Jump to content
The Education Forum

Josiah Thompson's brand new book LAST SECOND IN DALLAS


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, John Butler said:

I would therefore deduce that the Z190-Z210 jiggle is a function of the first shot, and the Z155 jiggle is a false alarm (Zapruder had only switched it on a second before at Z133 so he was probably still getting comfortable and framing the limo).

OBTW, I didn't say that.  Mark Tyler did.  This crazy editor framed it that way.

Various estimates on the Zapruder Gap range from 14.5 seconds to 30 seconds.  My own best guess (somewhat primitive) was about 22 seconds.  Basing on David Josephs, the time was probably closer to 15 seconds.  

As Mr. McBride said earlier Zapruder said he did not turn off the camera and filmed the p. limo as it turned onto Elm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 256
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

16 hours ago, Mark Tyler said:

One of the men on the steps turns and runs away immediately after the head shot which is why in later films there are only two people who remain.  If you look closely at the Nix film here you can just about see him as he disappeared into the shadows as he scuttled up the steps:

Marilyn Sitzman said that two people ran behind the pergola immediately after the shooting and in the process dropped some glass bottles.  Appropriately for this thread, that information came from a Josiah Thompson interview!  I suspect the second person Sitzman referred to was the so called black dog man, visible in the Willis and Betzner photos behind the concrete wall.

The Willis slide is rather curious, but maybe Emmett Hudson is directly behind the man and his presence is obscured?

I think Zapruder frame 413 shows the top of Emmett Hudson's head at the bottom of the frame, slightly obscured by the bushes:

z413.jpg

If the photos and films are fake then nothing useful can be learned from them regarding the assassination, which is rather disappointing!  Wouldn't fabricating so much evidence be a little risky?  One mistake and the whole thing would be exposed as a fraud, which would create an uproar.

It appears to be a man behind a bush maybe close to Zapruder.  Not 3 men or two men on steps which do not have bushes in front of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Mark Tyler said:

One of the men on the steps turns and runs away immediately after the head shot which is why in later films there are only two people who remain.  If you look closely at the Nix film here you can just about see him as he disappeared into the shadows as he scuttled up the steps:

Marilyn Sitzman said that two people ran behind the pergola immediately after the shooting and in the process dropped some glass bottles.  Appropriately for this thread, that information came from a Josiah Thompson interview!  I suspect the second person Sitzman referred to was the so called black dog man, visible in the Willis and Betzner photos behind the concrete wall.

The Willis slide is rather curious, but maybe Emmett Hudson is directly behind the man and his presence is obscured?

I think Zapruder frame 413 shows the top of Emmett Hudson's head at the bottom of the frame, slightly obscured by the bushes:

z413.jpg

If the photos and films are fake then nothing useful can be learned from them regarding the assassination, which is rather disappointing!  Wouldn't fabricating so much evidence be a little risky?  One mistake and the whole thing would be exposed as a fraud, which would create an uproar.

Neither man is large enough to hide poor Emmett.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark Tyler said,

"

Finally, we have a whole group of witnesses who were standing at the lamppost by the Thornton freeway sign (or just west of it) who all said that the limo had just passed them or was directly in front of them when the first shot was fired: AJ Millican, Karen Westbrook, Gloria Calvery, Karan Hicks, Jane Berry, and Betty Thornton.  Here is the Betzner photo for reference:"

and showed this photo from Betzner:

Betzner-Large-1.jpg

Wait! What's that?  It contradicts!  This Betzner photo is another alternate reality photo comparable to Zapruder frames, but doesn't compare very well to Bronson at about the same moment.  Bronson shows that the area I often call Mannikin Row is a construct or Bronson is wrong and Betzner is right.  Once again alternate realities in Dealey Plaza.

betzner-bronson-comparre.jpg

There are 19 people in Zapruder/Betzner standing shoulder to shoulder from the R. L. Thornton sign to the Stemmons sign.  A distance of about 40 feet.  You don't see this shoulder to shoulder group in Bronson.  Which is real?

And, another question is why don't we see that group shown in Bronson in Muchmore?  They cross right in front of her camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Starting off, I would recommend watching Hargis' motorcycle (repeatedly) just before the Groden frames appear, besides considering the head movement of JFK and JBC throughout:

Splice.gif

I don't see anything unusual with Hargis or his bike.  Have I missed something important?

