The Education Forum

## Recommended Posts

If the Zapruder film's frames are an accurate, unaltered representation of the event... one has to ask why Shaneyfelt moved the path south and then changed ce884 so that it completely misrepresents the film?

According to the Surveryor's notes, Shaneyfelt figured out where z168 and z171 were (incorrectly I might add considering these 3 frames are only separated by 9/10th of a foot) yet after he figures this out he does something amazing.  Luckily Robert WEST took some notes:

So what does this mean related to ce884 and zframes 161 and 166?  Well, originally ce884 stated that frame 168 lays where the new ce884 places z161.

168 becomes 161 and 171 becomes 166.  Pretty good trick! Now we'll see why Shaneyfelt moved the limo 1.1 feet to the south and why ce884 was changed

The corner of the limo at z166 is even with the County Records bldg corner with JFK's position noted

When I place the limo where Shaneyfelt put JFK for frame 171, the corner of the limo remains in line with the Records Bldg and JFK remains in line with Zapruder's line of sight.
Only problem is 171 is now prior to 166...

Here is a line art version of the above image.  Nothing offered in the evidence can assist with a recreation of the event...  in fact the evidence is offered in such a way as to make every attempt at reconstruction conflict with at least some part of the evidence.

If the Zfilm is an accurate representation of what happened - the unanswered question remains, "Why change the permanent, accurate record instead of simply using it to explain what occurred?"

Answer - the altered film cannot be related to the event by the laws of physics and math that apply.  That's also why the evidence can claim the limo traveled at a constant 11.2 mph despite the same evidence showing the impossibly drastic changes in speed within the z161-z313 distance Shaneyfelt chose.

Reading Shaneyfelt's testimony is absolutely necessary to understanding what happened here...  that and the Redlich to Rankin memo from April 27 1964.

"substantiate the hypothesis which underlies the conclusions..."

We have not yet examined the assassination scene to determine

whether the assassin in fact could have shot the President prior to

frame 190.  We could locate the position on the ground which

corresponds to this frame and it would then be our intent to establish

by photography that the assassin would have fired the first shot at the

President prior to this point.  Our intention is not to establish the

point with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the

hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole

assassin.

Edited by David Josephs
##### Share on other sites

My response as to why Shaneyfelt moved something around to misrepresent the Z film?  It's very simple.  Because he could.  It's far easier to create subterfuge in the written record, in statements, in testimony, than it is painting in blobs and removing frames in a film.

The burden of proof - and I say this tongue in cheek because we know this was no vigorous pursuit of the truth - was on them to fit a round peg in a square hole. They had their marching papers with K's "sweep all conspiracy under the rug" memo. So yes, it was easy to fudge things to fit their aims, just like Ford did when he wrote "neck" in the final report.

##### Share on other sites

Just doing his civic duty....

##### Share on other sites

Yes, very well done, David.  Here's my video (at the end of it) that's somewhat related to your pictures.

##### Share on other sites

Michael,

Theres a problem with Altgens 6 and the Zapruder film.  Altgens 6 shows the president shot before he passes the freeway signs.  This supposedly corresponds to z frame 255 after the freeway signs.  These two visual records can't be reconciled.

Most people just say they are the same without thinking about or really looking at the content.

The shooting of JFK in the front doesn't come out well from the front either.

l think Dr. Perry got it right.  The man probably dealt with hundreds of gun shot wounds.  Kennedy was shot in the throat from the front but, how?  And, from where?

##### Share on other sites

15 hours ago, John Butler said:

Michael,

Theres a problem with Altgens 6 and the Zapruder film.  Altgens 6 shows the president shot before he passes the freeway signs.  This supposedly corresponds to z frame 255 after the freeway signs.  These two visual records can't be reconciled.

Most people just say they are the same without thinking about or really looking at the content.

The shooting of JFK in the front doesn't come out well from the front either.

l think Dr. Perry got it right.  The man probably dealt with hundreds of gun shot wounds.  Kennedy was shot in the throat from the front but, how?  And, from where?

Some have posited the throat shot coming from the South knoll through the windshield, which would be a real tight shot, but not out of the realm of possibility for a professional sniper, I think. Many have thought from the North knoll behind the picket fence, or the drain near the intersection of the fence and overpass.

Edited by Roger DeLaria
##### Share on other sites

Roger,

The way I look at it shooting from the South Knoll has the wrong firing angle unless special circumstances are met.  The special circumstance is that the presidential vehicle has to be pointed in that direction so that the shot can enter from directly in front.

There is only one time that could have occurred.  That’s when William Greer made his wide and wild turn into the intersection of Elm and Houston Streets.  In straightening and moving his vehicle into the center of the street there may have been a brief moment when the vehicle pointed toward the South Knoll.

It’s a bit of a stretch.  The same as the next thing I’m going to suggest.  I did a post on the Marie Muchmore film and didn’t put this in it.  The reason being was I was getting a lot of “worst photo analysis ever” and “silly research” type of comments.   Some of the comments were fairly crude.  Here’s what I didn’t put in:

The black arrow points to a hazy, cloudy spot on the windshield in about the same place as the bullet hole in the windshield.  It could just be a light spot reflecting something.  President Kennedy is turned to the left and downward and appears to be in pain and distress.  Jackie seems concerned.  The fellows who made those comments would probably say too much imagination here.

As far as I can theorize there are only about 3 spots that one can shoot directly into the front of the presidential limousine to produce frontal wounds including the bullet hole in the windshield.  These are:

1. Down Houston St. from the TSBD (second or third floor offices or fire escapes) to the intersection, the Court Record Building, or to anywhere along Houston.  I favor the first two.  Something may have happened at the intersection of Houston and Main (why else dummy up photos like Altgens 5) or something happened in front of the Court Records Building with 8 films skipping that area.

2. The Grassy Knoll to the intersection of Elm and Houston Streets.

3. The Triple Underpass to anywhere along Elm Street.  Shooting from the Triple Underpass has special problems and I generally pass this notion over.  But, it is the best place for an assassin to be to shoot the President.

There is another spot I keep forgetting to mention when talking of this.  That is further north on Houston St. then the intersection of Elm and Houston.  It actually gives you one of the better shooting positions down Houston St.  One of the assassination films shows buildings, construction, and parked trailers there.

Edited by John Butler