The "Other" Zapruder Film

[John Butler]

14 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

I'm not the best debater,and my speech & grammar is far from what others provide.

Well, don't worry about that.  Read my posts for worse.  You will see that 12 years of public school, 6 years of college, 3 years of off and on education in the military, and a career retirement in public education does not cover up my red neck rural upbringing.

Here is some advice.  When you get attacked by someone, often a group of people, throwing around loose charges and ad hominem attacks you will know you have said something important.  Keep it up you could very well be on to something.    

[Pat Speer]

9 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Pat apparently doesn't like something and terms it BS.  

Sandy does say that well.  It is mainly the reason I can't read his material.

Sandy continues,

Sandy is saying this better than I could, so I am using his material here.  

I wonder if Pat dreams of being the new Von Plein or new John Mcadams?  IMHO, people sacrifice a lot when they get caught up in the swirls and twists of Lone Nutism.

So it's come down to this. Yawn. If you knew anything about this case or the people on this forum you'd know that I have engaged in many a debate with Von Pein and McAdams, and have routinely mopped the floor with them. I have sections on my website about them, and their inability to come to logical conclusions regarding a number of aspects to the case.

As far as yourself, well, it appears you have dreams of being the new Ralph Cinque, someone who cherry-picks statements and evidence in the service of non-sensical theories that waste everyone's time. I mean, I came to this forum because Larry Hancock was on here discussing the Cuban connection, and John Simkin was offering up tons of historical perspective. And now, the most active poster is yourself. That's a long way down.

And I think you know it. If you didn't you would read my "material" and realize that there is a mountain of evidence demonstrating that Kennedy was just where the Newmans said he was and just where the films show him to have been, at the time of the head shot. 

S.M. Holland (11-22-63 statement to Dallas County Sheriff’s Department, 19H480, 24H212) “the President’s car was coming down Elm Street and when they got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the moment was a fire cracker and he slumped over and I looked over toward the arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come over from the trees and I heard three more shots after the first one but that was the only puff of smoke I saw…After the first shot the President slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and tried to get over in the back seat to him and then the second shot rang out. After the first shot the secret service man raised up in the seat with a machine gun and then dropped back down in the seat. And they immediately sped off.”

Austin Miller (11-22-63 statement to the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department, 19H485, 24H217) “I saw a convertable automobile turn west on Elm off Houston Street. It had proceeded about halfway from Houston Street to the underpass when I heard what sounded like a shot a short second two more sharp reports. A man in the back seat slumped over and a woman in a bright colored dress (Orange or Yellow) grabbed the man and yelled. One shot apparently hit the street past the car. I saw something which I thought was smoke or steam coming from a group of trees north of Elm off the railroad tracks.”

Malcolm Summers can be seen diving to the ground in Zapruder frame 345. (11-23-63 statement to Dallas Sheriff’s Department, 19H500) “The President’s car had just come up in front of me when I heard a shot and saw the President slump down in the car and heard Mrs. Kennedy say, “Oh, no,” then a second shot and then I hit the ground as I realized these were shots. Then all of the people started running up the terrace away from the President’s car and I got up and started running also, not realizing what had happened. In just a few moments the president’s car sped off.”

Emmett Hudson (11-22-63 statement to Dallas Sheriff’s Department, 19H481) “This day I was sitting on the front steps of the slopping [sic} area and about half way down the steps. There was another man sitting there with me. He was sitting on my left and we were both facing the street with our backs to the railroad yards and the brick building. At the same time the President's car was directly in front of us, I heard a shot and I saw the President fall over in the seat."

