Zapruder Film Alteration Synopsis

[Ron Bulman]

9 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

who are you to demand that anyone needs to demonstrate any of the three claims?

Thanks David.  Just to clarify your quote or the way it reads.  Thats not what I wrote.  The "three claims you need to demonstrate" is what Jeremy was telling me, for anyone who might misinterpret it.  Based on their comments I don't think Jeremy or John watched the documentary, why waste my time responding.

Edited April 24, 2022 by Ron Bulman

[Chris Bristow]

16 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Ron Bulman writes:

That's three claims you need to demonstrate, not merely assert.

What evidence is there that the turn was eliminated? What was so incriminating about the turn that it would have required the film to be altered?

What evidence is there that the car stopped? That claim has been debunked here, several times. See, for example, this thread:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27114-what-prevented-dulles-angleton-from-destroying-the-zapruder-film/?do=findComment&comment=441219

A small number of witnesses claimed that the car stopped, while a larger number claimed that the car merely slowed down. Why should we believe the smaller number over the larger number? The witness evidence is collected and analysed here:

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

I read the article on the limo stop and witness accounts. I am trying to be fair but there are some points that I think are a stretch.  In general witnesses can be unreliable but when they tell a consistent story it is likely correct. The well known account of a classroom experiment in which students witnessed an unexpected event then gave their accounts right afterwards showed 30% of them got the facts wrong. This is cited as proof we can't trust witness accounts. But 70% got it right and that is where corroborating testimony becomes valuable.
 I think if we consider that the stop or almost stopping would have happened at the head shot or just after we should assume that many of the witnesses were absolutely stunned during the event. I think it would be no surprise if many witnesses never noticed a slowing to maybe 2mph or a momentary full stop. 
 Within the limo I think Jackie was focused on JFK at that moment and watching his head explode inches from her face could be why she did not notice a brief stop. Nellie Connally was focused on Gov Connally and he was seriously wounded. They both rolled over and down and laid low around the theorized stop so they could have missed it. The lack of testimony has a logical possible explanation so the point, imo, is moot..
 When it comes to Greer and Kellerman I think because we are discussing the possibility of a coverup I can fairly postulate that they and the SS in the follow up car would not be forthcoming about a stop if it was removed as it may tend to implicate them.
 Another argument that I find to be a stretch is witness that said it stopped and those that said it slowed are contradicting each other. If there was a full stop that was just momentary we should expect many to miss it since it would have happened in a moment of confusion for all who saw his head explode.
 Many witnesses said the limo 'stopped or almost stopped'. This indicates the limo slowing to such a slow speed that many were not sure if it fully stopped or just slowed way down. That would have to be around 2mph. So some saying it just slowed and others seeing a full stop is not necessarily mean one story is wrong. There are approx 9 people who were specific enough in their account to say it stopped or almost stopped.  People like Brehm, Newman?, Willis, Hill and  Moorman were very close to the limo and their testimony should be considered valuable.
 Then there are the 4 bike cops. I think theirs is the most credible and important testimony. A big part of their job was to keep pace with the limo throughout the entire parade. They were ordered to stay back a bit because of the noise so they were constantly monitoring the limo speed and position relative to themselves. They were the closest and they were paying more attention to the limo than anyone else except Kinney. They ALL say the limo stopped. They saw more than just the slowing they say they saw a brief full stop. All 4 of them corroborating each others account is huge when we consider they were in the best position of any witness and were all paying close attention to the limo.
  I do not think the explanations offered in that article make a convincing argument against the witness accounts.

[Ron Bulman]

I just re watched the documentary in my first post and took a page of notes.  I don't see how anyone can watch it objectively and not conclude the assassination involved people in the highest level of our government, and, that the Zapruder film was altered by the CIA at their facility at Hawkeye Works in Rochester New York (not New York City as I said in the first post).

