Josiah Thompson's brand new book LAST SECOND IN DALLAS

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

John Butler writes:

Quote

One did.  It is the AMIPA /Bob Yeargan film.  It surfaced in 2005 I believe.  Way to late to have any effect on the matters occurring 40+ years earlier.

There were several photographs and home movies, taken in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination, that only came to light days, weeks, or years after the event. The point Josiah Thompson and Jonathan Cohen made, which Mr Butler doesn't seem to have grasped, is that there appears to be no way that any conspirators could have known how many such items of photographic evidence might eventually turn up, and no way for the conspirators to be sure that these items wouldn't contain proof that the Zapruder film had been altered.

If that isn't clear enough, I'll try to explain the problem in another way:

- Put yourself in the shoes of a conspirator who wants to alter the Zapruder film in order to conceal something that actually happened, or to show something that didn't actually happen.

- You don't have access to all the films and photos that were taken in Dealey Plaza that day.

- You don't know how many of the spectators in Dealey Plaza were carrying still or home movie cameras.

- You don't even know the names of every spectator. Only a minority of spectators were actually identified and interviewed at the time.

- You don't know where every spectator with a camera lived. You do know, however, that camera-carrying spectators may well have dispersed all over the US and abroad.

- Because of all of these factors, you have no way of telling how many films or photographs might turn up the day after you alter the Zapruder film, or the following week, or year, or any time in the future.

- Worst of all, you have no way of telling whether or not any photographs or home movies exist which captured part of a scene that you want to alter in the Zapruder film.

Now that Mr Butler understands the problem, he can have a go at answering Jonathan's question:

Quote

How could the plotters ensure other conflicting films and photographs of the assassination wouldn't surface in the future and thus expose the altered Zapruder film as an obvious forgery?

Contrary to what Mr Butler asserts, the authorities made little effort to round up photographs and home movies. Most of the well-known Dealey Plaza photographers were allowed to go home or back to work without any attention from the authorities. Some of them returned to Dealey Plaza later and took more images, and still weren't accosted by the authorities. I gave a list of some of these photographers on another thread:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24725-focus-your-research-on-zapruder-he-is-the-key/page/3/?tab=comments#comment-373095

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Mr Rigby seems to have dug himself a nice big hole. Let's give him a chance to clamber out.

If the conspirators (whoever they might be) wanted to conceal the incriminating evidence contained in the Zapruder film, why did they go to all the trouble of altering it, rather than simply making the film vanish?

They must have had physical access to the original and all the copies that existed at the time, in order to alter them. So why didn't they destroy them instead? It would have been much easier and quicker, wouldn't it?

'Accidentally' destroying the film would have completely eliminated the possibility that anyone in the future would discover any of the incriminating evidence that the film contains. So why didn't they do that?

They were very stupid conspirators to leave all that incriminating evidence in the film, weren't they? Why did they alter other parts of the film but leave those incriminating parts in?

For millions of viewers of the Zapruder film, from the early bootleg copies to the Geraldo/Groden TV screening and Stone's JFK, the 'back and to the left' movement is probably the single most obvious sign of a shot from the front and therefore of a conspiracy. There doesn't appear to be a coherent alternative explanation for that movement (assuming that Alvarez's melon-shooting experiment has been shown to be a fraud). So why did they decide to leave that bit in when they could easily have prevented people from ever seeing it?

Finally, why does Mr Rigby think the existence of the film is something I need to explain? It's a problem for him, not me. If one believes that the film hasn't been altered, there's no need to explain why it hasn't been destroyed. But if one believes that the film has been altered, there is very much a need to explain why it wasn't destroyed instead.

[Paul Rigby]

9 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Mr Rigby seems to have dug himself a nice big hole. Let's give him a chance to clamber out.

If the conspirators (whoever they might be) wanted to conceal the incriminating evidence contained in the Zapruder film, why did they go to all the trouble of altering it, rather than simply making the film vanish?

They must have had physical access to the original and all the copies that existed at the time, in order to alter them. So why didn't they destroy them instead? It would have been much easier and quicker, wouldn't it?

'Accidentally' destroying the film would have completely eliminated the possibility that anyone in the future would discover any of the incriminating evidence that the film contains. So why didn't they do that?

They were very stupid conspirators to leave all that incriminating evidence in the film, weren't they? Why did they alter other parts of the film but leave those incriminating parts in?

For millions of viewers of the Zapruder film, from the early bootleg copies to the Geraldo/Groden TV screening and Stone's JFK, the 'back and to the left' movement is probably the single most obvious sign of a shot from the front and therefore of a conspiracy. There doesn't appear to be a coherent alternative explanation for that movement (assuming that Alvarez's melon-shooting experiment has been shown to be a fraud). So why did they decide to leave that bit in when they could easily have prevented people from ever seeing it?

