Three Reasons the Zapruder Film Refutes the Single-Bullet Theory

[Michael Griffith]

Here are three reasons that the Zapruder film refutes the single-bullet theory:

-- The HSCA’s Photographic Evidence Panel (PEP) concluded that that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was hit with a shot at around Z186-190. The PEP noted that at around Z200, JFK's movements suddenly freeze; his right hand abruptly stops in the middle of a waving motion; his right hand also drops to the chin or throat level in a fraction of a second and stays there until he disappears behind the freeway sign at Z207; and his head moves rapidly from the right toward his wife on his left. The PEP also detected a strong blur/jiggle episode from Z189-197, further confirming this pre-Z190 shot.

During this same time frame, Jackie Kennedy also reacts. By Z202-204, Mrs. Kennedy has made a sudden sharp turn to the right, toward her husband. When she reemerges into view at Z223, she is looking intently at JFK (obviously her attention was drawn to him because the reaction that he had started at around Z200 had become more noticeable while the car was behind the freeway sign).

Here's what the PEP said about JFK’s reactions that start at Z200:

          At approximately Zapruder frame 200, Kennedy's movements suddenly freeze; his right hand abruptly stops in the midst of a waving motion and his head moves rapidly from right to his left in the direction of his wife. Based on these movements, it appears that by the time the President goes behind the sign at frame 207 he is evidencing some kind of reaction to a severe external stimulus. By the time he emerges from behind the sign at Zapruder frame 225, the President makes a clutching motion with his hands toward his neck, indicating clearly that he has been shot. (6 HSCA 17)

If you view these frames in slow motion, these reactions are readily apparent. You don’t need to be a photographic expert to see the movements that the PEP described.

JFK was obviously responding to being hit in the throat. And, it goes without saying that this clutching motion could not have been in reaction to a Z224 shot, since it began long before Z224.

This shot poses insurmountable problems for the lone-gunman theory. One problem it poses is that the sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK was obscured by the intervening oak tree from Z166-209. Obviously, this shot did not come from the sixth-floor window.

-- At least 2 seconds after JFK visibly reacts to the Z186-190 shot, he clearly reacts to a second hit starting at Z226. Beginning at Z226, Kennedy's body is visibly jolted sharply forward, and his hands and elbows are flung upward and forward, obviously in response to a shot in the back. The force and speed of these movements are quite startling when one watches the Z226 to Z233 segment in slow motion.

Although the WC, and to a great extent the HSCA, ignored these movements, they are among the most dramatic and visible reactions in the entire Zapruder film. JFK was obviously reacting to being shot in the back.

In addition, Dr. Luis Alvarez and HSCA photographic experts Hartmann and Scott noted a blur/jiggle episode at around Z225-229. This shot must have hit at right around Z224, at least 2 seconds after the Z186-190 shot. Needless to say, this means the Zapruder film refutes the single-bullet theory and shows that JFK suffered two non-fatal shots.

-- The Z186-190 and Z223-224 shots become even more problematic for the lone-gunman theory when we acknowledge the evidence that another shot was fired around Z145-150. Even Gerald Posner agrees that a shot was fired at around Z160 (Case Closed, Random House, 1993, pp. 320-326). Consider these facts:

** There is a blur episode at Z155.

** Connally starts to turn his head rapidly to the right at Z162.

** Several witnesses said the first shot was fired during the limo's turn onto Elm Street or just after it completed the turn.

** Rosemary Willis, running along the grass to the left of the limousine, starts to slow down at around Z160, and by Z187-190 she has stopped and is looking back toward a point to the rear of the limousine. She said she stopped and turned because she heard a loud bang.

This shot was probably fired between Z145 and Z150.

Edited May 7, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Gerry Down]

Not sure the blur analysis can be used to prove anything. Zapruder, like everyone else in the plaza, was nervous and excited to see the JFK limo and so his hands could shake on account of this. Also he was under pressure to capture the limo correctly on film in the 26 seconds the wind of the camera would allow him before he would have to wind the camera again. Also Marylns hands were on him. He was prob not used to that and feared his wife might find out about it.

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Here are three reasons that the Zapruder film refutes the single-bullet theory:

-- The HSCA’s Photographic Evidence Panel (PEP) concluded that that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was hit with a shot at around Z186-190. The PEP noted that at around Z200, JFK's movements suddenly freeze; his right hand abruptly stops in the middle of a waving motion; his right hand also drops to the chin or throat level in a fraction of a second and stays there until he disappears behind the freeway sign at Z207; and his head moves rapidly from the right toward his wife on his left. The PEP also detected a strong blur/jiggle episode from Z189-197, further confirming this pre-Z190 shot.