Director of the CIA John McCone called the CIA director of the National Photographic Interpretation Center, Lundall, in Washington and said the Secret Service needed their assistance.  The CIA intercepted the original unaltered film in Chicago and took it to Hawkeye Works. Two SSA's arrived with it from Rochester at the NPIC, saw it for the first time and picked out frames for two two panel briefing boards prepared the night of 11/23 by Brugioni's team from split true 8mm original film.  For McCone, one copy to go to Rowley and the Secret Service.  The SSA's took the original film back to Hawkeye Works.

Then on the evening of Sunday 11/24, A SSA brought an unsplit 16 mm, but altered copy to NPIC for development of three sets of four panel briefing boards prepared by Homer McMahon's team.

The copy in the National Archives today has One frame of the head shot.  Brugioni saw several, with brain, blood and a large piece of bone flying 3-4' in the air, hitting DPD motorcycle officer Bobby Hargis to JFK's left rear.  The bone landing on the trunk of the limo for Jackie to retrieve.  That's not seen today on the internet today frame by frame version.

Neither is the limo stop.  Witnessed by 60 people as a slow down from 11 mph to less than 5 mph, or a stop of 1-2 seconds per Vince Palamara's Survivor's Guilt, pg. 183.  Some are emphatic, saying It stopped.  For the head shots.

Per Joseph's Political Truth and the documentary.  Hollywood documentary film maker Sydney Wilkinson ordered a copy of the film from the National Archives.  Albeit a copy of a copy in reality.  She had it scanned digitally frame by frame in high resolution.  To quote Doug Horne via Mr. McBride "Thirty five or forty Hollywood film experts have examined these high resolution scans.  Every one of them said that the film is not only an altered film but a badly altered film. 

 

Edited April 24, 2022 by Ron Bulman

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

I seem to have got the 'everything is a fake' gang rather worked up, haven't I?

Anyone who has argued with religious fundamentalists will probably have experienced the same type of hysterical reaction when you ask them to justify a particularly irrational belief. They simply can't cope with the notion that their belief ought to be questioned.

Clearly, Zapruder film alteration is a sacred dogma that must be accepted without question.

David Healy writes:

Quote

who are you to demand that anyone needs to demonstrate any of the three claims?

That sums it up. That's the sort of intellectual giants we're dealing with. David appears not to have heard of the elementary concept known as the burden of proof.

If someone makes a claim, the onus is on that person to justify their claim. Until they do so, their claim is worthless.

Let's start again. Ron, you made three claims. You need to provide proof, not empty assertions. Until you do so, your claims are worthless.

• Can you prove that the turn was eliminated? Why, in the unlikely event that it happened, would anyone have wanted to remove something so innocuous?
• Can you prove that the car stopped? You might like to read the evidence I presented which very strongly suggests that the car didn't stop, and see if you can come up with something better than that.
• Why should we believe that the forward motion of JFK's head in the Zapruder film is evidence of alteration?

It's quite remarkable that we're having to deal with people who don't understand that if you make a claim, you're obliged to justify that claim. Didn't they learn critical thinking at school?

John Butler writes:

Quote

Then, there is the Towner film.  It is an animation.

Evidently not.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Chris Bristow writes:

Quote

I think if we consider that the stop or almost stopping would have happened at the head shot or just after we should assume that many of the witnesses were absolutely stunned during the event. I think it would be no surprise if many witnesses never noticed a slowing to maybe 2mph or a momentary full stop.

Yes, we absolutely should not expect witnesses to have perfect recollections of a sudden, unexpected and traumatic event. Far too much trust has been placed in anomalous witness statements in this and other areas of the JFK assassination.

But that doesn't entitle us to assume that all the witnesses who didn't mention a car-stop were mistaken. A large majority, around 80%, of the witnesses who would have been in a position to notice a car stop didn't mention any such event. Is that percentage significant? Should we expect 80% of witnesses to miss something like that? I don't know. If anyone is claiming that 80% of a group of witnesses were mistaken, that claim needs to be demonstrated. That's where the burden of proof rests here.

The pertinent fact is that a small number of statements claimed that the car stopped, while a larger number claimed that the car merely slowed down. Both groups cannot be correct. All other factors being equal, the larger group is more likely to be correct.