 Charles Brehm (11-22-63 article in the Dallas Times Herald) "A sobbing carpet salesman told police minutes after the shooting the president appeared to have been hit twice. 'The first time he slumped and the second one really blasted him.' These were the words of Charles Drehm... 'After the first shot, the President's wife rose slightly to hold the President and they both went down in the second shot. He was definitely hit badly,' Mr. Drehm said. Mr. Drehm said the President was half-standing, waving to the crowd, when he heard the first of two shots. He said after the President was knocked down, apparently by the second shot, the President's car roared underneath the triple underpass." (Later in the article) "The witness Drehm was shaking uncontrollably as he further described the shooting. 'The first shot must not have been too solid, because he just slumped. Then on the second shot he seemed to fall back.' Drehm seemed to think the shots came from in front of or beside the President. He explained the President did not slump forward as he would have after being shot from the rear. The book depository building stands in the rear of the President's location at the time of the shooting...Drehm said he was within 10 feet of the President at the time of the shooting. 'It was definitely a rifle,' he said."

Charles Hester Charles Hester was sitting on the knoll with his wife as the President passed by. His panicked response to the shots led some in the press cars and press busses to think they had something to do with the shooting. In the Wiegman film, they can be seen crouching down back by the white arcade. This is also shown in the Altgens photo above. (11-22-63 statement to the Dallas Sheriff’s Department, 19H478) “My wife Beatrice and I were sitting on the grass on the slope on Elm Street where the park is located. When the President Kennedy’s car got almost to the underpass, I heard two shots ring out. They sounded like they came from immediately behind us and over our heads." 

John Chism (11-22-63 statement to Dallas Sheriff’s Department, 19H471) “we were directly in front of the Stemmons Freeway sign…When I saw the motorcade round the corner, the President was standing and waving to the crowd. And just as he got just about in front of me, he turned and waved to the crowd on this side of the street, the right side; at this point I heard what sounded like one shot, and I saw him “The President,” sit back in his seat and lean his head to his left side. At this point, I saw Mrs. Kennedy stand up and pull his head over her lap, and then lay down over him as if to shield him. And the two men in the front seat, I don’t know who they were, looked back, and just about the time they looked back, the second shot was fired."

Jean Newman (11-22-63 statement to the Dallas Sheriff’s Department, 19H489, 24H218) “My name is Jean Newman, I live with my parents, my father's name is G.C. Kimbriel. I work at the Rheem Manufacturing Company. I was standing right on this side of the Stemmons Freeway sign, about halfway between the sign and the edge of the building on the corner… The motorcade had just passed me when I heard something that I thought was a firecracker at first, and the President had just passed me, because after he had just passed, there was a loud report, it just scared me, and I noticed that the President jumped, he sort of ducked his head down, and I thought at the time that it probably scared him too, just like it did me, because he flinched like he jumped. I saw him put his elbows like this, with his hands on his chest...the motorcade never did stop, and the President fell to his left, and his wife jumped up on her knees…I just heard two shots”  

A.J. Millican (11-22-63 handwritten statement to Sheriff Bill Decker, 19H486) “I was standing on the North side of Elm Street, about half way between Houston and the Underpass… Just after the President’s car passed, I heard three shots..."

Hugh Betzner was on Elm Street, 30 feet or so to the east of Phil Willis. (11-22-63 statement to Dallas Sheriff’s Department, 19H467) “I then ran down to the corner of Elm and Houston Streets, this being the southwest corner. I took another picture just as President Kennedy’s car rounded the corner…I ran on down Elm a little more and President Kennedy’s car was starting to go down the hill to the triple underpass. I took another picture as the President’s car was going down the hill on Elm Street. I started to wind my film again and I heard a loud noise. I looked up and it seemed like there was another loud noise in the matter of a few seconds."

Note that Betzner's photo shows the Kennedy limo in its location around Z-186, and that the first shot he heard rang out just afterwards...

And so on...

 

 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

Well, don't worry about that.  Read my posts for worse.  You will see that 12 years of public school, 6 years of college, 3 years of off and on education in the military, and a career retirement in public education does not cover up my red neck rural upbringing.

Here is some advice.  When you get attacked by someone, often a group of people, throwing around loose charges and ad hominem attacks you will know you have said something important.  Keep it up you could very well be on to something.    

Let me be clear. If I attack you it is not because you are onto something. It s because I'm in a cranky mood and I consider your posts an embarrassment to this forum. It's called the Education Forum, not the "Let's make stuff up because it sounds cool" Forum. 