During this same time frame, Jackie Kennedy also reacts. By Z202-204, Mrs. Kennedy has made a sudden sharp turn to the right, toward her husband. When she reemerges into view at Z223, she is looking intently at JFK (obviously her attention was drawn to him because the reaction that he had started at around Z200 had become more noticeable while the car was behind the freeway sign).

Here's what the PEP said about JFK’s reactions that start at Z200:

          At approximately Zapruder frame 200, Kennedy's movements suddenly freeze; his right hand abruptly stops in the midst of a waving motion and his head moves rapidly from right to his left in the direction of his wife. Based on these movements, it appears that by the time the President goes behind the sign at frame 207 he is evidencing some kind of reaction to a severe external stimulus. By the time he emerges from behind the sign at Zapruder frame 225, the President makes a clutching motion with his hands toward his neck, indicating clearly that he has been shot. (6 HSCA 17)

If you view these frames in slow motion, these reactions are readily apparent. You don’t need to be a photographic expert to see the movements that the PEP described.

JFK was obviously responding to being hit in the throat. And, it goes without saying that this clutching motion could not have been in reaction to a Z224 shot, since it began long before Z224.

This shot poses insurmountable problems for the lone-gunman theory. One problem it poses is that the sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK was obscured by the intervening oak tree from Z166-209. Obviously, this shot did not come from the sixth-floor window.

-- At least 2 seconds after JFK visibly reacts to the Z186-190 shot, he is clearly struck again at Z226, this time in the back. Beginning at Z226, Kennedy's body is visibly jolted sharply forward, and his hands and elbows are flung upward and forward. The force and speed of these movements are quite startling when one watches the Z226 to Z233 segment in slow motion.

Although the WC, and to a great extent the HSCA, ignored these movements, they are among the most dramatic and visible reactions in the entire Zapruder film. JFK was obviously reacting to being shot in the back.

In addition, Dr. Luis Alvarez and HSCA photographic experts Hartmann and Scott noted a blur/jiggle episode at around Z225-229. This shot must have hit at right around Z224, at least 2 seconds after the Z186-190 shot. Needless to say, this means the Zapruder film refutes the single-bullet theory and shows that JFK suffered two non-fatal shots.

-- The Z186-190 and Z223-224 shots become even more problematic for the lone-gunman theory when we acknowledge the clear evidence that another shot was fired around Z145-150. Even Gerald Posner agrees that a shot was fired at around Z160 (Case Closed, Random House, 1993, pp. 320-326). Consider these facts:

** There is a blur episode at Z155.

** Connally starts to turn his head rapidly to the right at Z162.

** Several witnesses said the first shot was fired during the limo's turn onto Elm Street or just after it completed the turn.

** Rosemary Willis, running along the grass to the left of the limousine, starts to look back down Elm Street at around Z160, and by Z187-190 she has stopped and is looking back toward a point to the rear of the limousine. She said she stopped and turned because she heard a loud bang.

This shot was probably fired between Z145 and Z150.

The evidence strongly suggests no shots were fired prior to Z-190. I go through hundreds of witness statements on my website, and it's quite clear no one saw JFK continue waving after the first shot rang out, and that the vast majority of those watching him at the time of the first shot thought he reacted to the first shot. In addition there are a number of witnesses whose position is now known who described JFK's location in comparison to themselves at the time of the first shot, and these witnesses routinely place JFK at his location Z-190--Z-224, and not at his location seconds before.

The first shot miss is a hoax cooked up to sell the single-assassin scenario. It is as ridiculous as the SBT. 

[Michael Griffith]

11 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

Not sure the blur analysis can be used to prove anything. Zapruder, like everyone else in the plaza, was nervous and excited to see the JFK limo and so his hands could shake on account of this. Also he was under pressure to capture the limo correctly on film in the 26 seconds the wind of the camera would allow him before he would have to wind the camera again. Also Marylns hands were on him. He was prob not used to that and feared his wife might find out about it.

In a simulation to test the reaction of people holding cameras during gunfire, in each and every case the subjects jiggled their cameras upon hearing gunfire, even when they knew it was coming. I might add that the Z189-197 blue episode is stronger than the blur episode that starts at Z312.

In any case, JFK's reactions to two separate wound events are obvious. He was already hit in the throat and reaching for his throat when another shot hit him in the back at Z224, visibly knocking him forward and flinging his hands and elbows upward in the second-most dramatic reaction in the Zapruder film.

I think it bears repeating that the Z186 shot occurred while the sixth-floor window's view of the limo was blocked by the oak tree.

