The sequence of shot obfuscation

[Eddy Bainbridge]

I am not a researcher. I dabble and think about topics relating to the JFKA. I have read the views of the following researchers to come to some conclusions . In no order ; Vince Salandria, Chuck Marler, Chris Davidson, David Josephs, Doug Horne ,and Luis Alvarez(!!). Its probably a slanted list, but, to make sense of my conclusions at least you can see where they came from.

Firm Conclusions :

1. There was the opportunity to alter the Z film (and subsequently, other important films) on the weekend after the assassination. There is evidence this may have been done.

2. The official view of the shot sequence changed during the official investigations lasting into 1964, and evidence was altered to 'prove' this. It was not simply a re-interpretation of evidence, it was the deliberate alteration of inconvenient evidence.(The West survey plat is a great example)

 

Tentative Conclusions :

1. The urgent issue after the assassination was to hide frontal shots and excessive shots from the Z-film. The film was to be used by Life magazine to convince the public of a lone gunman. A conspiracy vacuum was a massive concern, needing to be filled by convincing evidence, provided very quickly.

2. This urgency and these difficult primary goals meant that, at some point very early on, the opportunity to further alter the Z-film was lost. 

3. The dilemmas left in respect of the Z film, after the film was 'frozen'  were : How to manage a possibly evident early shot (earlier than Z205), obvious Kennedy hit (arms up), then an obvious(ish) Connally hit, too soon afterwards (Chuck Marler quotes Z276) then something around Z313(various possibilities), then a possible shot opposite the pergola steps (five shot options). My tentative conclusions, for the purpose of this post only stretch to where documentation (See Marler and Josephs) state shots were identified. I have my own extra-tentative opinions.

I have not seen other posters split shot obfuscation in this way (Early film mods/ later evidence mods) and, if it is correct it limits wilder theorising, but also focusses the debate.

A talking point that arises is the evidence of James Tague. The standard narrative is that the Warren Commission realised sometime in 1964 that Tague's testimony was a problem, leading to the single bullet theory. That thinking can be turned upside down: Was Tague's alleged hit the opportunity to provide weak evidence for the single bullet theory? If you look at my list of evidenced shot's (above) you see its really difficult to do two things; 1. State where only three shots hit ,and 2. Space them for a lone gunman with a Manlicher Carcano. Tague gave his evidence to a Policeman on the day of the assassination NOT months later. I am not arguing Tague's testimony is false, or that a bullet didn't hit the kerb in front of him. I am arguing that obfuscating Tague's evidence would have been possible, had there not been other evidentiary issues, solved by the single bullet theory. You can argue the Tague shot solves a WC problem, not causes one.

The biggest puzzle for me is; how did the alleged late shot (after Z313) opposite the pergola steps get managed?  The sequence of events are puzzling: If it existed, and had been removed from the Z-film, then why does it appear on FBI documentation into 1964? Was that a big mistake, in that they referred to a removed shot? is the shot actually there, but not readily visible in the film? Can we just assume the obfuscators (film modifiers/FBI) were not communicating well?

I hope this long post is of interest to some, and that someone can provide some answers. 

Eddy

 

[David Josephs]

12 minutes ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

The biggest puzzle for me is; how did the alleged late shot (after Z313) opposite the pergola steps get managed?

Hi Eddy,

I did these a number of years ago before I had the chance to work with Chris D. on the Math.  Working with Chris over the past year the amount of conclusive, detailed information on how the Zfilm was altered - how and why - is becoming sharper and sharper every day.   

The main reason it was altered was to remove two SS driving "mistakes"...  the wide turn onto Elm and the pause on Elm... as well as the removal of extra shots which coincides with these 2 events.  Also involved is the 156-157 splice, 207-212 splice.  Removing the stop turns out not to be as hard as once thought.