[Michael Crane]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

If you really think the wound was at most above the ear, you are in disagreement with the majority of witnesses cited by Groden et al as proof the wound was on the back of the head. IMO, you can't say it was low on the back of the head because the witnesses tell us so when most of them pointed out a wound at the top of the back of the head, above the ear. 

As far as Robinson, it's clear he saw a hole on the back of the head at the end of the skull's reconstruction and assumed this was the location of the wound at the beginning of the autopsy. He did not reconstruct the skull himself. That was Stroble, if I recall. In any event, one of the things that made me so militant on this issue was Horne's book, where he claimed the orange-sized hole at the back of the head described by Robinson was the hole at the beginning of the autopsy, but that the orange-sized hole at the back of the head described by John VanHoesen was the hole at the end of the autopsy.

And that's just bs. They were co-workers, who undoubtedly traveled together and almost certainly sat together throughout the autopsy. The idea that Robinson, who sat at JFK's left during the autopsy and could not see what was being done to the right side of the head, saw a wound not seen by VanHoesen at the beginning of the autopsy--that was not seen or described by other witnesses--is just silly. Unfortunately, it's also one of the central premises of Horne's book. 

In any event, I discuss Robinson and most all the other supposed "back of the head" witnesses in Chapter 18c. 

I really wanna believe FBI agent James Sibert,but I don't believe that he & O'Neill were in the morgue when they cleared the room for (cough,cough) X-Rays.

 

[Michael Crane]

Now we are getting even lower.This is nurse Audrey Bell.I think that Boswell also had it around this point.

 

[Michael Crane]

Yeah,here is Boswell's location.

Edited March 1, 2022 by Michael Crane

[John Butler]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Let me be clear. If I attack you it is not because you are onto something. It s because I'm in a cranky mood and I consider your posts an embarrassment to this forum. It's called the Education Forum, not the "Let's make stuff up because it sounds cool" Forum. 

Making things up is more in your ballpark than mine.  All that I present on the forum is evidence based.  I believe the problem is that you don't like the evidence which disagrees with your thinking.  It has to be changed or nullified.  You have to see if you can bully someone into submitting to your often nonsensical reasoning. 

The exception is when I am speculating about something.  That is generally clearly stated.  I do a lot of speculation.  It is like forming a hypothesis in an experiment.  Then you can test that by other's reactions or evidence you find related to that hypothesis.  It is the opposite of making things up or distorting the things you don't like.  

[John Butler]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

So it's come down to this. Yawn. If you knew anything about this case or the people on this forum you'd know that I have engaged in many a debate with Von Pein and McAdams, and have routinely mopped the floor with them. I have sections on my website about them, and their inability to come to logical conclusions regarding a number of aspects to the case.

As far as yourself, well, it appears you have dreams of being the new Ralph Cinque,

I'll raise you a double yawn.  This is getting boring.  There he is again, Ralph Cinque.  I don't know who this guy is but I was tagged by others with the same reasoning.  I really don't see it or care.  

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

And I think you know it. If you didn't you would read my "material" and realize that there is a mountain of evidence demonstrating that Kennedy was just where the Newmans said he was and just where the films show him to have been, at the time of the head shot. 

Yes, I do know it.  If you have read what I said you would know it to.  There is a smaller mountain of evidence saying something different.  I don't deny your witnesses.  About 20% of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza say something different than the official story.  Your witnesses are responsible for the official story.  There are over a hundred witnesses saying something different.  They cannot be ignored as folks have done for the last 50+ years.  The Z film has been shown in court.  I don't believe it ever will be shown again due to its falsity.

I do not hold the films and photos showing Kennedy being shot on Elm Street down by the Grassy Knoll as true.  That 20% I talked about says something is wrong with all that is contained in the official story.  From their stories and the things I have discovered about the Z film I can't believe it is a true depiction of what happened in Dealey Plaza.

If you look at the topics I have introduced, you will see that there are not many in recent times.  Most of my comments are in argument with fellows like you.  If I find something new, I will let you know about it.

