conceal the slow-down and possible stopping of the limo. I'm not expert in photography but I do observe anomalies in the extant Z-film; for example, the static nature of the citizens shown to be lining Elm Street and the inconsistency between the head wound shown in the film and witness statements (e.g., Parkland medical doctor statements) re the condition of the head. I'm strongly persuaded as well by the relatively recent information provided by Dino Brugioni re NPIC activities on the assassination weekend.

The extant Nix film is in some obvious ways inconsistent with the Z-film. Gayle Nix says the existing Nix film is not the film Orville Nix recorded. The Nix film shows different movement for Clint Hill and Jackie Kennedy; shows a pronounced slowing of the limo; and IMO shows Mary Moorman standing in the street, contrary to the Z-film.

I'm not knowledgable to any extent about the Muchmore or Bronson film, although I have studied both a little.

I have no hesitation believing the Z-film and the Nix film were altered by the U.S. Government. It's clear to me the U.S. Government would stop at nothing in covering up the facts of the assassination.

Jon,

Agreed.

http://www33.zippyshare.com/v/33353614/file.html

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there are. There are six photographs selected at random from the Nix film, including frame 24, which is a frame depicting the shot to the head of the President, and there are three photographs picked at random from the Muchmore film, including frame 42, which is the frame depicting the head shot. These are the pictures that were used in establishing the location of the Nix and Muchmore cameras on location in Dallas. Frame 10, which is the first one of the Nix series, is the one showing Mr. Zapruder standing on the projection.

Count back from extant Z313.

Shaneyfelt 313-24 = 289

Itek study 313- 28 = 285

Myers 313-22 = 291

I wonder which versions of the Nix film were they using.

chris

[Robert Mady]

.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Robert Mady