In any case, the attached articles delves into what the SS/FBI would know and use as source material to create WCD298's amazing Dealey Plaza Model and then why that was changed to a 2 shot model.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/content/warren-commission-document-wcd-298-how-the-bureau-made-a-fourth-shot-beyond-z-313-disappear

https://www.kennedysandking.com/content/warren-commission-document-wcd-298-fbi-letter-from-director-of-20-jan-1964-with-visual-aides-brochure

 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10699#relPageId=1 "making it possible for those who have not visited the sites to gain a full and clear understanding of the happening surrounding each event." (JFK & Oswald murders)

[Paul Bacon]

Great post Eddy, I completely agree with you!  Thanks for organizing your thinking like this.

[Miles Massicotte]

5 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

 

Hi Eddy,

As a fellow dabbler and non-reseacher I appreciate your post, because although I disagree with you that the Z-film was altered, I agree on one of the major thrusts of your post, that evidence was covered up or altered ad hoc, as it went. Even if there was a planned conspiracy to kill the president, which I think there was, I think between the fbi, the DPD, and the WC there was a lot of covering their tracks that wasn't necessarily coordinated from the outset. Now, if you believe that the Z-film was altered then at the very least you have to either believe that was anticipated or thrown together very, very quickly because the time frame for which an alteration could have occurred, assuming you believe the Hawkeye works and Brugioni and etc., was extraordinary narrow, and is why I tend to doubt it highly. But despite that, I think the idea of "shot obfuscation" happening gradually over time and being concealed from the public is correct, and is why as qe go through the official record details emerge that reveal the true nature of the crime and who decided to "obfuscate" it, for whatever reason.

[Eddy Bainbridge]

7 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Hi Eddy,

I did these a number of years ago before I had the chance to work with Chris D. on the Math.  Working with Chris over the past year the amount of conclusive, detailed information on how the Zfilm was altered - how and why - is becoming sharper and sharper every day.   

The main reason it was altered was to remove two SS driving "mistakes"...  the wide turn onto Elm and the pause on Elm... as well as the removal of extra shots which coincides with these 2 events.  Also involved is the 156-157 splice, 207-212 splice.  Removing the stop turns out not to be as hard as once thought.

In any case, the attached articles delves into what the SS/FBI would know and use as source material to create WCD298's amazing Dealey Plaza Model and then why that was changed to a 2 shot model.

 

 

Hi David, your excellent articles have led me into this rabbit hole, so please be patient with my understanding. I have re-read the first article you listed in your post, possibly too quickly, so can you answer this:

Are you concluding the FBI/SS were using an earlier version of the Z-film than the extant one? If you are, I can see how there is no film record of a shot past Z313. I struggle to comprehend how incompetent that would make those involved in the cover-up. I would also assume that, somewhere the FBI refer to  Z frame numbers, so can't we see a frame numbering mistake in the documentation? to indicate later frame removal (or is that simply achieved by ignoring later Z frames in later documents?)

My understanding of maths is not up to following most of Chris's work, but I do not agree with  the statement that 'The main reason it was altered was to remove two SS driving "mistakes".' I can see from some of Chris's work that there may have been two driving mistakes, but to suggest these as 'main' reasons seems implausible. I would suggest that, if the original film showed poor steering and then an awkward stop, then the SS would have been 'thrown under the bus', by the cover-up, if that were necessary. You are surely not making the case that the primary reason for the Z-film cover up was to save the SS from embarrassment? .

 

[Pat Speer]

10 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

I am not a researcher. I dabble and think about topics relating to the JFKA. I have read the views of the following researchers to come to some conclusions . In no order ; Vince Salandria, Chuck Marler, Chris Davidson, David Josephs, Doug Horne ,and Luis Alvarez(!!). Its probably a slanted list, but, to make sense of my conclusions at least you can see where they came from.

Firm Conclusions :

1. There was the opportunity to alter the Z film (and subsequently, other important films) on the weekend after the assassination. There is evidence this may have been done.

2. The official view of the shot sequence changed during the official investigations lasting into 1964, and evidence was altered to 'prove' this. It was not simply a re-interpretation of evidence, it was the deliberate alteration of inconvenient evidence.(The West survey plat is a great example)

 

Tentative Conclusions :

1. The urgent issue after the assassination was to hide frontal shots and excessive shots from the Z-film. The film was to be used by Life magazine to convince the public of a lone gunman. A conspiracy vacuum was a massive concern, needing to be filled by convincing evidence, provided very quickly.