Add to that the fact that four home movies show the car at around the time of the head shot, and none of them show it stopping. To claim that the car stopped, it's necessary to claim that all four films were altered. That's something else that needs to be demonstrated. Until someone does so, there's no good reason to suppose it happened.

Quote

Then there are the 4 bike cops. ... They ALL say the limo stopped.

They weren't consistent. Two of the four made statements denying that the car stopped:

• Hargis: "slowed down almost to a stop"
• Chaney: "almost came to a complete halt after the first shot — did not quite stop, but almost did."

The other two weren't exactly positive about an obvious stop:

• Martin: the car stopped "just for a moment."
• Jackson: "the car just all but stopped ... just a moment."

The bike cops were just as inconsistent as most witnesses to the assassination. Witnesses who claimed that the car both stopped and didn't stop are not good evidence for a car stop.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Ron Bulman writes:

Quote

I don't see how anyone can watch it objectively and not conclude ... that the Zapruder film was altered by the CIA

You shouldn't come to a conclusion based on insufficient evidence. As I pointed out, Horne is not a reliable source. He believes in Lifton's body-alteration nonsense! If someone like that tells you something, you really ought to check out alternative accounts.

You could start by checking the document I linked to earlier, from a review of Horne's book, which gives a plausible alternative account of the film's history:

http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf

If there's a plausible account that doesn't require the extra complication of film-alteration, why choose the account that does require that extra complication?

Quote

the limo stop.  Witnessed by 60 people as a slow down from 11 mph to less than 5 mph, or a stop of 1-2 seconds per Vince Palamara's Survivor's Guilt, pg. 183.  Some are emphatic, saying It stopped.  For the head shots.

There were far fewer than 60 witnesses who claimed that the car stopped. Again, I provided a source which analysed the witness statements. Why not read it? Only a small minority claimed that the car stopped. Most of them claimed that the car merely slowed down, just as we see in the Zapruder film, the Muchmore film, the Nix film, and the Bronson film.

If you are basing your conclusion only on the number of witnesses, your conclusion must be that the car didn't stop.

If you are basing your conclusion on the number of witnesses combined with the film evidence, your conclusion must also be that the car didn't stop.

Here's the balance of the evidence about the supposed car-stop:

• Yes, the car stopped: supported by a minority of witness statements but no home movies.
• No, the car didn't stop: supported by a majority of the relevant witness statements and no fewer than four home movies.

To put it another way, for the car to have stopped, the Zapruder film must have been altered, and the Muchmore film must have been altered, and the Nix film must have been altered, and the Bronson film must have been altered, and many more witnesses must have been mistaken than correct.

If someone is going to assert that the car did stop, they need to demonstrate that all four films were altered, and why we should discard the majority of the witness statements. Until they do this, there is no good reason to suppose that the car stopped.

[John Butler]

21 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

... and ignores the rest.

That is the definition of an ideologue. You can't reason with an ideologue.

 

Sandy,

Do you see any of this from certain people on the Forum:

"Avoid, Avoid, Avoid

Avoid discussing issues head-on. Rather, get your point across by implying it. Avoid the subject of proof or references documenting your own position.

Deny, Deny, Deny

No matter what evidence is offered, deny it has any relevance, credibility, proof, or logic. No matter what expert is named, deny his or her authority. Deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance. Deny that witnesses are reliable. Cite studies on eyewitness credibility.

Present False Evidence

Whenever possible, manufacture new “facts” to conflict with opponent presentations.

Invoke Authority

Associate yourself with authority, but avoid specifically discussing your credentials, while implying your authority and expertise. Present your argument with “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “one who knows.” Then simply dismiss your opponent’s comments without demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

Quote Anti-Conspiracy Experts

Depending on the situation, you may find it useful to point out that people have a psychological need to believe in conspiracy. A number of people — psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, and journalists — have written books and articles on this theme. And some even have shown that humans are hard-wired to find connections between events that do not exist. You should familiarize yourself with this literature, and have a ready arsenal of quotes to post.

Fit Facts to Suit Alternate Conclusions

Think like the attorney who manages to make someone else look guilty of the crime his client is charged with — using the same evidence.

