Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tipping Point serialization now in progress on the Mary Ferrell Foundation site


Recommended Posts

What a shame we don't have the Babushka Lady film shot facing the Zapruder area and the rest of the Grassy Knoll, while panning with the presidential limousine. Or the 16mm film shot from

a car in the motorcade by a CBS-TV photographer focusing on JFK at the time of the hit and then panning to the right and tilting upward to the TSBD corner window. If Oswald had been in the window, we surely

would have seen that film.

Edited by Joseph McBride
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

19 hours ago, Allen Lowe said:

I do think that, without the Zapruder film, we wouldn't be here today. The film was really the thing that rejuvenated the pro-conspiracy movement. Otherwise I think it would have just faded away.

Allen,

I don't think so. I read a long time ago that JFK's assassination was the first assassination (successful or otherwise) that was done with a rifle. All the other attempts were up close and personal. JFK's was the first, as Larry suggested, that smacks of "something entirely different".

Steve Thomas

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2020 at 7:30 PM, Steve Thomas said:

Allen,

I don't think so. I read a long time ago that JFK's assassination was the first assassination (successful or otherwise) that was done with a rifle. All the other attempts were up close and personal. JFK's was the first, as Larry suggested, that smacks of "something entirely different".

Steve Thomas

I don't think so either , for different reasons: Larry Hancock has clarified that he believes the extant film was sufficiently revealing of ' multiple shooters' to ensure it's suppression . I have severe doubts as to that view. Firstly supression failed, or the film was intentionally leaked , we'll never know. And secondly the extant film clearly isn't convincing proof of 'multiple' shooters. The public are sceptical but not convinced. 

Chris Davidson's work, stemming from the altered survey plat, is convincing in respect of frame removal and why. Dino Brugioni's testimony is convincing on frame removal and matches the testimony of Nellie Connally in respect of the behaviour of the matter cloud. I mention these as Larry seems to refer to the testimony of Homer McMahon as support that the film seen at the 2nd NPIC event revealed multiple shooters. 

McMahon's testimony is not credible to me. He claims to identify 8 shots. This borders on ludicrous to me. With information unavailable at the the time 8 shots may possibly be accounted for ( shot evidence such as Tague etc). I have never read a Z film analysis declaring 8 shots. More likely is that McMahon subsequently read more about the assassination and is puffing up what he could actualy see.

I would postulate that had the public seen the extant Z film in 1964 then Alvarez and the wise men of the Warren commission would still have been able to keep a lid on any multiple gunman theories.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well just to make myself as clear as possible...what I was attempting to say is that my experience with public viewings of the film leads me to believe that the general public often responds to the film with the impression that the president has been shot from the front...for people unfamiliar with the film that produces a real emotional impact and opens many of them up to a frontal shot and brings the official story into question.

I simply maintain that if the film, along with many of the other early public remarks out of Dallas including Oswald being driven away in a station wagon and witnesses seeing smoke and apparent shooting from the fence-line,  had been widely seen by the public it would have made life much more difficult for the lone nut story. 

I can say from personal experience that the shooting of Oswald by Ruby raised considerable doubt in the public mind about the lone nut line that was emerging that weekend.  The film would have given further push to public skepticism.

I did not maintain the film as we see it now proved multiple shooters; I will say that we may well not see now (due to likely frame removal or manipulation among other things) precisely what McMahon observed and mentioned...which in reality was simply something that impressed him that there were multiple shooters. 

Given that there were two sets of story boards made, and that the first was supposed to be destroyed and produced panic when it was found not to have been, certainly something about the presentation as supported in the first set raised a real problem for the official lone nut story line. 

I thought I was clear that I was open to frame removal, frame manipulation and even to the possibility to tampering to the image of the wound in the rear of the head.

It is sort of surprising to me that we cannot even agree that the Z film, even as we see it now, raises doubt (and would have raised even more then in combination with information out of Dallas) in many peoples minds about a single lone nut shooter firing only from the rear.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

McMahon's testimony is not credible to me. He claims to identify 8 shots. This borders on ludicrous to me. With information unavailable at the the time 8 shots may possibly be accounted for ( shot evidence such as Tague etc).

