Jump to content
The Education Forum

How the Connallys were Deceived by being Shown an Altered Film


Recommended Posts

What follows is based on my original research, has not been previously published, and will be discussed in detail in Final Charade.

** ** ** ** ** *

On Monday 11/25/63, Secret Service agents came to Governor Connally’s hospital room at Parkland Hospital and brought with them a 16 mm film projector, and a copy of the (altered) Zapruder film.  The film shown Connally no longer had a “car stop”; in short, it was a copy of the same (altered) film that was purchased byLIFE  magazine, and later was placed at the National Archives.

Now back to 11/22/63, and the days following.  The film was projected repeatedly for Connally and his wife.  In other words, on this visit (Mon. 11/25) the Connallys were shown a copy of “the Zapruder film” as it then existed (i.e., without any car-stop, which (consequently, reflected a false reality); and it was in this manner that Governor Connally (and his wife) were exposed to an “altered reality” of what they both had experienced on Friday 11/22/63.

Now, “flash forward to” —or CUT TO (to use screenwriter’s lingo) —to Wednesday, November 27th, 1963. On that day, a network news reporter —with a cameraman — was admitted to Connally’s hospital room; and it was on that day —to repeat, on Wed. 11/27/63, two days after he had been repeatedly shown this altered film —that Connally’s “official account” was filmed for posterity by NBC’s Martin Agronsky.  That filmed interview was broadcast on Wed. evening (11/27/63) and was front page news the next day (Thurs., 11/28/63).  Most importantly, a word-for-word transcript of what Gov. Connally said was published in the New York Times on the morning of Thursday, November 28th, 1963.  

Here’s the front page headline in Thursday morning’s NY Times (11/28/63):

Connally’s Account Recalls

First Lady’s ‘Jack!  Jack!’

The lead (again, on Thursday morning, 11/28) reads, QUOTE ON:

DALLAS,Nov. 27 — Gov. John B. Connally Jr. gave the nation tonight the story of the three quick rifle shots that spelled assassination for President Kennedy and nearly killed the Governor.

Shot One struck the President. Shot Two coursed through the Texas Governor’s body.  Shot three struck the President.  The Governor said the President “slumped,” and said nothing.

Mrs. Kennedy’s cry, as the Governor remembered, was:

“Oh, my God!”  They’ve killed my husband!  Jack! Jack!”

From his hospital bed, over television, Governor Connally gave the first public account by a member of the President’s immediate party of the tragic events last Friday.   END QUOTE

The above sequence explains how Gov. Connally (and his wife) were deceived and manipulated — i.e., had their recollections “messed with” (or “manipulated”): How?  By being shown an altered film (of the reality the had experienced) on Nov. 25th, 1963, just two days before the formal and ”official” network (filmed) interview by Agronsky.

In other words, the Connallys were deceived by being placed in the position (in effect) of having having to choose between the event (as they remembered it) and the event as it was now portrayed on a film which (presumably) they assumed to be authentic.  (My assumption -- for decades-- has been that the Connally's were probably deeply puzzled by this conflict. I have no reason to believe that the Connallys had any knowledge of [and certainly no expertise in] film editing.)

This situation —and a more detailed analysis of this deception — will be discussed in Final Charade.

But note: this is why Governor Connally’s Warren Commission testimony (generally speaking) “matches” the Zapruder film, but does not reflect the true reality as it actually occurred on November 22, 1963.

I'll have more to say about this situation in Final Charade

DSL (7/19/21_ 8:30 PM PDT)

Edited by David Lifton
Clarification; fixing syntax.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is the biggest gap in the research. Regardless of what one thinks abt the extent of his role on Nov 22, it is hard to imagine any conspiracy of any variety proceeding without being able to monitor, anticipate and *influence* LHO's behavior. The latter implies at least someone in "proximity" to him in a noticeable way in Dallas in Oct and Nov. The community has developed all kinds of fascinating and suspicious contacts up through the end of Sept, imo. But we need after. A few like Larry Hancock and Greg Parker have been making strides. I have long hoped your book might address that gap ever since the late Robert Chapman dropped some very vague but intriguing tidbits about it. I won't be disappointed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Z Film is like a Black Hole for witnesses. Many researchers dismiss witness statements in favour of the "seeing is believing" Z Film. Like the current conversation about what frame Connally was shot. Waste of time. Shanklin viewed the film before it was sent to Washington and made it clear that he could see the shot that hit Connally. Not so clear now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

The Z Film is like a Black Hole for witnesses. Many researchers dismiss witness statements in favour of the "seeing is believing" Z Film.

Absolutely.  IMO, the people who planned the assassination wanted a film to just do that.  They wanted to manipulate the memories of people who were there in two ways.  One by limiting, or coercing, or out right changing witness testimony.  Secondly, with altered media such as the Zapruder film and others that apparently show the same thing.  After decades have passed, a witness standing at the time of the assassination in the intersection of Elm and Houston sees and hears shots fired in front of the TSBD.  Later, let's say about 1975, he sees the Zapruder film that shows shooting down by the Grassy Knoll.  What is he going to remember in 1985?  Or, what would he remember in 2000?  I give you Jean Hill as an example.  She bitterly fought Arlen Specter to say she was just across from the SW corner of the TSBD in 1964 (See Hill Exhibit No. 5).  Years later in a film, she is down at the Grassy Knoll with Mary Moorman saying the shooting took place there.

Jean-Hill-Sketch.jpg

Bonnie Williams had his memories adjusted 4 time before he got it right.  Originally, he said he heard shooting when the p. limo was at the Main and Houston intersection.  And, on it goes for many witnesses.  