Label it a “Wild Rumor”

Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a ”wild rumor.”

Change the Subject

Find a way to sidetrack the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can “argue” with you over the new topic, and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

Demand Impossible Proof

No matter what evidence is presented, raise the bar. Demand the kind of proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by.

Demand Complete Solutions

Avoid issues by requiring opponents to solve every detail of the issue.

Label it “An Enigma with No Solution”

Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes people to lose interest.

Grasp at Straw Men

Select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way that appears to debunk all the charges, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

Become Indignant

Focus on side issues which can be used to suggest your opponent is critical of some sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit. For example, if your opponent criticizes the Israeli government, call him or her an “antisemite.”

Hit and Run

Briefly attack your opponent — then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon to make new accusations — and never answer any subsequent response.

Goad Opponents

Taunt your opponents. Draw them into emotional responses. Make them lose their cool and become less coherent. Then focus on how “sensitive they are to criticism.”

Question Motives

Twist or amplify any fact which could be used to imply your opponent operates out of a hidden agenda or bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

Shoot the Messenger

Label your opponents “kooks,” “right-wing,” “liberal,” “left-wing,” “terrorists,” “conspiracy buffs,” “radicals,” “militias,” “racists,” “religious fanatics,” “sexual deviants,” and so forth. This makes others shrink from supporting you out of fear of gaining the same label.

Play the Victim

Select a minor error of your own that was among many, larger problems pointed out by your opponent. Then take the “high road and “confess” your “honest mistake, discovered in hindsight.” Blame it on bad sources. Then accuse your opponent of blowing it all out of proportion and implying worse things which “just aren’t so.” Later, others can reinforce this on your behalf, and “call for an end to the nonsense.” You have already “done the right thing.” This can garner respect, even sympathy, for “’owning up” to your mistake. And in the meantime, all of your opponent’s proof of the more serious issues will be discarded. People will be tired of the subject and will want to move on.

Dirtiest Trick of All, So Far

There is yet another tactic that seems to be in widespread use in forums on the JFK assassination, and it is the ultimate con: Disinformants earn trust by establishing themselves as conspiracy theorists. They often “prove” it by recycling, then repackaging, the stolen work of others. (Since the information is already out there in the ether, they are not really damaging the cover-up.) Or they may present a new theory,one that sounds good but is actually nonsense.

Once established, they abuse this undeserved trust in many ways, including the following: (a) they discredit the work of real researchers, mostly on their say so, rather than providing proof; (b) they attack the reliability of critical eye-witnesses; and (c) they support key points of the official narrative — points not related to their “own” work. For example, while presenting a theory on JFK’s head wound, they may parenthetically slip in support for the single bullet theory, an issue that does not involve the head.

Many of these people are depressingly mediocre in intellect, and are not very good at what they do in any arena. Their dirty work in the JFK arena is also not very good, and frequently arouses suspicion in other researchers, and even in members of the general public. Often, they contrast themselves with those who openly defend the official story, using the tactics described above. They say, “I’m not a spook. That’s a spook!” And they fiercely support each other, using their large numbers to gang up on their accusers, trying to intimidate them, or to just exhaust them with endless confrontation. In the forums they control, they will have the last word."

[John Butler]

10 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

I read the article on the limo stop and witness accounts. I am trying to be fair but there are some points that I think are a stretch.  In general witnesses can be unreliable but when they tell a consistent story it is likely correct. The well known account of a classroom experiment in which students witnessed an unexpected event then gave their accounts right afterwards showed 30% of them got the facts wrong. This is cited as proof we can't trust witness accounts. But 70% got it right and that is where corroborating testimony becomes valuable.

You might add to this that witness testimony need to be refuted by direct evidence or other testimony.  Even if that testimony is wrong.  If it can't be proven wrong that it will stand.

That's a good point above.

[John Butler]

10 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

I just re watched the documentary in my first post and took a page of notes.  I don't see how anyone can watch it objectively and not conclude the assassination involved people in the highest level of our government, and, that the Zapruder film was altered by the CIA at their facility at Hawkeye Works in Rochester New York (not New York City as I said in the first post).