2. This urgency and these difficult primary goals meant that, at some point very early on, the opportunity to further alter the Z-film was lost. 

3. The dilemmas left in respect of the Z film, after the film was 'frozen'  were : How to manage a possibly evident early shot (earlier than Z205), obvious Kennedy hit (arms up), then an obvious(ish) Connally hit, too soon afterwards (Chuck Marler quotes Z276) then something around Z313(various possibilities), then a possible shot opposite the pergola steps (five shot options). My tentative conclusions, for the purpose of this post only stretch to where documentation (See Marler and Josephs) state shots were identified. I have my own extra-tentative opinions.

I have not seen other posters split shot obfuscation in this way (Early film mods/ later evidence mods) and, if it is correct it limits wilder theorising, but also focusses the debate.

A talking point that arises is the evidence of James Tague. The standard narrative is that the Warren Commission realised sometime in 1964 that Tague's testimony was a problem, leading to the single bullet theory. That thinking can be turned upside down: Was Tague's alleged hit the opportunity to provide weak evidence for the single bullet theory? If you look at my list of evidenced shot's (above) you see its really difficult to do two things; 1. State where only three shots hit ,and 2. Space them for a lone gunman with a Manlicher Carcano. Tague gave his evidence to a Policeman on the day of the assassination NOT months later. I am not arguing Tague's testimony is false, or that a bullet didn't hit the kerb in front of him. I am arguing that obfuscating Tague's evidence would have been possible, had there not been other evidentiary issues, solved by the single bullet theory. You can argue the Tague shot solves a WC problem, not causes one.

The biggest puzzle for me is; how did the alleged late shot (after Z313) opposite the pergola steps get managed?  The sequence of events are puzzling: If it existed, and had been removed from the Z-film, then why does it appear on FBI documentation into 1964? Was that a big mistake, in that they referred to a removed shot? is the shot actually there, but not readily visible in the film? Can we just assume the obfuscators (film modifiers/FBI) were not communicating well?

I hope this long post is of interest to some, and that someone can provide some answers. 

Eddy

 

FWIW, I have a chapter (Chapter 2b) on the SS and FBI's early re-enactments and conclusions regarding the shooting scenario. Some have mused that they had it right, and that the Warren Commission covered this up. My research made it clear to me that the SS and FBI were flat-out fibbing about the scenario--and that the Warren Commission's counsel--Eisenberg, Specter, Redlich, etc--saw how bad this would look when the public found out. And that they then sought to "fix" this problem, via the addition of the single-bullet theory and the possibility of a first-shot miss. 

[Roger Odisio]

1 hour ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Hi David, your excellent articles have led me into this rabbit hole, so please be patient with my understanding. I have re-read the first article you listed in your post, possibly too quickly, so can you answer this:

Are you concluding the FBI/SS were using an earlier version of the Z-film than the extant one? If you are, I can see how there is no film record of a shot past Z313. I struggle to comprehend how incompetent that would make those involved in the cover-up. I would also assume that, somewhere the FBI refer to  Z frame numbers, so can't we see a frame numbering mistake in the documentation? to indicate later frame removal (or is that simply achieved by ignoring later Z frames in later documents?)

My understanding of maths is not up to following most of Chris's work, but I do not agree with  the statement that 'The main reason it was altered was to remove two SS driving "mistakes".' I can see from some of Chris's work that there may have been two driving mistakes, but to suggest these as 'main' reasons seems implausible. I would suggest that, if the original film showed poor steering and then an awkward stop, then the SS would have been 'thrown under the bus', by the cover-up, if that were necessary. You are surely not making the case that the primary reason for the Z-film cover up was to save the SS from embarrassment? .

 

Zapruder alteration is a thread currently at ROKC.  Let me summarize my take.

 

Fronting for the CIA, (Publisher CD Jackson was a long time CIA asset) Life bought partial rights to the original Zapruder film the day after the murder so they could print selected frames from it in their magazine.  We were told they flew the film to their Chicago headquarters to begin work on it.