Finally, why does Mr Rigby think the existence of the film is something I need to explain? It's a problem for him, not me. If one believes that the film hasn't been altered, there's no need to explain why it hasn't been destroyed. But if one believes that the film has been altered, there is very much a need to explain why it wasn't destroyed instead.

Let me see if I can help your ailing powers of elementary reasoning. 

If the Dulles-Angleton faction didn't destroy the Z fake, then we are left with a finite number of options. The most obvious one is because it served their purposes - but only after tweaking and refinements. All of the latter had to be undertaken, mind, within a framework that preserved the exculpation of the Secret Service, their primary proxy in the coup.

By the way, the first version of the fake included footage of the left turn. It's presence is attested to in such diverse sources as, to name but three, Dan Rather's four (minimum) descriptions of the film ,on 25 November 1963, to CBS radio and TV audiences; Arlen Specter's questioning of Kellerman on 9 March 1964 (see 2H91-92); and in the AP version of the Warren Report published in September 1964 (try page 41: "The [frame] numbers continue in sequence as Zapruder filmed the Presidential limousine as it came round the corner and proceeded down Elm..."). Mark Lane noted this as long ago as Rush To Judgment in 1966 - anti-alterationists really do need to get up to speed.

 

[Bill Fite]

10 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Contrary to what Mr Butler asserts, the authorities made little effort to round up photographs and home movies. Most of the well-known Dealey Plaza photographers were allowed to go home or back to work without any attention from the authorities.

Quote

 

November 22, 1963, 12:29 p.m., CST—Main and Houston Streets, Dallas, Texas. Utah missionary Robert Croft takes a photo almost simultaneously with Altgens, and then moves northward to take additional photos. “At just about the same instant both Croft and AP’s Jim Altgens took a photograph of the vehicle.” (Richard Trask, Pictures of the Pain: Photography and the Assassination of President Kennedy , p. 223) However, Trask loses sight of some logistics when he continued his narrative regarding Croft: “as the President’s vehicle passes Croft’s position, Croft ‘just kind of followed the car along, as I remember, on the left hand side of the car.’ He quickly walks to the north along the Plaza’s north reflecting pool and takes up a position near the south curb of Elm Street about 190 feet from his original location. Dressed in a dark suit and hat, Croft is just some six feet to the left of picture taker Phil Willis, who had also scrambled to this position from the corner of Houston and Main Street.” (Richard Trask, Pictures of the Pain: Photography and the Assassination of President Kennedy , p. 224) 

(skip)

Comment: Almost immediately upon taking the photographs, Croft had to hasten back to Union Station to catch his train going westward; with speed wholly unexplained, inasmuch as Croft did not leave business cards or any other identifying material, the FBI found him the day he arrived home—the following day in Utah. Nobody’s that good—unless they have a team of spotters on the ground at the time of the event, and that is beginning to seem to be a likelihood. 

Brown Ph.D, Walt. Master Chronology of JFK Assassination Book II: Death (Kindle Locations 4810-4811). Kindle Edition. 

I always thought this was a really strange item pertaining to  photographs.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Ah! Now I understand why Paul Rigby jumped in a few pages ago with such a bizarre non sequitur. He hadn't actually read the post he was replying to.

The question I asked was not:

Why would anyone alter the Zapruder film and then destroy it?

but rather:

Why would anyone alter the Zapruder film instead of destroying it?

Off-hand, I can't think of any good reason why the Bad Guys would have gone to all the trouble of altering the film, only then to make it 'accidentally' disappear. I don't know why Paul thought I would even ask that question.

Now, what we need from Paul (or anyone else) is a good explanation of why the Bad Guys did what they are claimed to have done, when they had a far easier and absolutely foolproof alternative method of achieving their apparent goals.

The claim seems to be that the Bad Guys noticed that the Zapruder film contained images that gave away their dastardly plot. They needed to stop the general public seeing these images, so they decided to alter various parts of the film.(*)

Why would the Bad Guys decide to alter the film when they could have made it 'accidentally' disappear?

When Paul (or anyone else) has answered that question, he could turn his attention to Jonathan's question:

Quote

How could the plotters ensure other conflicting films and photographs of the assassination wouldn't surface in the future and thus expose the altered Zapruder film as an obvious forgery?

---

(*) Unfortunately, there's no agreement about which parts were altered. If you add all the claims together, pretty much the whole film must have been laboriously altered.

