Old Secret Service Reel on the JFKA

[Benjamin Cole]

Maybe old news to many of you but I had never seen it. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iD_lxMjV3ec

I learned something new: When LHO (or other participant) stashed the rifle on the Sixth Floor before exiting, they merely placed the rifle between some stacks of boxes (if the SS film is accurate). It is somewhat hidden, but easily found. 

I had always thought LHO (or other actor) had constructed a simple but effective enclosure of boxes pre-event to hide the rifle, meaning discovery could be quite delayed. 

Obviously, the SS film presumes LHO's sole and lone guilt, and I contend two or more gunman in DP that day. But still a good film to understand the physical setting. 

One wry aspect: The SS film tries to show what LHO saw as he looked through a rifle scope. The enlarged images. But they could not keep the scope on target, and the crosshairs constantly dance all around the limo. 

Seriously. 

 

[Tony Rose]

Yes, a rifle was found shoved in between boxes and wasn't what one would call "well-hidden."

The enclosure of boxes was the so-called "sniper's nest" in front of the window from which Oswald allegedly fired.

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Tony Rose said:

Yes, a rifle was found shoved in between boxes and wasn't what one would call "well-hidden."

The enclosure of boxes was the so-called "sniper's nest" in front of the window from which Oswald allegedly fired.

Yes.

The placement of the purported rifle near the stairwell, not particularly well-hidden, is a mystery. Why not just leave it in situ? 

I have to say again: The Secret Service film provides some unintentional grim comedy when following a limo through a scope. The scope cross-hairs erratically and rapidly dance about the limo, and even outside it, constantly. 

Query for gun experts out there: Is keeping scope cross hairs on a moving target a tricky task? 

I have worked with telescopes, and yes it is tricky to keep a scope on target. I have fired rifles at stationary targets, but no longer remember if I used a scope or not. 

 

 

[David Von Pein]

Related Links:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/1964-secret-service-film.html#Discussion

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/jfk-assassination-reenactment-films.html

[David Von Pein]

"JFK Assassination Tediously Reconstructed"....

Click for enlargement:

Edited November 28, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Related Links:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/1964-secret-service-film.html#Discussion

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/jfk-assassination-reenactment-films.html

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iD_lxMjV3ec

This version, cited, does not seem to have the JFK assassination Z film.....the Z film is cited in opening credits, but then absent. I do not know the date of this production. 

Edited November 28, 2022 by Benjamin Cole

[Matthew Koch]

Sounds like Ben needs to read a Herald Weisberg book because he is saying things that aren't accurate if you read White Wash the rifle wasn't hidden like that you need to read more books.. 

[Paul Jolliffe]

1 hour ago, Matthew Koch said:

Sounds like Ben needs to read a Herald Weisberg book because he is saying things that aren't accurate if you read White Wash the rifle wasn't hidden like that you need to read more books.. 

Matthew,

Weisberg's key point was correct: the rifle was not merely "thrown" or worse "tossed" into position. No, it had to be placed carefully on the floor between the boxes because there was a box "bridge" above it which both partially obscured it and prevented anyone from dropping it into position. 

Weisberg noted that the Secret Service "re-enactment" of "Oswald's" alleged movements after the shooting including throwing the rifle into position. Weisberg argued that the rifle simply could not have been thrown - it must have been placed there, carefully.

So why was that distinction "tossed" versus "placed" important?

Because every second counted in the official version of the crime. Any additional movements by "Oswald" meant additional seconds, and neither the Secret Service nor the FBI nor the Warren Commission wanted any evidence that it was impossible for "Oswald" (or anyone else) to have put that rifle into position and still to have made it to the second floor within 72-75 seconds (their timing.) They could not afford even the few extra seconds for "Oswald" to place the rifle in that spot. They had to have him throw it!

No matter what anyone may think about the validity (or lack thereof) of the "Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter", all of us should agree that the Warren Commission relied heavily on it, if only to try to demonstrate that it was possible for "Oswald" to made it there in time and still be the only shooter. 

Weisberg was outraged that their "reconstruction" was not honest at all - it was a frame-up from the start. 

And that, I hope, is something on which we all can agree.

[Matthew Koch]

21 minutes ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

Matthew,

Weisberg's key point was correct: the rifle was not merely "thrown" or worse "tossed" into position. No, it had to be placed carefully on the floor between the boxes because there was a box "bridge" above it which both partially obscured it and prevented anyone from dropping it into position. 

Weisberg noted that the Secret Service "re-enactment" of "Oswald's" alleged movements after the shooting including throwing the rifle into position. Weisberg argued that the rifle simply could not have been thrown - it must have been placed there, carefully.

So why was that distinction "tossed" versus "placed" important?

Because every second counted in the official version of the crime. Any additional movements by "Oswald" meant additional seconds, and neither the Secret Service nor the FBI nor the Warren Commission wanted any evidence that it was impossible for "Oswald" (or anyone else) to have put that rifle into position and still to have made it to the second floor within 72-75 seconds (their timing.) They could not afford even the few extra seconds for "Oswald" to place the rifle in that spot. They had to have him throw it!