Sandy Larsen's got your number.  Being far more eloquent than yours truly, he said it the way it should be said.  Short and to the point.  Go back and read what he said and think about what you are doing.    

[Greg Doudna]

On 2/27/2022 at 5:11 PM, Pat Speer said:

This is the kind of stuff I discuss on my website, Michael. Crenshaw never made a statement until years after the assassination, and then only after he'd been exposed to tons of conspiracy material.

P.S. There is no indication Moore even talked about the head wounds. The Parkland witnesses indicated the head wound was on the back of the head in their early statements and then again in their testimony, and the autopsy doctors created a drawing showing the wound at the top of the back of the head. In the aftermath of the release of this drawing, back in 1964, moreover, none of the Parkland witnesses--not one--came forward to say it was inaccurate. 

Now, that said, yes, there was a cover-up of the medical evidence. First, the WC attorneys and autopsy doctors conspired to move the back wound up to the back of the neck...to better sell that this bullet came from above and exited the throat. And second, the Clark Panel realized that a trajectory connecting the small wound on the back of the head and the large wound on the top of the head made little sense in light of Kennedy's position in the Zapruder film, and "found" an entrance wound 4 inches higher on the back of the head. 

And yet, almost no one beyond myself discusses these two provable cover-ups.. 

Pat, very interesting. After all is said and done, would it be accurate to describe your position re the wounds, the medical, the autopsy--whatever happened after the assassination in these areas including chicanery ... none of any chicanery in these areas requires an assumption of premeditation or planning in those areas prior to the assassination? That in the areas of the medical, body, and autopsy, all can well be understood as post-assassination decisions and responses?

The reason I ask is because a central argument cited in rejection of the conclusion of the HSCA investigation and its chief counsel that the assassination could have been carried out by mob interests, is that the mob could not also control the medical, the body, and the autopsy after the assassination (based on a prior assumption of necessity of pre-assassination planned deception in those areas). Whereas nobody applies that objection to argue that the killing of Oswald after the assassination could not have been carried out by mob interests, that objection (inability to control the autopsy of JFK afterward) is commonly cited as reason why the same interests who ensured Oswald was silenced could not have carried out the killing of JFK before Oswald was silenced.

Would it be fair to say, if your analysis is correct and in your understanding, that that specific argument is rendered insubstantial and irrelevant with respect to excluding the mob (or any other proposed perpetrator) as carrying out the shooting of JFK, because there is no necessary assumption of pre-assassination planning of coverup related to the medical, the body, and the autopsy?

p.s. I truly hope your formidable work on your website can be put into print form. It could be done almost overnight via Lulu from uploaded Word files with no upfront cost. Printed paperback volumes in a thousand hands would ensure your important work is forever, more securely than posted on one website. This would not prevent later revised or edited or rewritten editions if desired. 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Pat, very interesting. After all is said and done, would it be accurate to describe your position re the wounds, the medical, the autopsy--whatever happened after the assassination in these areas including chicanery ... none of any chicanery in these areas requires an assumption of premeditation or planning in those areas prior to the assassination? That in the areas of the medical, body, and autopsy, all can well be understood as post-assassination decisions and responses?

The reason I ask is because a central argument cited in rejection of the conclusion of the HSCA investigation and its chief counsel that the assassination could have been carried out by mob interests, is that the mob could not also control the medical, the body, and the autopsy after the assassination (based on a prior assumption of necessity of pre-assassination planned deception in those areas). Whereas nobody applies that objection to argue that the killing of Oswald after the assassination could not have been carried out by mob interests, that objection (inability to control the autopsy of JFK afterward) is commonly cited as reason why the same interests who ensured Oswald was silenced could not have carried out the killing of JFK before Oswald was silenced.