Years ago, Josiah Thompson pointed out a phenomenon that he called 'Anomaly of the Week'. When one apparent anomaly in the film turns out to have an everyday, non-conspiratorial explanation, the believers drop that one and bring up another:

Witness A said something that isn't consistent with what we see in the Zapruder film! That means the film is a fake! What's that? Witnesses are sometimes unreliable? OK, but what about this strange blob in frame x? That means the film is a fake! What's that? Poor-quality reproductions very often generate visual artefacts? OK, but what about this bit of the scene that doesn't line up with this other bit? That means the film is a fake! What's that? I got my measurements wrong? OK, but what about ...

That's a pretty good indicator that the whole thing is just an amateurish game of spot-the-anomaly and inventing the most implausible explanation for them that you can think of. It no doubt fulfils a psychological need, but it doesn't get us any closer to understanding the JFK assassination.

[John Butler]

16 hours ago, Bill Fite said:

Quote

Comment: Almost immediately upon taking the photographs, Croft had to hasten back to Union Station to catch his train going westward; with speed wholly unexplained, inasmuch as Croft did not leave business cards or any other identifying material, the FBI found him the day he arrived home—the following day in Utah. Nobody’s that good—unless they have a team of spotters on the ground at the time of the event, and that is beginning to seem to be a likelihood. 

Brown Ph.D, Walt. Master Chronology of JFK Assassination Book II: Death (Kindle Locations 4810-4811). Kindle Edition. 

Expand  

I always thought this was a really strange item pertaining to  photographs.

There were about 14 people on Houston Street and Elm Street with cameras who are unknown.  We known nothing about their photographic material.  There were spotters on the ground that day.  A source told the ARRB there may have been as many as 50 military photographers there that day filming.  I suppose they also could of acted as spotters.

All of the major films were under government control at one time for alteration.  Just look at them.  8 films have disruptions at the same location, in front of the Court Records building.  There are claims that Elsie Dorman and Patsy Paschall (?) escaped the net.  But, if you look at their films it is readily apparent they did not.

Robert Croft serves as a good example of what the FBI and the Secret Service were capable of that day and later.

[John Butler]

On 4/30/2021 at 11:40 AM, Chuck Schwartz said:

John, this presentation also hurts the SBT..https://www.fff.org/freedom-in-motion/video/how-five-investigations-into-jfks-medical-autopsy-evidence-got-it-wrong/?utm_source=FFF+Daily&utm_campaign=6982fd8a1a-FFF+Daily+04-30-2021&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1139d80dff-6982fd8a1a-318111122 (copy and pasted where you put URL addresses on your computer and then hit enter- it is a recent presentation made by Gary Aguilar)

 

Thanks Chuck.

[Chuck Schwartz]

No problem, John.  There is a large exit wound in the back (left side) of JFK's head and entry wound was in the right front temple.  You can almost draw a line from the exit wound to the entry wound to the fence on top of the grassy knoll.  

When I view the Zapruder film, I see Jackie climbing on the back of the limo (to retrieve the part of JFK's brain that was blown out the exit wound).

[Richard Price]

56 minutes ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

There is a large exit wound in the back (left side) of JFK's head and entry wound was in the right front temple.  You can almost draw a line from the exit wound to the entry wound to the fence on top of the grassy knoll. 

I'm not certain, but I think you have the side of the head with the blow out incorrect.  Most if not all of the people near enough to get a look at JFK after the assassination pointed out that the defect (blow out) in his head was in the lower right rear extending from around the top of the ear to the lower portion of the skull, with a few moving it upwards into the mid occipital area and extending into the parietal area.  More than one said the cerebellum could be seen.  This is extremely low in the skull.  I think there are multiple posts on this site as well as ones made on JFK Lancer and others that show various witnesses using their right hand, placing it at various levels behind the right ear.  I do not recall any showing the left side other than a possible entry wound in the left front of JFK's head at the hair line (top of the forehead).

[John Butler]

1 hour ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

No problem, John.  There is a large exit wound in the back (left side) of JFK's head and entry wound was in the right front temple.  You can almost draw a line from the exit wound to the entry wound to the fence on top of the grassy knoll.  

When I view the Zapruder film, I see Jackie climbing on the back of the limo (to retrieve the part of JFK's brain that was blown out the exit wound).

Chuck,

This frame is from the AMIPA film shot on Main Street.  That dark circle spot on Kennedy's head looks like it is in the exact same place as the autopsy photo showing a triangular cut and wound there.

Ron Bulman sometime back mentioned a De Lisle Carbine.  This was a .45 caliber weapon that was sound suppressed.  It was invented by the British during WWII to kill sentries and other enemy targets.  Allegedly, a .45 caliber bullet was found in Dealey Plaza.  Kennedy's confusion and disorientation may be the reason he continues to smile and wave at the crowd.