 

That's not what happened.

 

The film was diverted to the National Photo Interpretation Center in DC where Dino Brugioni was asked to enlarge the key frames and paste them on two sets of briefing boards to be sent to the CIA director and the Secret Service.

 

After viewing the film several times, Dino picked the frames to be enlarged and provided notes about what he did.

 

The framing of Oswald had already begun. The story was that Oswald killed JFK with three shots from behind from the TSBD.  The framers needed a clear record of the extent to which Zapruder contradicted their story.  That was the real purpose of Brugioni's work, not briefing John McCone.

 

Dino's boards were later destroyed.

 

Before Dino was even finished making up the boards, early Sunday the film was flown to the then secret Hawkeye Works at the Kodak plant in Rochester.  Even the name Hawkeye Works was classified until 2010.

 

There the main job was to delete or obscure evidence of both shots from the front as well as the number of shots, as much as they could given the tools of the day.

 

While they were working on the film, Oswald was murdered, removing one, major impediment to their lone assassin story.  As Bart Kamp has explained in detail, they had no case against Oswald that could withstand scrutiny, and of course they knew it. 

 

Then the altered film was flown back to the NPIC lab in DC where Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter were to make a second set of briefing boards.

 

But this time the task was different. The film was brought back by a man identifying himself as "Bill Smith", a "Secret Service agent".

 

McMahon says he thought there were 6-8 shots from at least 3 directions (and this was even after the alterations). But "Smith" picked the frames to be enlarged. He was only interested in trying to show three shots from  behind. McMahon says his opinion was ignored.

 

There are 28 frames in the extant boards now at NARA.  But of that 28 McMahon says some enlargements they did are missing and some are included they didn't do.  Some of the accompanying notes were done by someone else.

 

Iow, McMahon and Hunter were minor functionaries in the process.  They made some enlargements but did not make up the boards, and left.  Someone else came after them and added and subtracted frames and wrote additional notes. 

 

But they realized the altered film and boards weren't going to be enough to conceal shots from the front if people could see the actual film, even after the alterations they made up to that point. There was only so much alteration they could do back then. 

 

That very Sunday, Life went back to Zapruder and bought the full rights to the film, including the exclusive right to show the complete film to the public. 

 

Then Life buried it, never showing it. 

 

When a bootleg copy was shown 12 years later on TV by Geraldo Rivera, Life's coverup was finished. They sold the rights back to Zapruder for $1, verifying their role in the process.

 

It's not clear who did the further work on the film after McMahon and Hunter left late Sunday night.  Or over what time frame alterations were made. Life/CIA had the film tucked away for 12 years until they sold it back to Zapruder.

 

One deletion to the boards clearly made after McMahon and Hunter's work was the removal of the footage about the turn on to Elm Street. The extant boards begin with frame 188, after the turn.  But McMahon remembers making prints before that. He characterized the prior frames as involving some sort of commotion.

 

Perhaps more important, Brugioni told Doug Horne that the head shot in the extant film was nothing like what he saw when making up his boards using the original.  Now it's merely a flash confined to one frame. Dino was emphatic in saying it lasted for several frames and showed a spray of blood, bone, and tissue shooting several feet in the air.   

 

 

 

[Michael Crane]

If you add up the shots,nothing in the official record is close.

4 shots hit Kennedy

2 shots minimum hit Connolly

1 shot hit the chrome molding strip

1 shot knicked James Tague

1 shot hit the manhole cover

Thats 9 shots and I can probably muster up another two or three.

 

Edited September 24, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Pat Speer]

21 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

If you add up the shots,nothing in the official record is close.

4 shots hit Kennedy

2 shots minimum hit Connolly

1 shot hit the chrome molding strip

1 shot knicked James Tague

1 shot hit the manhole cover

Thats 9 shots and I can probably muster up another two or three.

 

OR...

3 shots hit Kennedy

One of these went on to hit Connally.

A fragment of a bullet hitting Kennedy was deflected off the top of his head and hit the molding strip. 

Another fragment from this same bullet went on to hit the curb near Tague. 