Ron,

I have the same conclusions as you after watching various documentaries on this subject over the years.  Even rewatching them through the years.

All of the things that you note I have also seen.  However, when dealing folks like Jeremy B. you will find he is unconvinced by solid reasoning and adequate proof. 

I have posted a few cointelpro tactics.  You might consider those when someone denigrates your work and understand that you are still right. 

[John Butler]

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

f you are basing your conclusion only on the number of witnesses, your conclusion must be that the car didn't stop.

If you are basing your conclusion on the number of witnesses combined with the film evidence, your conclusion must also be that the car didn't stop.

Here's the balance of the evidence about the supposed car-stop:

• Yes, the car stopped: supported by a minority of witness statements but no home movies.
• No, the car didn't stop: supported by a majority of the relevant witness statements and no fewer than four home movies.

What one needs to consider here is reasonable doubt.  Were there enough reasonable, corroborated witnesses to establish reasonable doubt in the vehicle stop notion.  

Myself, I have never considered the p. limo stop or slow down significant except in the notion that perhaps the driver was a co-conspirator ensuring a good shot at the president.  And, I know I will be called out for this.  I don't believe anything we see in the Z film after Z frame 133 actually happened as portrayed on lower Elm Street.

[Paul Bacon]

10 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

The CIA intercepted the original unaltered film in Chicago and took it to Hawkeye Works.

A minor correction: the original film was intercepted in Chicago and taken directly to NPIC.  It was after that Saturday night episode, after everyone saw what was in the film, that it was then taken to Hawkeye Works and subsequently brought back to NPIC on Sunday night in an altered form.

[Chris Bristow]

13 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Chris Bristow writes:

Yes, we absolutely should not expect witnesses to have perfect recollections of a sudden, unexpected and traumatic event. Far too much trust has been placed in anomalous witness statements in this and other areas of the JFK assassination.

But that doesn't entitle us to assume that all the witnesses who didn't mention a car-stop were mistaken. A large majority, around 80%, of the witnesses who would have been in a position to notice a car stop didn't mention any such event. Is that percentage significant? Should we expect 80% of witnesses to miss something like that? I don't know. If anyone is claiming that 80% of a group of witnesses were mistaken, that claim needs to be demonstrated. That's where the burden of proof rests here.

The pertinent fact is that a small number of statements claimed that the car stopped, while a larger number claimed that the car merely slowed down. Both groups cannot be correct. All other factors being equal, the larger group is more likely to be correct.

Add to that the fact that four home movies show the car at around the time of the head shot, and none of them show it stopping. To claim that the car stopped, it's necessary to claim that all four films were altered. That's something else that needs to be demonstrated. Until someone does so, there's no good reason to suppose it happened.

They weren't consistent. Two of the four made statements denying that the car stopped:

• Hargis: "slowed down almost to a stop"
• Chaney: "almost came to a complete halt after the first shot — did not quite stop, but almost did."

• The other two weren't exactly positive about an obvious stop:

• Martin: the car stopped "just for a moment."
• Jackson: "the car just all but stopped ... just a moment."

The bike cops were just as inconsistent as most witnesses to the assassination. Witnesses who claimed that the car both stopped and didn't stop are not good evidence for a car stop.

"But that doesn't entitle us to assume that all the witnesses who didn't mention a car-stop were mistaken. A large majority, around 80%, of the witnesses who would have been in a position to notice a car stop didn't mention any such event."
 
We can't assume those witnesses saw no stop or extreme slowing just because they did not mention it. You would need ask them if they saw a stop and if they say no then you have something. As we have established, the event would have happened in the seconds following the head shot and many witnesses were far from the event. Not mentioning a stop and saying there was no stop are not the same. you mentioned the witnesses on Huston and at the TSB were farther away and their testimony is less valuable. Did you apply that to the 80% as well?
 As I said before and it deserves repeating, If the car slowed to almost a stop then we would expect some to miss the moment when it stopped. Trying to discredit the bike cops testimony for very slight differences in their accounts is not a valid argument. The difference between a full stop and rolling stop could be as little as 1/2 mph and 1 second. You ignore the implications of a limo that may have slowed to almost a stop. Some witnesses saying it stopped and others saying it almost stopped is very consistent for a event where the car slowed to almost a stop.