If that is a wound in Kennedy's forehead then it could have been done by such a weapon.  Kennedy was not killed by that round.  He doesn't seem to have much effect from it other than confusion and pain.  This perhaps suggests a short or weak round just penetrating the skull leading to disorientation and confusion.  It might explain why he later continues to wave and smile even after being shot in the back several times.

Edited May 3, 2021 by John Butler

[Chris Davidson]

On 4/26/2021 at 3:52 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Answers

Following up on the previous answers, it was clear(at least by viewing the extant film)that it hadn't traveled(CE884's) .9ft in five frames = 3.294ft per sec = 2.24mph or .9ft in three frames = 5.49ft per sec= 3.734 mph.

But, by using the traffic signal post in the background and plotting JBC's position accordingly along the WC path(dots), the station# of JFK at extant z161 was easily obtained.

That station# is 326.81.

The difference between JFK's position from extant z161-z166 was 3.294ft.

If you refer back to the official WC CE 884 document, extant z161-z166, the distance the limo would have traveled over 18.3frames/one second, is the same distance it travels when plotted, using the landmark traffic lightpost in the background from the extant film over five frames.

3.294ft/5frames = 8.2mph

The limo with JFK plotted using extant z149-z161 traveled 12.96ft = 13.44mph

The difference between those two vehicle speeds is 5.24mph

Added on Edit:The chart below reflects JFK's true position in the limo at station# 161+166 along the WC path. The station# entries for z185/186 were converted using the original WC elevations and applying them from PositionA. The z185/186 entries here are just temporary and will change because of the true speed of the limo at those points. More later.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 5, 2021 by Chris Davidson

[Chris Davidson]

Incorporating a 5.24mph drop in an overall span of extant z149-z166(17frames) would force this equation:

12.96ft +3.294ft = 16.25ft/17frames + 7.67frames = 16.25ft/24.67frames = .6586ft per frame = 8.2mph

 

[Chris Davidson]

And indeed, if you will notice the difference between the two separate CE884 documents, that the frame change applied to station# 3+29.2 was both z161 and z168 = a difference of seven frames.

Then, to accommadate for those (missing and retarding frames), the limo speed was increased accordingly for the next 18frames from extant z168-z186 = 14.94mph

 

[Chris Davidson]

One last obvious observation among many, which I have left, before I apologize for somewhat hi-jacking this thread.

The speed difference between the original CE884's for z161-166/168 was 2.24 and 3.734 mph =1.5mph

The speed difference between plotting JFK from extant z149-161=13.44mph and the accelerated CE884 z168-z186 =14.94mph is 1.5mph.

Throw in the manipulation of 7+ frames and all is well that ends well.

Any continuation of this will be posted on one of my thread starters.

Sorry for the interruption, carry on.

 

 

 

[Andrej Stancak]

I have completed my reading of "Last second of Dallas" and am very impressed by this book. I will read it again more slowly, however, there are a couple of points which immediately caught my attention:

1. The analysis of post-Z313 frames pointing to a head shot coming from the rear was new to me. This shot seemed to have occurred in frame Z328, about 0.71 s after the earlier head shot from the front. In all fairness, even Josiah Thompson could not identify this shot for some 30 years. It was discovered by Keith Fitzgerald around 2005. The shot from the rear explains the forward and downward slump of Kennedy after being thrown earlier to the left and back by the frontal shot. The occurrence and latency of this shot fits with the acoustic evidence.

2. The novel details and analyses of the acoustic data are extremely valuable and add to the strength of the visual evidence. This includes in the first place a new proof of a synchronising event "I'll check it" which occurred simultaneously in both channel 1 and 2 just seconds before the shooting. (Interestingly, the noise caused by the motorcycle engine showed a drop for about 3 seconds just before the shooting, consistent with slowing down during the hairpin turn to Elm street). However, the book, thanks to contributions of James Barger and Richard Mullen (BBN Technologies), also shows that the previous criticism of acoustic evidence based on a almost 1-minute delay in occurrence of "Hold everything" between channel 1 and 2, used by the Ramsey panel to discredit the HSCA conclusions, was wrong: this mismatch was due to copying "Hold" from one channel onto another at a later stage, possibly by mistake. This overdub of "Hold" at a later stage was demonstrated by examining the presence of multiple frequencies of the humming sound in channel 1 which could only happen by copying "Hold" from the other channel including its unique noise frequency (the recordings and copies were made on the Audograph machines each having a unique speed which shifted the 60 Hz noise frequency in a specific manner).

 

Edited May 26, 2021 by Andrej Stancak