No matter what anyone may think about the validity (or lack thereof) of the "Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter", all of us should agree that the Warren Commission relied heavily on it, if only to try to demonstrate that it was possible for "Oswald" to made it there in time and still be the only shooter. 

Weisberg was outraged that their "reconstruction" was not honest at all - it was a frame-up from the start. 

And that, I hope, is something on which we all can agree.

Paul, thank you for explaining for Ben

[Benjamin Cole]

7 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

Matthew,

Weisberg's key point was correct: the rifle was not merely "thrown" or worse "tossed" into position. No, it had to be placed carefully on the floor between the boxes because there was a box "bridge" above it which both partially obscured it and prevented anyone from dropping it into position. 

Weisberg noted that the Secret Service "re-enactment" of "Oswald's" alleged movements after the shooting including throwing the rifle into position. Weisberg argued that the rifle simply could not have been thrown - it must have been placed there, carefully.

So why was that distinction "tossed" versus "placed" important?

Because every second counted in the official version of the crime. Any additional movements by "Oswald" meant additional seconds, and neither the Secret Service nor the FBI nor the Warren Commission wanted any evidence that it was impossible for "Oswald" (or anyone else) to have put that rifle into position and still to have made it to the second floor within 72-75 seconds (their timing.) They could not afford even the few extra seconds for "Oswald" to place the rifle in that spot. They had to have him throw it!

No matter what anyone may think about the validity (or lack thereof) of the "Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter", all of us should agree that the Warren Commission relied heavily on it, if only to try to demonstrate that it was possible for "Oswald" to made it there in time and still be the only shooter. 

Weisberg was outraged that their "reconstruction" was not honest at all - it was a frame-up from the start. 

And that, I hope, is something on which we all can agree.

Hey, I am here to learn, and thanks for your comments. I am not yet omniscient! 

That's why I brought up the point about the rifle. I had vague memories that the rifle may have been obscured, possibly from reading Weisberg decades ago. 

I agree the WC was a post-facto prosecution show-trial, with no defense counsel or alternative narratives allowed, and not an investigation. 

[David Von Pein]

14 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

This version, cited, does not seem to have the JFK assassination Z film.....the Z film is cited in opening credits, but then absent. I do not know the date of this production. 

Yes, you're right. Whoever uploaded that version of the narrated 1964 Secret Service film has edited out all of the parts with the Zapruder Film (which include some still photos and the actual film in motion). This was probably done to avoid having YouTube remove the video entirely due to the "violent" content of the Z-Film clips---which is exactly what happened recently to my own video of the Z-Film that I had up on my JFK YouTube Channel. And, in fact, that's the reason I no longer have the complete version of the '64 SS film on my YT channel. I voluntarily removed it from my channel myself in order to head off its probable future deletion by the YouTube robots who detect such "sensitive" and "violent" material.

But you can watch the entire '64 SS film (including the Z-Film clips) HERE. The section with the Z-Film begins at 8:09. The Z-Film version that was used was one of the Secret Service copies, which (I guess) helps explain why part of the image is cut off at the bottom of the frame.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW, the date of "March 1964" shown on that "Timeline" page (at the Sixth Floor Museum website) has to be incorrect. There's no way the film was made that early in the Warren Commission's investigation, because the SS film contains details and images from the Commission's May 24, 1964, re-enactment in Dealey Plaza. So it must have been produced after at least May of '64, and probably was made after the Warren Commission closed up shop completely in September of '64.

EDIT --- Just a few minutes after I wrote the paragraph above, I dug up an older version of the Sixth Floor's Z-Film Timeline (which I saved about a year ago via Archive.org's handy "Wayback Machine"), and this older version confirms what I said above---that the SS film was not produced until AFTER the Warren Report was released in late 1964 (click the image below to see the older "Timeline" with this different—and more accurate—description of the Secret Service film)....

----------------------------

Edited November 29, 2022 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

RELATED DISCUSSION....

C.B. McCARTY SAID:

I'm a bit confused about the Z film in this video from 1964. Was it just for the Warren Commission and the government? I thought the Z film was not seen by the public until years later...correct?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

CB,

You bring up a very good point about the Zapruder Film that I had never thought about before today [June 12, 2017]. This Secret Service film must, indeed, have only been available to certain "Government" people for many years. Although, as I understand it, "Government" films are in the public domain from Day 1 and can be obtained and used by any ordinary American citizen. I got my copy of this SS film by just scouring the Internet and downloading it. But I have no idea when the public first had access to this film.

But since it's a "Secret Service" film, it is also a "Government" production and should have been readily available and in the public domain for anyone to see back in '64 (I would assume). Good question, though, CB. It now makes me wonder why many more regular citizens hadn't seen (and reacted to) the Z-Film being shown (in full motion) in this film well prior to the ABC-TV showing of the film in 1975.