JFK seems to be looking to his left at the beginning of the Z-film and then turns to the crowd to his right (who are clapping feverishly, no doubt making a lot of noise as they called out to JFK).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, John Butler said:

This disregards over a hundred witnesses who heard shooting on Main St., Houston St. and Elm St.  Most of the witnesses, close to 90 or more, heard shooting when the p. limo was in the intersection of Houston and Elm Street and in front of the TSBD.  Folks may claim that I cherry pick these witnesses.  I did with the simple question "where was the p. limo when you heard shots"?

I've not disregarded any witness statements, although there are some statements that are so vague I don't think it's possible to derive any forensic value from them (e.g. "the limo had just turned the corner and the shooting started").  By contrast when a witness is standing beside a lamppost and says that the limo had just passed them when the shooting started I think we can safely deduce the time the witness is referring to thanks to the Z-film and the photos.

Technically I think the shooting did start when the limo was in front of the TSBD, but only just.  At Z190 the limo was directly in line with the west side of the building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In conclusion, I think the idea in LSID of two bursts of gunfire Z175-Z224 and Z310-Z330 is close to what probably happened in 1963.  Other witnesses also mentioned that they heard shots fired well after the head shot, such as Charles Brehm, Emmett Hudson, Mary Moorman, and Jean Hill.  Sadly the Z-film was in such a chaotic state after Z318 there is no objective proof of this shot (or shots), but there are so many witnesses who support a shot well after Z313 I think it should be included in any shot sequence.  Crucially this final shot well after Z313 would give us a total of three bursts of gunfire, which tallies perfectly with a lot of witness reports.  Most notably Merriman Smith said this in the minutes after the shooting:

"There were three loud bursts."

Confirming the three bursts, with the two required pauses in between, was Pierce Allman who was standing directly in front of the TSBD and was in a great position to hear what the sixth floor sniper was doing:

"Right after Mr. Kennedy passed in front of me I heard one big explosion and my immediate thought like most of the people standing around me was "this is firecrackers, but it's in pretty poor taste". I looked and saw the president, I thought, duck. Evidently, he was slumping at the time. The car immediately sped on. No one seemed galvanized into immediate action. The shots didn't seem rapid at all. They were three well spaced, reverberating shots."

Although some witnesses only heard two bursts of gunfire such as: BANG, pause, BANG-BANG; no witness heard a fourth burst.  Even AJ Millican who said he heard eight shots in total, chose to bunch them into three groups:

"Just after the President's car passed, I heard three shots come from up toward Houston and Elm right by the Book Depository Building, and then immediately I heard two more shots come from the Arcade between the Book Store and the Underpass, and then three more shots came from the same direction only sounded further back."

Overall, LSID and SSID taken together represent one of the most complete independent studies of the very complex crime scene in Dealey Plaza, so I am hugely grateful for the work that Josiah Thompson has done over the years.

Lastly, I would reiterate that there are still gaps in our knowledge of the Dealey Plaza crime scene.  Even though we have over 400 witnesses on the public record, multiple films and photos, we still don't have 100% certainty regarding exactly what happened.  The lack of information in specific areas is frustrating and intractable, such as JFK's autopsy which was so badly botched it can neither prove nor disprove the single bullet theory, or the shallow back wound theory.  I suspect those types of issues will forever remain moot.

Anyway, that's my current view of LSID, and the shooting sequence during the JFK assassination based on the photos, films, and eyewitnesses.  I'm happy to be corrected if anyone thinks I am wrong in my analysis, so feel free to let me know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mark Tyler said:

I've not disregarded any witness statements, although there are some statements that are so vague I don't think it's possible to derive any forensic value from them (e.g. "the limo had just turned the corner and the shooting started").  By contrast when a witness is standing beside a lamppost and says that the limo had just passed them when the shooting started I think we can safely deduce the time the witness is referring to thanks to the Z-film and the photos.

Technically I think the shooting did start when the limo was in front of the TSBD, but only just.  At Z190 the limo was directly in line with the west side of the building.

"the limo had just turned the corner and the shooting started"  Taken out of context this seems to be a vague statement  with what corner was this?  In these statements the witnesses clearly state where they were, often name who they were with.  So, if your in front of the TSBD by the steps on North Elm then there can only be the corner of the Houston and Elm intersection as the corner in question.

As an example, take Victoria Adams.  She said she was in her office on the 4th floor of the TSBD and names others who were with her.  She said she heard shooting when the p. limo was out of sight under trees.  I guess that would be vague if you didn't know that the only trees available were directly under her windows on the her 4th floor office.