"

• Hargis: "slowed down almost to a stop"
• Chaney: "almost came to a complete halt after the first shot — did not quite stop, but almost did."

• The other two weren't exactly positive about an obvious stop:

• Martin: the car stopped "just for a moment."
• Jackson: "the car just all but stopped ... just a moment.""
   
  "almost to a stop".
  "almost came to a complete halt"
  "the car just all but stopped"
  
    3 out of 4 are undeniably consistent and ignoring this shows a large bias on your part. Martin saying it stopped could easily be due to the limo only stopping for a split second, or maybe it got down to 1/2 mph and Martin mistakenly thought it stopped. All this is what you would expect if it slowed to almost a stop which is what was reported by people very close to the limo.
   You should be able to maintain your opinion and still acknowledge the consistency of the bike cops reports. It does not mean you think they were right but denying it shows that you are not honest about their testimony. It is beyond the pale for you to try and say they were inconsistent.
   The best argument against alteration is the problems associated with altering multiple films. It took me several years of pondering the Z film alteration theory to find a plausible way to take out a limo stop. The Nix film has it's own set of problems because people like Foster were in between Nix and the limo. That would mean alteration would require a lot of cut and pasting to take out a limo stop. I don't know exactly what it would take to fix the Nix film and others but I have not ruled it out.
       I try and look at the issue with an open mind but so much of the debate is simply people entrenched in their view and unwilling to honestly evaluate the evidence. I have to say your view on the bike cops testimony is slanted to the point that, imo  you are not willing to engage in fair discussion.

[Ron Bulman]

12 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

A minor correction: the original film was intercepted in Chicago and taken directly to NPIC.  It was after that Saturday night episode, after everyone saw what was in the film, that it was then taken to Hawkeye Works and subsequently brought back to NPIC on Sunday night in an altered form.

Thanks Paul.  This is the type of correction I hoped for, rather than some of the blather.  I started to edit my post and looked at my notes, which didn't detail this.  It was from memory.  Now I'm confused and need to watch that part of the documentary again.

Mc Cone called CIA NPIC director Lundall and said the Secret Service needed assistance.  Two SSA's arrived at the NPIC with the film, (so it was Intercepted in Chicago by the SS?) watched it for the first time, picked out frames for two briefing boards, then took the original to the CIA's Hawkeye Works at Kodak in Rochester NY.

Where it was further evaluated by them, altered, then taken back the next night for a set of four briefing boards by a different team than the one from Saturday night 11/23.

Is this closer to right?  Anyone who has actually watched the documentary?  Concisely, please.  

[David G. Healy]

On 4/23/2022 at 5:20 PM, Ron Bulman said:

Thanks David.  Just to clarify your quote or the way it reads.  Thats not what I wrote.  The "three claims you need to demonstrate" is what Jeremy was telling me, for anyone who might misinterpret it.  Based on their comments I don't think Jeremy or John watched the documentary, why waste my time responding.

I fixed that post, Ron ... Jeremy here was advising you, about three claims you need to demonstrate..., the way the quote appears in my post, it was you that cited the three claims are necessary, this wasn't about you, sorry.

Its been fixed in my post...

[David G. Healy]

20 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I seem to have got the 'everything is a fake' gang rather worked up, haven't I?

[...]

In the interest recycling, your noise has been deleted in my response.

Here's a tidbit even you can understand and, a request. The prior: this forum is not a court of law, nor is it a debating society. Your demands fall on deaf ears... The latter: give us your own scenario as to what happened in Dealey Plaza, you have the 1964 WCR opinion(s), give specific facts that reinforce WCR conclusions.

After 50+ years of review and UP-TO-DATE case evidence, .John and his lone nut supporters have never, ever been able to give their own rendition and the why's, (ie., their scenario) as to what happened in Dealey Plaza 11/22/1963 and the preceding and following 10 years.

Will you be the first to venture down that road less traveled by nutters, Jeremy?