David Lifton is absolutely right the Zapruder film was designed to manipulate memories of the event.  His example of Gov. Connally indicates they were doing this early on within days of the assassination. through altered film/photos and witness testimony.

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Dear John Butler:

Please correct the spelling of my last name: it is "L I F T O N," (not L I P T O N).  

Thanks.

 

DSL

P.S.: I'll delete this post once my requested correction is made. (Thanks again.)

Edited by David Lifton
spelling correction
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Dear John Butler:

Please correct the spelling of my last name: it is "L I F T O N," (not L I P T O N).  

Thanks.

 

DSL

P.S.: I'll delete this post once my requested correction is made. (Thanks again.)

Sorry,

I have diabetic polyneuropathy.  It's a gift from the government and the army.  I can't feel which keys my hands are on and just apt to type anything.  I rely to much on spell checking I looked at Lipton and since the spell checker said nothing.  Sorry for the misspelling.  In the future I will try to do better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What point is David Lifton trying to make here? As far as I can tell, his argument goes something like this:

  • The presidential limousine pulled over to the left and stopped at the time of the shooting, as several witnesses claimed.
  • The Zapruder film was altered to conceal this incriminating stop.
  • The altered film was later placed in the National Archives.
  • Governor and Mrs Connally were shown this film three days after the assassination.
  • Governor Connally was interviewed two days after that.
  • In that interview, Governor Connally mentioned that he had been struck by a bullet after President Kennedy had already been struck.
  • And ... what, exactly?

What's the connection between Connally's interview and the Zapruder film allegedly having been altered to remove the alleged car stop?

To put it another way, what exactly is there in Connally's interview that can be attributed to his having seen the film?

Is Lifton still pushing his old claim that Connally was shot from the front? Is that what he's getting at? If he is, then:

  1. he must be the only person who believes it, and
  2. so what? How does the supposed car stop, and its absence in the photographic record, relate to a shot from the front?

Alternatively, is Lifton claiming that Connally was actually hit not by the second bullet, as Connally stated, but by the first bullet? If that's it, how does that relate to the supposed car stop?

Or is Lifton claiming both of these things, as a sort of bizarro single-bullet theory? Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet, which was fired from the front! Is that it?

Maybe it has something to do with gunmen hiding in fake trees on the grassy knoll. A bullet was fired from among those fake trees; it hit Connally in the front; then it hit Kennedy in the front. And then a presidential body-snatching squad abducted Kennedy and Connally and altered their wounds to make it look as though the bullet had been fired from behind. Am I getting warmer?

If he isn't still pushing the claim that Connally was shot from the front, and if he isn't pushing the single-bullet theory in one form or another, and if he is no longer claiming that there were gunmen hiding in fake trees on the grassy knoll, what point is David Lifton actually trying to make?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/19/2021 at 10:23 PM, Stu Wexler said:

It is the biggest gap in the research. Regardless of what one thinks abt the extent of his role on Nov 22, it is hard to imagine any conspiracy of any variety proceeding without being able to monitor, anticipate and *influence* LHO's behavior. The latter implies at least someone in "proximity" to him in a noticeable way in Dallas in Oct and Nov. The community has developed all kinds of fascinating and suspicious contacts up through the end of Sept, imo. But we need after. A few like Larry Hancock and Greg Parker have been making strides. I have long hoped your book might address that gap ever since the late Robert Chapman dropped some very vague but intriguing tidbits about it. I won't be disappointed?

Stu:

1.  You should correct the typo in your post, which reads "abt"

2. Please make it read "about"

3. I mistakenly thought you were referring to attorney John Abt (which I realize you weren't).

DSL

P.S. If you can dig up my late friend's (Robert Chapman) email comments, please send them to me --marked "PRIVATE." 

Do not post them;  just send them to me.  Thanks.  DSL (Please send to "dlifton@earthlink.net".  Thanks.)

PPS: Stu: LHO was an agent.  Ergo, he had a handler. There was no need to "monitor, anticipate and *influence* LHO's behavior."  LHO simply thought he had an assignment, which was both legitimate and covert.  Please explain--or spell out  (privately, via email) what you seem to believe to be the problem,  Thanks.  DSL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is the biggest gap in the research. Regardless of what one thinks about the extent of his role on Nov 22, it is hard to imagine any conspiracy of any variety proceeding without being able to monitor, anticipate and *influence* LHO's behavior. The latter implies at least someone in "proximity" to him in a noticeable way in Dallas in Oct and Nov. The community has developed all kinds of fascinating and suspicious contacts up through the end of Sept, imo. But we need after. A few like Larry Hancock and Greg Parker have been making strides. I have long hoped your book might address that gap ever since the late Robert Chapman dropped some very vague but intriguing tidbits about it. I won't be disappointed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Changed. It is bleedover from Twitter where one has a character limit.

2. Chapman said this to me in person, not by email. 

3. I don't know what happened with Oz in November. Which is why I say it is a gap. It would be great if you can clearly establish who that handler is. Many names have been put forward for handlers but most, frankly, remain far from convincing. I will accept a circumstantial case but it has to be firmer than anything we currently have to move the needle. Are you going to add to that in the new book?

 

Stu

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oswald met with the FBI in Dallas at least two and possibly three times in November

before the assassination. He was an FBI informant. He had infiltrated

the plot for the FBI without realizing he was being set up as the patsy. See my book INTO THE NIGHTMARE.

Edited by Joseph McBride
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...