"I think we can safely deduce the time the witness is referring to thanks to the Z-film and the photos."

The Z film has no evidentiary value.  You would not be able to show it in court due to its many problems.  Photos?  Many with the same problem.   In court what would be the effect of the Betzner/Bronson montage concerning the area between the R. L. Thornton sign and the Stemmons sign?  Would it negate any of the testimony of the witnesses there? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mark Tyler said:

I don't see anything unusual with Hargis or his bike.  Have I missed something important?

JFK seems to be looking to his left at the beginning of the Z-film and then turns to the crowd to his right (who are clapping feverishly, no doubt making a lot of noise as they called out to JFK).

Mr. WORRELL - Didn't get too good a view of the President either, I missed out on there too. But as they went by, they got, oh at least another 50, 75 feet on past me, and then I heard the shots.

I prefer landmarks and distances.

Since the snipers nest window is equal to station# 2+50 out on Elm St, then 50 to 75 ft further down would equate to station # 3+00 = extant z133 approx and 75ft would equal station# 3+25 = extant z159 approx.

Hargis in extant z slows down(watch it closely) just before Groden’s z155-157 frames appear.

The WC starts their manipulation of data at extant z161-166 &168-171

They have the limo slowing to 2.24&3.74 mph(two different CE884 docs)using those frame numbers?

The hiding of this slowing(not necessarily down to 2.24&3.74mph) becomes rather obvious when plotting the extant z film from z161-166 using Dealy Plaza landmarks and two occupants of the limo.

Remember, “Someone who fires a weapon is not required to shoot at a target”

Worrell.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, John Butler said:

The Z film has no evidentiary value.  You would not be able to show it in court due to its many problems.  Photos?  Many with the same problem.   In court what would be the effect of the Betzner/Bronson montage concerning the area between the R. L. Thornton sign and the Stemmons sign?  Would it negate any of the testimony of the witnesses there? 

If the films and photos are rejected as invalid then it will be impossible to properly understand the events from 1963.  Although the witnesses are occasionally muddled or contradictory, they do mostly seem to corroborate what we see in the photos and films.  Some of the photos are tricky to judge due to the angles and optical illusions, but otherwise I've not come across any suspicious contradictions in the photographic record.  Rather like Josiah Thompson I feel that the films and photos of the crime scene coupled the witness statements tend to corroborate each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Hargis in extant z slows down(watch it closely) just before Groden’s z155-157 frames appear.

I think you are right, there is a slight deceleration at that point.  Checking back to my animation notes I remember that Hargis accelerated out of the curve slightly faster than BJ Martin beside him (as proven in the Martin film up to circa Z145), so he probably compensated by easing back on the throttle immediately after.

5 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

The WC starts their manipulation of data at extant z161-166 &168-171

They have the limo slowing to 2.24&3.74 mph(two different CE884 docs)using those frame numbers?

The hiding of this slowing(not necessarily down to 2.24&3.74mph) becomes rather obvious when plotting the extant z film from z161-166 using Dealy Plaza landmarks and two occupants of the limo.

Remember, “Someone who fires a weapon is not required to shoot at a target”

The horrors of CE884 return to haunt us all once again!  As I recall, when I realised how awful the Warren Commission measurements were I relied on the photos taken at Z161, Z186, and Z202 to get the limo location about right.  As with all photogrammetry it's not perfect, and there will be a margin for error, but I think there is a smooth-ish acceleration of the limo from about 10 MPH at Z145; 11 MPH at Z170; then 12 MPH at Z210; with a peak of just under 13 MPH around Z230-Z250, after which the limo rapidly decelerates to just below 8 MPH by Z310.

As I recall William Greer the driver said he turned around after he heard the second shot, and we can see him looking back by Z281 of the Z-film:

z281.jpg

I suspect he instinctively took his foot off the gas and maybe gently tapped the brake pedal which slowed the vehicle down.  This Muchmore frame suggests that the rear brake lights were lit around Z313:

Picture_57.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading a few reviews of Thompson's Last Second in Dallas, and carefully reading the book myself, my eternal question will be:  “How did blood and gore exhaust from the right rear of JFK’s head onto the left rear (driver’s side) corner of the limo and onto officer Hargis who was riding slightly behind that position, unless the hole in the back of JFK’s head was “pointing” toward the left rear of the limo at the time he was shot in the head from the right front?”  A corollary question is “Why doesn’t ANY picture or movie of JFK’s killing show him looking at the Grassy Knoll (“pointing” the right rear of his head toward the left rear of the limo) at the time of a head shot that MUST have come from that direction?”  And finally:  If none of the pictures or movies of JFK’s killing contain images of his head turned toward the Knoll that MUST have been present on any of the several films exposed that day, why is it considered “scientific” to cite any of those obviously imprecise (doctored, edited, etc) media in the process of explaining what happened?