Quote

Pat Speer: The evidence strongly suggests no shots were fired prior to Z-190. I go through hundreds of witness statements on my website, and it's quite clear no one saw JFK continue waving after the first shot rang out, and that the vast majority of those watching him at the time of the first shot thought he reacted to the first shot. In addition there are a number of witnesses whose position is now known who described JFK's location in comparison to themselves at the time of the first shot, and these witnesses routinely place JFK at his location Z-190--Z-224, and not at his location seconds before.

The first shot miss is a hoax cooked up to sell the single-assassin scenario. It is as ridiculous as the SBT. 

If this early shot was fired from a lower floor of the Dal-Tex Building, it would not have been a wild miss but a close miss. 

There's a blur episode at around Z160. The HSCA:

          The photographic evidence panel also noted some correlation between the acoustics results and a panning error reaction to the apparent sound of gunfire at about frame 160. (HSCA Report, pp. 83-84) 

Connally snaps his head to the right starting at Z162.

Rosemary Willis keeps running with the limo from Z133-160. Then, certainly by no later than Z161, she begins to slow down noticeably. She begins to stop swinging her arms at around Z165, and by Z174 her arms are down to her side. She starts to come to a stop at Z180, and she clearly comes to a complete stop by Z188. She said she stopped and turned because she heard a shot.

People in any crowd react differently to a series of loud noises. Some don't notice the first bang, while others do. There was a lot of noise at street level from the police motorcycles, which would have made the sounds of shots harder to hear for some people. 

I find Connally's Z162 head snap and Rosemary Willis's Z161-Z188 slowdown and stop convincing evidence that a shot was fired before Z160. And I do not think it is a coincidence that a blur episode starts just before Z160. 

 

Edited May 7, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[David Josephs]

11 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The evidence strongly suggests no shots were fired prior to Z-190.

"The Evidence" being this amalgamation of witnesses. which I support whole heartedly as I've posted many times.

Yet...  Silenced "Mitch Werbel-like" weapons, are not even possible or even considered?.  A probability of 0%?  
or the possibility this shot missed due to hitting  something else first and the # of reactions were minimal.

The De Lisle carbine or De Lisle Commando carbine was a British firearm used during World War II that was designed with an integrated suppressor. That, combined with its use of subsonic ammunition, made it extremely quiet in action, possibly one of the quietest firearms ever made.

You don't find it a bit coincidental that the few films of that turn are all damaged or the turn was cut out entirely?, that only TRULY describes a turn at that point almost hitting the small curb while not a single other "witness" corroborates? That the FBI's Shaneyfelt adds in "POSITION A" not seen on the film and which supports Truly's statement and makes it very hard to see how the limo and follow-up car are somehow back to the center of Elm by extant 133?  Not so much the limo but the position of the follow-up car on its tail and exactly behind it.

This graphic represents what Truly said, where Pos A was and a motorcycle passing thru Pos A compared to the limo at 133-175.  With enlargements below that.

Help us understand what it is you think is happening at extant 157/158, the splice/break... and given the numerous head movement studies done, how he goes from looking a little to the left of straight forward to his head facing 110 degrees to the right.

From my POV there is Evidence of an earlier shot, and anomalies of the "missing" turn and Pos A, and the stop/start at 132/133 actually being a 100 frame removal causing the FBI to offer a terrible explanation of Station C, where the turn "would" have occurred.

 

15 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

This shot was probably fired between Z145 and Z150.

 

Given the images posted and the explanation MG offers, this is not too far off.

 

 

Position A

 

 

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

JFK suffered a shallow wound in the soft tissue between T3 and the upper margin of his right shoulder blade.

Why do people insist on debunking the SBT otherwise?

These involved analyses of the Zfilm or CE399 serve to perpetuate the cover-up by making an impossible scenario a matter of debate.

 

 

Edited May 7, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[David Josephs]

10 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Why do people insist on debunking the SBT otherwise?

Point well taken, yet that remains only the word of Humes as described by the FBI... the "word" of those around him at Bethesda.
again, not saying the word is inaccurate at all... yet,

We have no physical evidence to back that assertion, so what is so wrong with looking at the SBT from other points of view than your own?

Of shutting the door with the reality of the angles involved, along with a number of other strong arguments.

You've been saying this same thing with what appears to be disdain for anybody else who approaches it differently than you...
for as long as I've been posting here it seems... and you do it with such contempt for the thoughts or work of anyone but you.

How about a little live and let live and maybe learn a few things you may have not been aware of before...  

We've all seen the work, all know what was said about the wound...  do you have an xray of that bullet at that spot?
Any physical evidence at all that proves what you assert beyond all reasonable doubt?