Would it be fair to say, if your analysis is correct and in your understanding, that that specific argument is rendered insubstantial and irrelevant with respect to excluding the mob (or any other proposed perpetrator) as carrying out the shooting of JFK, because there is no necessary assumption of pre-assassination planning of coverup related to the medical, the body, and the autopsy?

p.s. I truly hope your formidable work on your website can be put into print form. It could be done almost overnight via Lulu from uploaded Word files with no upfront cost. Printed paperback volumes in a thousand hands would ensure your important work is forever, more securely than posted on one website. This would not prevent later revised or edited or rewritten editions if desired. 

Thanks, Greg. Before I got sick, I was working on either summarizing my research in a book, or putting out a series of books about the case. But I got sick and then google scrambled my website. So I spent the time I would have spent converting the website into a book re-building the website. If my health holds up, I may yet convert it into a book. But I will have to consult with a lawyer first. A lot of images on my website--that I would love to put into a book--are presented under the belief the fair use doctrine applies. But I'm fairly certain it would not apply should I publish these images in a book, or even sell advertising on my website. 

As far as your question...I think those claiming the mob couldn't have done it are engaging in wishful thinking. It may be more fun and spy vs. spy-y to assume the CIA did it, but a mob-did-it scenario is in my view a heckuva lot worse. I mean, if the CIA did it or the Pentagon did it or they both did it, it follows that they did it for political purposes--to save the world from JFK, who they viewed as a threat to their world order. But if the mob did it, with the help of some anti-Castro Cubans, and perhaps a few rogue CIA agents, it would appear they did it for less-noble reasons: greed, revenge, etc.  

Now, to me that is worse. If the mob did it, and LBJ and Hoover used their influence to make sure the investigation went nowhere, it can be taken as an indication that the government in 1963 was largely corrupt. To me, that's a bigger nightmare than Dulles and the boys ridding the world of what they viewed as a com-symp president.

But perhaps that's my own bias. I got sick last year and my doctors told me I was poisoned at my former place of work. The lawyer who said he'd look into it slowed down his looking once he realized my former boss had been to prison on drug charges, and probably had little scratch. I told him he needed to aim higher and try to find out who tested the property--a known toxic waste site--or who signed off on letting employees work on a site that had not actually been tested. My instincts tell me that someone was bribed. I was buyer at a record distributor, and I was offered hundreds of bribes, and saw co-workers get pay raises in cash under the table, and saw my boss steal a million or two from store receipts so his wife could make a movie about how wonderful he was--and I reported most of this to the FBI when it was clear the company had been cleaned out by some professional criminals. And nothing was done. 9/11 happened and the FBI told me they were no longer investigating white collar crimes. We did business with an export company owned by an Iranian. The FBI told me they could continue their investigation if I could provide evidence this man was using illicit profits to fund terrorists, or some such thing. He was a former Iranian policeman who'd fled Iran when the Ayatollah took over. It was total bs.

So my life experience tells me that corruption and institutional stupidity rule the day, and that no secret order of body alterers and film alterers need to have been involved. When you're rich or powerful you can get people to lie for you all day long, and the WC and their staff knew what they were supposed to find. And voila! They found it.  

 

[Pat Speer]

8 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

Now we are getting even lower.This is nurse Audrey Bell.I think that Boswell also had it around this point.

 

It's crystal clear to me that Audrey Bell was a fabricator, riffing off stuff she'd read in books, and making up stories to make herself seem important. There's no record of her being at Kennedy's side. She never mentioned seeing JFK's head wound in any of her official reports, and only started talking about it decades later. 

Having spent some time in hospitals, and having spent a lifetime at the dinner table with nurses and bio-med technicians, it's clear to me her story of being shown JFK's head wound is balderdash.

Let me make an analogy. Let's say one of JFK's most famous speeches was not recorded, and that only a transcript remains. Then jump ahead 25 years or so. One of LBJ's speechwriters is interviewed by someone writing a sensational book on Kennedy. And this speechwriter claims he walked up to Kennedy in the middle of the speech and helped him re-write the ending--something that was not reported or mentioned in the transcript, and not corroborated by JFK's own speechwriters, who were in attendance at the speech. Would you believe him?

I suspect not. 

[Pat Speer]

9 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

Yeah,here is Boswell's location.