Another fragment from this bullet (or a small piece of Kennedy's skull) landed near the manhole cover. 

Now, do I believe this? No, not entirely. But it answers the questions more succinctly than a nine shot scenario, and avoids the problematic single-bullet theory. 

[Charles Blackmon]

Sure would like to hear an explanation for the pink blob in the Zap film.

[Michael Crane]

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

OR...

3 shots hit Kennedy

One of these went on to hit Connally.

A fragment of a bullet hitting Kennedy was deflected off the top of his head and hit the molding strip. 

Another fragment from this same bullet went on to hit the curb near Tague. 

Another fragment from this bullet (or a small piece of Kennedy's skull) landed near the manhole cover. 

Now, do I believe this? No, not entirely. But it answers the questions more succinctly than a nine shot scenario, and avoids the problematic single-bullet theory. 

Nah,I don't see any shot going on to hit Connally.

No shot near the top of the head

2 shots from behind Kennedy

2 shots from the front Kennedy

1 shot Connally shoulder

1 shot Connally left thigh

1 shot chrome visor

1 shot knicked Tague

1 shot manhole cover

1 possible shot to the Stemmons freeway sign

1 possible shot in the limo floor pan

1 possible early shot that bounced off the street.

Edited September 25, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Benjamin Cole]

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

OR...

3 shots hit Kennedy

One of these went on to hit Connally.

A fragment of a bullet hitting Kennedy was deflected off the top of his head and hit the molding strip. 

Another fragment from this same bullet went on to hit the curb near Tague. 

Another fragment from this bullet (or a small piece of Kennedy's skull) landed near the manhole cover. 

Now, do I believe this? No, not entirely. But it answers the questions more succinctly than a nine shot scenario, and avoids the problematic single-bullet theory. 

One of these went on to hit Connally.--PS

I guess we all have our explanations. I disagree.

I suspect JBC was hit by a distinct and separate shot.

The shot that struck JBC was not tumbling, btw.

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

One of these went on to hit Connally.--PS

I guess we all have our explanations. I disagree.

I suspect JBC was hit by a distinct and separate shot.

The shot that struck JBC was not tumbling, btw.

I actually suspect a burst of two or three subsonic shots were fired, and that one hit JFK in the hairline and exited his neck and one hit Connally in the armpit, and exited his chest, only to bounce off his thigh. My point was that the injuries and events described by Michael would not necessitate nine shots. 

[Benjamin Cole]

2 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I actually suspect a burst of two or three subsonic shots were fired, and that one hit JFK in the hairline and exited his neck and one hit Connally in the armpit, and exited his chest, only to bounce off his thigh. My point was that the injuries and events described by Michael would not necessitate nine shots. 

In any event, the number of shots and hits on 11/22, in the time frame between shots, sure seem to rule out a lone gunman armed with a single-shot bolt-action rifle. 

The SBT was devised to prosecute LHO as a lone gunman. (In a prosecution in which there was no adversarial process or defense counsel). 

The SBT was not devised to get at the bottom of what happened in 11/22.

 

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

Nah,I don't see any shot going on to hit Connolly.

No shot near the top of the head

2 shots from behind Kennedy

2 shots from the front Kennedy

1 shot Connolly shoulder

1 shot Connolly left thigh

1 shot chrome visor

1 shot knicked Tague

1 shot manhole cover

1 possible shot to the Stemmons freeway sign

1 possible shot in the limo floor pan

1 possible early shot that bounced off the street.

FWIW, I studied a dozen or more books and articles on full-metal jacket gunshot wounds, And these books were consistent on a number of points. One of these was that the size of the large wound noted on JFK's head--whether it be the top of his head or back of his head--is inconsistent with the size of a wound made by a full metal jacket projectile, UNLESS the bullet was fired from inches away, or struck at an angle to the skull, and created a wound of both entrance and exit. Later, I spent a few months reading about gunshot injuries to the brain, and injuries to the top of the brain, and realized that the injuries to JFK's mid-brain are forensic proof for an impact at the top of his head. 

This is explained in detail in chapters 16b and 16c at patspeer.com. 

Edited September 25, 2023 by Pat Speer