How about these for obvious debunking that does not require I know exactly where that bullet was lodged? Or even have to care where?

 

Or this farce with a bullet existing his chest instead of rising thru the body at 11 degrees?

Maybe if you could step back off of people's necks if they offer the "non-Varnell SBT-was-impossible conclusion" we can have discourse and discussion about these other thoughts without incurring the "wrath of Cliff" for suggesting anything but your soft tissue solution consensus every single time the SBT comes up.

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Point well taken, yet that remains only the word of Humes as described by the FBI... the "word" of those around him at Bethesda.
again, not saying the word is inaccurate at all... yet,

Factually incorrect, David.  7 witnesses in a position of authority recorded contemporaneous accounts of the T3 back wound.  SSAs Bennett and Hill, Adm Burkley, and mortician Thomas Robinson (as well as FBI agents Sibert and O’Neill, and James Curtis Jenkins who filled out the autopsy face sheet) all put the wound in the vicinity of T3 — too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

We have no physical evidence to back that assertion,

Factually incorrect.  The bullet holes in the clothes match T3, consistent with the half dozen contemporaneous accounts.

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

so what is so wrong with looking at the SBT from other points of view than your own?

Because you surrender to the Big Lie that the issue is in doubt.  Fake debate distracting from the more important question — what kind of ordnance leaves shallow wounds in soft tissue?

It’s not “my” point of view, David, it’s what the historical record shows.

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Of shutting the door with the reality of the angles involved, along with a number of other strong arguments.

An argument that should have been settled in 1966 when Gaeton Fonzi induced Arlen Specter to have a nervous breakdown over the clothing evidence.

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

You've been saying this same thing with what appears to be disdain for anybody else who approaches it differently than you...

It’s the same disdain that I have for claims the earth is flat.

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

for as long as I've been posting here it seems... and you do it with such contempt for the thoughts or work of anyone but you.

Lots of people have worked on the T3 back wound.  It’s not my fault if people can’t grasp its significance.

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

How about a little live and let live and maybe learn a few things you may have not been aware of before...  

I’ll leave the mental masturbation to others.  I prefer to stick to the root facts — JFK had a shallow wound in soft tissue at T3, and a soft tissue wound in his throat, no exit.

What kind of weapon leaves shallow soft tissue wounds?

A pellet gun?

A 25 pound bow and target practice arrows?

The night of the autopsy, with the body in front of them, Humes & Co speculated JFK was hit with a high tech round that left no trace, consistent with the weaponry developed for the CIA’s MKNAOMI at Derrick, MD.

This arguably the most ignored diagnosis in the history of medicine.

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

We've all seen the work, all know what was said about the wound...

And yet you fail to grasp the significance.

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

do you have an xray of that bullet at that spot?

There was no bullet!  That’s the point!

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Any physical evidence at all that proves what you assert beyond all reasonable doubt?

The bullet holes in the clothes are too low to have been associated with the throat wound.  To make the case unnecessarily complex perpetuates the cover-up.

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

How about these for obvious debunking that does not require I know exactly where that bullet was lodged?

There was NO bullet lodged — in the words of Joe Pesci, “Don’t you get it??”

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

 

 

Or even have to care where?

 

Or this farce with a bullet existing his chest instead of rising thru the body at 11 degrees?

Maybe if you could step back off of people's necks if they offer the "non-Varnell SBT-was-impossible conclusion"

Vincent Salandria and Gaston Fonzi spearheaded this research.  I second Salandria’s contempt for researchers who don’t grasp root facts.

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

We can have discourse and discussion about these other thoughts without incurring the "wrath of Cliff" for suggesting anything but your soft tissue solution consensus every single time the SBT comes up.

It’s not my “soft tissue” solution, it’s what the physical evidence and the contemporaneous accounts of witnesses in position of authority prove.

The First Day evidence leads to the gates of Fort Derrick as a matter of inquiry.

The overly complex material y’all obsess over leads down rabbits holes to no where.

 

Edited May 7, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[David Josephs]

2 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

It’s not my “soft tissue” solution, it’s what the physical evidence and the contemporaneous accounts of witnesses in position of authority prove.

So you offer that 7 people see and entrance wound - fine

That clothes have holes to match the location - agreed

Why must your surety have any bearing on the activities of those on this forum beyond your own self-grandizing?

==

Since you have your convincing evidence, I'm curious why you bother clicking on any SBT thread at all anymore? 
Just so you can fein moral superiority with your patented " y'all are wasting your time" comments?
To Whom are you trying to ingratiate yourself anyway?

We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. 

So take the advice and move on to more important things and maybe stop interrupting others while they have a discussions with people they respect...