My guess would be that since this Secret Service film wasn't shown on TV or any other place where the public would have easy access to it, it simply was never seen by the average American until the "Internet" came into existence. But now almost everything (including Government films like this one) are readily available with the click of a mouse. If this film had been produced in the Internet era, then everyone would have been able to see Mr. Zapruder's film (in motion) immediately, instead of having to wait 12 years for a bootleg copy to be shown on Geraldo Rivera's TV show.

Thanks for your good comments, CB.


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

A follow-up to my comments above....

Since we can see that the Zapruder Film is being displayed in full motion (and in real time) in this 1964 Secret Service film [8 minutes in], such an occurrence (within a U.S. Government filmed production) would certainly tend to debunk the notion that many conspiracy theorists continue to endorse to this day—i.e., the notion that Abraham Zapruder's motion picture film of JFK's assassination was being deliberately suppressed or hidden from the general public until 1975 (or at least until 1969, when the Zapruder Film was shown in open court at the Clay Shaw trial in New Orleans).*

Although I am not positive, I would assume that this Secret Service reconstruction film was available to the public shortly after it was completed sometime in late 1964. It possibly was made available at certain libraries, schools, and universities around the country. And if that was the case, then the conspiracists who think the U.S. Government was attempting to hide the Zapruder Film from public view for many years are just simply dead wrong. Because this Secret Service film, although probably not seen by very many people prior to the age of the Internet, would have still been out there and available to view by anyone who had an interest in doing so many years prior to 1975 (or 1969).

* With New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison being one of the conspiracy theorists who has over the years suggested that the Zapruder Film was being deliberately kept under wraps and out of the view of the general public by sinister forces, as we can see when author Vincent Bugliosi quotes Garrison in his book "Reclaiming History":

“The Zapruder film, of course, was originally touted by the vast majority of conspiracy theorists as incontrovertible proof of the conspiracy that killed the president (Connally reacting later than Kennedy, head snap to rear, etc.). As prosecutor Jim Garrison argued in his final summation in the Clay Shaw murder trial in 1969, the head snap to the rear on the film proves the fatal head shot "came from the front." Though the Warren Commission's investigation of Kennedy's death, he said, was "the greatest fraud in the history of our country," how wonderful, he told the jurors, that they had seen the "one eyewitness which was indifferent to power—the Zapruder film. The lens of the camera tells what happened . . . and that is one of the reasons two hundred million Americans have not seen the Zapruder film."” -- Page 504 of "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" by Vincent T. Bugliosi (2007)

Further comments, concerns, observations...

Edited November 29, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Benjamin Cole]

DVP:

Yes, one of the unfortunate aspects of the Z-film is that it sure looks like JFK was shot from the Grassy Knoll. Perhaps he was. The autopsy is bungled beyond belief. 

The more important aspect of the Z-film, or at least less disputable, is the timing of shots that struck JBC and JFK. 

We know that JBC was not struck by a tumbling bullet, as seen by the small round bullet hole in in the rear of his shirt. This is so obvious, it is inexplicable how the "tumbling bullet" theory ever lasted an hour. 

OK, you hold that after being shot simultaneously to JFK, by a bullet that passed through four inches of rib, then JBC did a 180-degree turn in his seat, tried to see JFK, and then began to turn forward when he imagined (but as is seen on the Z film) he was pushed forward by the missile that struck him about three seconds earlier. 

My take is the Z film shows JBC being shot less than one second before JFK head shot. Which is roughly also how JBC and Nellie C. and others testified. 

This does not exonerate LHO. He may have be a witting or unwitting element in plot to assassinate JFK. LHO's actions after the JFKA is very dubious.

But the lone gunman with a single-shot bolt-action rifle theory of the JFK...just does not hold water. 

And egads...look at how hard it is to keep cross-hairs on a moving target. 

 

 

 

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

OK, you hold that after being shot simultaneously to JFK, by a bullet that passed through four inches of rib, then JBC did a 180-degree turn in his seat, tried to see JFK, and then began to turn forward when he imagined (but as is seen on the Z film) he was pushed forward by the missile that struck him about three seconds earlier.

The "180-degree turn in his seat" is most certainly not the turn that John Connally was referring to when he said he was hit. He was referring to his right turn at about Z-frame 164.

And if you think it was a BULLET that caused John Connally to plow into the back of the front seat just after the JFK head shot, you'd be incorrect. Because no bullet (by itself) could possibly cause a human being to move that much. Therefore, that massive movement forward by John B. Connally had to have been caused by something else other than a bullet. In other words, it was a voluntary movement on Connally's part, not involuntary.

Plus, it is said by some researchers that blood can be seen on some part of John Connally's body in the frames just after Z225.

https://drive.google.com/video-file/The Zapruder Film

 

Edited November 29, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Lawrence Schnapf]

DVP- you made an overbroad and sweeping statement on a bullet's capability. The more accurate statement is that it depends on the force of the bullet which is a function of mass, velocity and type (jacketed vs frangible).