I’ll wait for my answer, but I won’t hold my breath.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Steven Kossor said:

After reading a few reviews of Thompson's Last Second in Dallas, and carefully reading the book myself, my eternal question will be:  “How did blood and gore exhaust from the right rear of JFK’s head onto the left rear (driver’s side) corner of the limo and onto officer Hargis who was riding slightly behind that position, unless the hole in the back of JFK’s head was “pointing” toward the left rear of the limo at the time he was shot in the head from the right front?”  A corollary question is “Why doesn’t ANY picture or movie of JFK’s killing show him looking at the Grassy Knoll (“pointing” the right rear of his head toward the left rear of the limo) at the time of a head shot that MUST have come from that direction?”  And finally:  If none of the pictures or movies of JFK’s killing contain images of his head turned toward the Knoll that MUST have been present on any of the several films exposed that day, why is it considered “scientific” to cite any of those obviously imprecise (doctored, edited, etc) media in the process of explaining what happened?

I’ll wait for my answer, but I won’t hold my breath.

Steve

That's pretty deep and thought provoking Steve.  While I've looked at parts if it frame by frame multiple times I'm no true student of Zapruder or the other films.  But, if JFK was not looking toward the grassy knoll at the time of the head shot(s), how did his dura/grey/white matter spray back and to the left given the grapefruit sized exit wound observed at Parkland.  Landing on Hargis, the other motorcycle cop and the front windshield of the follow up SS car.  A shot from any other place and his head not turned toward it would not have ha the same results it seems.    

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having read almost all of the book and taken extensive notes, in my opinion the first hundred pages are pretty strong. 

To any experienced researcher, its not new.  But Thompson is quite a skilled writer, and he was aided by the publisher's willingness to include a lot of visuals, as he was the first time.  What makes it come alive is the presentation.

I do not see how any newbie could read those first hundred pages and not be convinced of a crossfire. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Steven Kossor said:

And finally:  If none of the pictures or movies of JFK’s killing contain images of his head turned toward the Knoll that MUST have been present on any of the several films exposed that day, why is it considered “scientific” to cite any of those obviously imprecise (doctored, edited, etc) media in the process of explaining what happened?

I’ll wait for my answer, but I won’t hold my breath.

Steven,

This is what folks have been doing for years.  They can't give up years of work they think is correct so, they are not receptive to different ideas.  Different ideas don't make sense to them.  Mark Tyler says that the photos and films match the witness record.  He doesn't see much if any alterations.  He rejects what other witnesses say as imprecise.  So, to him any other ideas are just non-sensical.  I differ from Mark in the sense that I listen to a different choir.  In which most if not all of the photographic media in Dealey Plaza is tainted.  The witness record is also tainted by government agents coercing or changing testimony after the first few hours after the assassination.

I am not holding my breath either for someone to accept some of the things I believe happened that day.  It is a different story for me that totally rejects the official story and its source.  The films, the photos, the witnesses and their problems tell a different story then the official version.  About 20% or slightly more of the witnesses tell a different story then the Zapruder film and the Grassy Knoll.

The point you made is truly excellent.  It suggests that what we see in Zapruder and others may not be the correct story.  To me, the Zapruder film is the most insidious piece of propaganda devised by government in that era.  First, hidden for years until witness memories had time to cool and fade to some extent.  Starting in the 1970's images in the film begin to replace the memories that people had of that day.  I cite Jean Hill as the best example of that (Jean Hill, Arlen Specter, and Hill Exhibit No. 5)  The horrific images of the film dominated people's thinking for decades until more modern times when folks had acquired the technology and knowledge to look at things in a different light and discover things seem just not right. 

When you say something different or show something different about the Z film that upsets decades of work that people have done based on what they see and think about the Z film.

I agree that a different explanation is needed for the events in the Z film and its credibility as a whole.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...