Besides getting a congressional investigation reconvened which many here are in the process of doing,
friends and colleagues here have nothing but the micro-analysis of the evidence to derive consensus, establish long term relationships and add more points of connectivity within the enormous spiderweb that is this case.

Who appointed you the forum's SBT top-cop anyway... did you need to fill out an application first?

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

So you offer that 7 people see and entrance wound - fine

That clothes have holes to match the location - agreed

Why must your surety have any bearing on the activities of those on this forum beyond your own self-grandizing?

You want to attribute the clear historical record to me personally?

Why?  What do I have to do with the physical evidence?

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

==

Since you have your convincing evidence, I'm curious why you bother clicking on any SBT thread at all anymore? 

When was the last time I posted on an SBT thread — 2018?

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Just so you can fein moral superiority with your patented " y'all are wasting your time" comments?

Y’all wasting everyone’s time.  Must have hit a nerve.

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

To Whom are you trying to ingratiate yourself anyway?

We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. 

So take the advice and move on to more important things and maybe stop interrupting others while they have a discussions with people they respect...

Because I think it’s important to point out the pernicious impact of fake debate.  I do this every five years or so.

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Besides getting a congressional investigation reconvened which many here are in the process of doing,
friends and colleagues here have nothing but the micro-analysis of the evidence to derive consensus, establish long term relationships and add more points of connectivity within the enormous spiderweb that is this case.

Lawrence and Bill ran the Oswald Mock Trial 2017 and they convinced 5 “jurors” out of 12 that Oswald was innocent.

5 out of 12!

Bang up job, fellas.... If you don’t boil the case down to it’s simplest elements you’re perpetuating the cover-up.

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Who appointed you the forum's SBT top-cop anyway... did you need to fill out an application first?

So you object to getting reminded of the rarely discussed root facts?  YP not MP

[David Josephs]

3 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

So you object to getting reminded of the rarely discussed root facts?  YP not MP

Thanks Cliff...  its people like you that make life worth living...   

do you spend all day this mad at all us id-jits or do you work yourself into a lather first then come here to post looking for a fight?

Figures you're site is based on Occams razor... you so fooled by 50 years of propaganda that you've bought into the notion the simplest solution is the most correct?

Hey, forget these are questions.  Think Rhetorical... you know, like all the other questions discussed here

bu-bye now... you can disengage now and wonder why some other portion of the forum is filled with so many id-jits... 

This presentation of yours has become hackneyed. 

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Thanks Cliff...  its people like you that make life worth living...   

do you spend all day this mad at all us id-jits or do you work yourself into a lather first then come here to post looking for a fight?

I’m here to point out there is no fight.  You can’t challenge the root facts — 2 shallow wounds in soft tissue.  

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Figures you're site is based on Occams razor... you so fooled by 50 years of propaganda that you've bought into the notion the simplest solution is the most correct?

And in the case of the JFKA the simplest solution IS the most correct — and the two-soft-tissue-wounds spotlight MKNAOMI as possible perps, the only real lead in the case.

 

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Hey, forget these are questions.  Think Rhetorical... you know, like all the other questions discussed here

bu-bye now... you can disengage now and wonder why some other portion of the forum is filled with so many id-jits... 

This presentation of yours has become hackneyed. 

The irony is rich.

Edited May 7, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[David Josephs]

I'd recommend you ignore me as well Cliff... 

Coming here to have you trot out T3 like an OCD parrot and demean the time and work of everyone else to whom you feel morally superior 
has somehow lost its appeal.

Let's see if you can put it down and move on... or has the "compulsive" part taken over?

 

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

I'd recommend you ignore me as well Cliff... 

Coming here to have you trot out T3 like an OCD parrot

I think I chimed in on the SBT 3 times in 2020, couple times in 2019, and in 2018 I completed my entrance exam for the Vincent Salandria School of Research into the Obvious.

Buck up, lad.

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

and demean the time and work of everyone else to whom you feel morally superior 
has somehow lost its appeal.

Just because I’m a better researcher doesn’t make me morally superior.

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Let's see if you can put it down and move on... or has the "compulsive" part taken over?

Haven’t posted on an SBT thread in 3 years, David — I assume your comments are projection.

A question for the gentle reader:  how many times have JFK’s shallow soft tissue wounds been discussed at a JFKA convention?  Or discussed on Black Op Radio, or mentioned by the folks trying to get the case before Congress?

Zero.

Funny, I come here once in a while and cite the root facts — and the micro-analysts melt down.

 

Edited May 8, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[David Josephs]

Didn't think so.  

You've chosen to ignore content by Cliff Varnell.