Eddy,

I have always maintained that the best evidence for conspiracy comes from the number of shots that missed, not the number of shots that hit. If you have more than one shot that missed, that's prima facie evidence for conspiracy.

Steve Thomas

Link to post
Share on other sites

To Steve, I completely agree. To Larry I apologise, I mischaracterised your views.

I believe the Z-film has frames missing after Z312. Two remarkable events make the removal possible. Firstly I believe the car was stationary and secondly it was directly in front of Zapruder. The only way I see to remove witness anomolies, car decelleration effects and car acceleration effects , and witnessed injuries is to add frames back in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if I understand the reasoning for removing random frames, but then leaving in clear evidence of the President's head snapping backwards, which is by far the most convincing evidence for a shot from the front. Seems like they would have been better off just destroying the entire film instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting and educational. Thank you for posting your book, Larry.

It was exciting to read possible names for Umbrella Man and DC Man. That's something I hadn't seen before. It's unfortunate that information was in a footnote.

I like the idea of using the process of elimination to identify potential suspects. It seems to be a logical approach at a time when new information is scarce. I think it's also wise to examine the other assassination plots for clues as to how the JFK assassination probably played out, as Larry does here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt,  strictly in terms of how this relates to Tipping Point, in particular segment 5, my view would be that the film was a matter of record even in Dallas, before it got to Hawkeye, before NPIC, and certainly in the form of the storyboards that were used in the initial briefing.  It had even been purchased by LIFE. Many people including the media were aware of it.  Making it vanish would have fanned speculation about conspiracy and coverup. 

The only choice was that of obfuscation, restricting access to it, controlling the elements of it that did get into print in the public media, writing about it so as to fit the lone nut scenario (the article which talks about the president turning to face the TSBD when he was shot, pure nonsense showing how far matters could be stretched).  All stupid stuff, just barely good enough to make the official story stick - but that is true for a great many areas including the autopsy.  And all of it explaining why so many people at various levels were had good reason to be skeptical of the lone nut story - which literally had to be forced into the public record.

And to that extent it was all in opposition to the plot and conspiracy I sketch out, not in support of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure anymore that the JFK assassination was supposed to lead directly to Cuba/USSR and a military confrontation. With JFK out of the way, the conspirators would have free reign to do whatever they wanted at their own pace. They didn't necessarily want to be hemmed in to one specific course of action. But the fear of the consequences of a possible foreign conspiracy was used as leverage to implement a cover-up from the beginning.

From what I can see in Larry's work and in other's, Dulles and Helms are identified as the ones likeliest to have been at the top of the conspiracy food chain. Was there anyone higher? It appears not, at least not at the time the conspiracy was being planned. But what about after the assassination? Is that relevant?

Who, personally as an individual and not as a head of a group, stood to benefit the most from the death of JFK? It's a question asked in basic crime investigation. Who benefits?

I tend to look skeptically at any aspect of the assassination that requires luck, and it certainly seems to me that the conspirators were fortunate to have a president in waiting who was willing to join in the coverup at the earliest moment, as well as willing to use his power to steer the entire investigation toward a pre-determined conclusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

Who, personally as an individual and not as a head of a group, stood to benefit the most from the death of JFK? It's a question asked in basic crime investigation. Who benefits?

When discussing the most powerful man in the world, I'm not sure how well that works. The list of people that wanted JFK dead and benefited from his death runs into the hundreds, perhaps thousands. Hard evidence is the only thing that can narrow that list down to something reasonable and believable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry, thank you for your decades of hard work and skill at getting as much information as possible out for public assessment.  I have read as much as I could afford to buy or freely lay my hands on.  I have also viewed every film/photo and document that I had the opportunity or resources to obtain.  I think the scenario you lay out in "Tipping Point" is very plausible.  Each time a specific plot is laid out by an author or researcher, I tend to study and look for weak points or areas that need further clarification.  Once upon a time, I actually thought I would be able to research enough that I might be of help in solving the case.  It's been over 50 years now and I pretty much know that will not be the case, but I admire those of you who have sacrificed so much to make the attempts.