Boswell was describing the skull after the scalp was pulled back and shattered skull fell to the table.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

On page 14, Jamey Flanagan writes:

Quote

And there is no doubt in my mind that there was at the very least a brief limo stop or what officers call a rolling stop at the time of the head shot or head shots that we do not see on this film.

This was dealt with back on page 3. Only a minority of witness statements claimed that the car actually came to a stop. A minority of that minority claimed that the car swerved to the left-hand curb as it came to a stop.

Far more witness statements claimed that the car merely slowed down, just as we see on the Zapruder, Muchmore and Nix films. This page looks at the witness statements and concludes that well over 80% of the spectators who had a clear view of the car did not notice that it had stopped:

http://22november1963.org.uk/did-jfk-limo-stop-on-elm-street

On the one hand, we have a small number of witnesses who claimed that the car stopped. On the other hand, we have a larger number of witnesses who claimed that the car slowed down, but who appear not to have noticed that it had stopped. In addition, we have three home movies which agree with the majority of the witnesses; the films show the car slowing down but not stopping.

Which evidence should we believe, and which should we disbelieve? There are two alternatives. Either:

• a small number of witnesses were mistaken, or
• a larger number of witnesses were mistaken and the Zapruder film was altered to conceal the car-stop and the Muchmore film was altered to conceal the car-stop, and the Nix film was altered to conceal the car-stop. And, perhaps, as well as these three films, the Bronson film  and the Moorman photo were altered to conceal the car's swerve to the left-hand curb.

It isn't difficult to work out which alternative is the more likely to be true. There is no good reason to suppose that the car stopped or that any films or photos were altered to cover it up.

Quote

no witness in Dealey Plaza seeing this horrific event unfold right before their eyes have EVER reported seeing that violent backwards head snap that day. And many have said that his head went forward after the head shot.

Several witnesses spoke of JFK's head moving backwards. Check out Pat Speer's collection of witness statements:

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter7morepiecesofthepuzzle

As Jamey mentions, many witnesses spoke of JFK's head moving forward. They were correct; his head moved forward after having moved sharply back and to the left. Those witness statements are consistent with what we see in the home movies, and do not imply that any of the home movies or photographs were altered.

Different witnesses at different times reported different aspects of what they had seen. They had experienced a sudden, unexpected and traumatic event. We can't expect them to recall everything with photographic accuracy. As someone pointed out elsewhere:

Quote

Keep in mind too these people were not standing around saying, "OK here it comes! Now watch his head now as the bullets hit." They were there simply to see the president and it happened so quickly that there was simply no way these people were going to describe in great detail what you actually see in the film.

Moving backward, moving forward, slumping: all of these descriptions were used by different witnesses at different times, and all of them match what we see in the Zapruder film, the Muchmore film, and the Nix film.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

John Butler writes:

Quote

About 20% of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza say something different than the official story.  Your [Pat Speer's] witnesses are responsible for the official story.  There are over a hundred witnesses saying something different.

John tried this trick almost exactly three years ago. On that occasion it was 50 witnesses who, according to John, said that JFK wasn't shot where all the films and photos show he was shot.

But when you look at what his witnesses actually said, many of them are perfectly consistent with what the other witnesses said and with what the films and photos show:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25659-mass-hysteria-in-dealey-plaza/?do=findComment&comment=398096

As Ray Mitcham asked John on page 4 of that thread, "Are you completely mad or just pretending?"

[Sean Coleman]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

John Butler writes:

John tried this trick almost exactly three years ago. On that occasion it was 50 witnesses who, according to John, said that JFK wasn't shot where all the films and photos show he was shot.

But when you look at what his witnesses actually said, many of them are perfectly consistent with what the other witnesses said and with what the films and photos show:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25659-mass-hysteria-in-dealey-plaza/?do=findComment&comment=398096

As Ray Mitcham asked John on page 4 of that thread, "Are you completely mad or just pretending?"

Wow, didn’t realise this verbal swordplay had been going on so long!
A bit reminiscent of ‘The Odd Couple!’ 😁