The various photos/films have been studied and written about by many researchers.  One of my biggest problem in assessing the assassination comes from this area.  I think the film/photo alteration and confiscation was started so quickly after the killing, there had to have been a plan of some sort along these lines.  For instance, the Altgens (6) in particular, shows signs of alteration BEFORE it even made it onto TV or into newspapers.  I specifically am noting the area showing JFK's head partially obscured by the mirror.  Altgens was an excellent photographer and his photos have fantastic depth of field and detail, yet this area right in the center of the photo has various irregularities that do not fit (almost like a mosaic with the tiles moved around).  What if any, is your opinion on this?  It just seems to happen too quickly and involves not only personal films, but those taken by professionals - and almost immediately.  It seems to me to be a cover-up team, even if it was only to make sure the "right people" were not in the photos/videos.  It doesn't necessarily signify an attempt to push a "single gunman" or the "conspiracy theory".  It could have easily been another compartmentalized act simply to conceal the identities of known individuals in the wrong places at the wrong time.  Thanks in advance for any consideration.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

The list of people that wanted JFK dead and benefited from his death runs into the hundreds, perhaps thousands. Hard evidence is the only thing that can narrow that list down to something reasonable and believable.

That list is considerably narrowed when you consider how many people wanted JFK dead, benefited from his death, and also had the ability to influence the autopsy at Bethesda, had the ear and support of the top law enforcement official, and could handpick the members of the commission investigating the crime.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

That list is considerably narrowed when you consider how many people wanted JFK dead, benefited from his death, and also had the ability to influence the autopsy at Bethesda, had the ear and support of the top law enforcement official, and could handpick the members of the commission investigating the crime.

Not really. Bobby Kennedy influenced the autopsy at Bethesda and he didn't want his brother killed. Many things were covered up in this crime, but not all for the reason of hiding a conspiracy.

It's easy to point fingers at people, but evidence is required.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard,  I certainly think there was a very quick response to cover up indications of conspiracy,  I just don't see it as all pre-planned (even LBJ's calls back to Texas that evening to shut down any mention of conspiracy much less charges are suspicious, but are also consistent with the almost universal desire for control over any crisis). 

Part of my reasoning is based on my friend Connie Kritzberg's experience with her article quoting a Parkland Doctor describing a shot from the front after treating the President.  He was very clear to her, she wrote it up very clearly and submitted her article before 9 PM that evening.  When published the wording was slightly changed to obfuscate the Doctors remarks about a shot from the front.  When she protested to her editor he referred her to the FBI. 

Later research by Connie suggests that newspaper reports were being referred to the FBI over night and that copy for the edition carrying her story was "tweaked".  To some extent that is not terribly unusual as major crimes often have key pieces of information stripped out of what the press prints in order to aid the investigation.

What I've concluded is that there were multiple items of news reporting, interviews - even DPD interviews - which suggested conspiracy and that lasted all the way up to the FBI reports the autopsy observers filed around midnight.  But beginning on Saturday the story the flow of information became constrained and actually began to turn totally around on Sunday.

Also, if you read segment 5 of Tipping Point or SWHT 2010 for that matter, you will find a case for a national security directive ordering that evidence of conspiracy be controlled and suppressed beginning on Saturday.  That is consistent with what happened to the autopsy materials over the weekend, with the FBI change in direction to order a total focus on Oswald and the order on Sunday only to build a case against him. 

So to answer your question, I do think there was a control and suppression operation, which began very quickly, but to be blunt it was so half-assed and failed in so many respects that we can now see pieces of it literally scattered all over the place. 

Indeed it is so poor that it almost didn't hold together in 1964 - and we can now deconstruct it in extensive detail....I just see no sign that it was anything more than an iterative, knee jerk reaction to gain control of the situation and avoid dealing with was was pretty quickly obvious as a conspiracy (obvious to a number of well placed people that I quote in Tipping Point and to many others who quickly determined it best to just shut up because nobody wanted to hear anything to the contrary). 

 

Edited by Larry Hancock
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...