Roger Odisio Posted February 18 Author Share Posted February 18 32 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said: Chris Bristow wrote: In all of this back and forth debate about why the Zapruder film forgers did not simply destroy the camera-original Zapruder film the key point is being overlooked. The forgers DID in fact destroy the camera-original Zapruder film by replacing it with a product sanitized to remove the tell-tale signs of conspiracy (shots from the front and the complicity of the Praetorian Guard), but the plotters overestimated the effectiveness of the film alteration technology of the era when limited by the short period of time available for those alterations to be made. These limitations resulted in an inferior film product that would lead to detection of the fabricated film effects had the film been made openly available for technical scrutiny, so strict controls had to be placed upon analyses of the film from the outset. Such a state of affairs was made possible by what I will here term as "the home court advantage;" that is, the advantages provided by the conspirators wielding control over the cloak and dagger services of the intelligence agencies which by their very nature have the capacity to covertly control the processes of public inquiry from the inside, wherein the citizen critics/researchers are limited in their capacity to conduct such public inquiry by the rules of the process which are controlled and manipulated by the intelligence operatives. We see this war between the intelligence operatives who enjoy the "home court advantage" and citizen researchers taking place to this very day as it concerns the extant Zapruder film in the saga of the Sixth Floor Museum utilizing its ill-gotten copyrights over the Zapruder film to impede the research efforts of citizen researchers Sydney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead, and the impressive cadre of Hollywood film professionals they have assembled to perform content analysis of the film. In a truly free, open and democratic society, the Sixth Floor Museum would encourage and promote citizen and professional inquiry into the authenticity and provenance of the extant Zapruder film, but instead the institution threatens litigation, and behind the scenes, strange events occur, such as those indicated by the reports of Sydney Wilkinson and Dr. David Mantik about changes taking place in the Zapruder film materials, such as the MPI transparencies which in 2009 displayed "striking" signs of the black trapezoid shaped back-of-the-head patch, and then in 2010 did not, while other materials have outright disappeared, such as the 5x7 "original" Zapruder film transparencies which the Sixth Floor Museum originally acknowledged receiving from its Deed of Gift from the Zapruder family, but more recently claims it has never possessed. The whole matter of the government making the large avulsive wound in the occipital-parietal region of the right side of the back of President Kennedy's head disappear from the findings of all government bodies of inquiry is but an earlier more prominent example of the deployment of the "home court advantage." Over fifty witnesses reported this large rear head defect, the vast majority of them being medical and law enforcement professionals, yet the control over the autopsy and official government investigations have had the effect of "disappearing" the President's fatal wound from the public narrative, in some cases by employing demonstrable fraud, such as in the case of the House Select Committee on Assassinations ("HSCA") concealing the testimony of the Bethesda autopsy witnesses from the public by classifying if "top secret" for fifty years (as we discovered when the Assassination Records Review Board declassified said testimony in the 1990's), and also concealing that crucial evidence from its own Forensic Pathology Panel, which was thereby forced to base its conclusions about the President's head wounds on autopsy photographs depicting the back of the President's head to be intact (autopsy photographs that have been proven by Dr. David Mantik's stereoscopic testing at the National Archives to be fraudulent). The absence of the same back-of-the-head defect from the Zapruder film is likewise obviously fraudulent, and provably fraudulent, but for the employment of "the home court advantage" by the government's intelligence services. Photographic fraud has a history as long as photography itself, and the notion that the government employed every conceivable type of fraud save for autopsy and photographic fraud is profoundly short-sighted and nieve. If anything, autopsy fraud and photographic fraud is employed in a prioritized fashion for reason of the exact prejudices that Chris Bristow describes: "[W]hen it comes to witnesses memory vs actual film images, the film tends trump the witness accounts." Those arguing otherwise would appear to be suffering from a misplaced belief that the intelligence services of their government are not only incompetent, but stupid. Examples of the government using manipulated science, intelligence and photographic fakery are legion, and it is very difficult to take those who attempt to argue otherwise seriously, especially in this day and age, and in the context of the Kennedy assassination which has been so rife with fraud since day one. More specifically, just as with the back-of-the-head wound in the context of the proceedings at Parkland Hospital and the Bethesda autopsy, there is also a vast body of testimonial evidence from the witnesses in Dealey Plaza who reported seeing copious amounts of blood, brain and skull being ejected out of the back of President Kennedy's head. And yet, no blood or pieces of skull and brain being "blasted out" of the back of JFK's head can be seen in the extant Zapruder film starting at Z-313 as there should be (See slow motion clip of Zapruder film headshot sequence below). Visible in the extant "original" Zapruder film is only a fine red mist suspended in the air for 1/18 of one second (frame Z-313 only), while all of the witnesses in real time on the ground in Dealey Plaza described an entirely different debris trail consisting of voluminous blood, brain and skull that was blown out of the back of JFK's head (Charles Brehm: "IT SEEMED TO HAVE COME LEFT AND BACK"), not the front, as you can see from the witness accounts directly below. -------------------------------------------------------- WITNESS ACCOUNTS OF BLOOD AND BRAINS EXITING THE BACK OF JFK'S HEAD: Clint Hill, Samuel Kinney, Bobby Hargis, Bill Newman, Marilyn Willis, Harry Holmes, Charles Brehm, Abraham Zapruder, Erwin Schwartz and Dino Brugioni. __________ "...BLOOD, BRAIN MATTER, AND BONE FRAGMENTS EXPLODED FROM THE BACK OF THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD. THE PRESIDENT'S BLOOD, PARTS OF HIS SKULL, BITS OF HIS BRAIN WERE SPLATTERED ALL OVER ME -- ON MY FACE, MY CLOTHES, IN MY HAIR..." Secret Service Agent Clint Hill (in his 2012 book "Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir"). __________ "...I HAD BRAIN MATTER ALL OVER MY WINDSHIELD AND LEFT ARM, THAT'S HOW CLOSE WE WERE TO IT ... IT WAS THE RIGHT REAR PART OF HIS HEAD ... BECAUSE THAT'S THE PART I SAW BLOW OUT. I SAW HAIR COME OUT, THE PIECES BLOW OUT, THEN THE SKIN WENT BACK IN -- AN EXPLOSION IN AND OUT..." Secret Service Agent Samuel Kinney (3/5/1994 interview by Vince Palamara). __________ "...WHEN PRESIDENT KENNEDY STRAIGHTENED BACK UP IN THE CAR THE BULLET HIT HIM IN THE HEAD, THE ONE THAT KILLED HIM AND IT SEEMED LIKE HIS HEAD EXPLODED, AND I WAS SPLATTERED WITH BLOOD AND BRAIN, AND KIND OF A BLOODY WATER...." Dallas Motorcycle Patrolman Bobby Hargis (4/8/1964 Warren Commission testimony). __________ "...I CAN REMEMBER SEEING THE SIDE OF THE PRESIDENT'S EAR AND HEAD COME OFF. I REMEMBER A FLASH OF WHITE AND THE RED AND JUST BITS AND PIECES OF FLESH EXPLODING FROM THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD..." Dealey Plaza witness Bill Newman interviewed about the JFK assassination -- 0:13-0:27 -- https://youtu.be/EEhlbAwI7Zg?t=13 __________ "...THE HEAD SHOT SEEMED TO COME FROM THE RIGHT FRONT. IT SEEMED TO STRIKE HIM HERE [gesturing to her upper right forehead, up high at the hairline], AND HIS HEAD WENT BACK, AND ALL OF THE BRAIN MATTER WENT OUT THE BACK OF THE HEAD. IT WAS LIKE A RED HALO, A RED CIRCLE, WITH BRIGHT MATTER IN THE MIDDLE OF IT - IT JUST WENT LIKE THAT...." Dealey Plaza witness Marilyn Willis from 24:26-24:58 of TMWKK, Episode 1, at following link cued in advance for you https://youtu.be/BW98fHkbuD8?t=1466 ). __________ "...THERE WAS JUST A CONE OF BLOOD AND CORRUPTION THAT WENT RIGHT IN THE BACK OF HIS HEAD AND NECK. I THOUGHT IT WAS RED PAPER ON A FIRECRACKER. IT LOOKED LIKE A FIRECRACKER LIT UP WHICH LOOKS LIKE LITTLE BITS OF RED PAPER AS IT GOES UP. BUT IN REALITY IT WAS HIS SKULL AND BRAINS AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WENT PERHAPS AS MUCH AS SIX OR EIGHT FEET. JUST LIKE THAT!..." Dealey Plaza witness and Postal Inspector Harry Holmes. Murder from Within (1974), Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams, p. 213. __________ "...Charles Brehm: 0:21 WHEN THE SECOND BULLET HIT, THERE WAS, THE HAIR SEEMED TO GO FLYING. IT WAS VERY DEFINITE THEN THAT HE WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD WITH THE SECOND BULLET, AND, UH, YES, I VERY DEFINITELY SAW THE EFFECT OF THE SECOND BULLET. Mark Lane: 0:38 Did you see any particles of the President's skull fly when the bullet struck him in the head? Charles Brehm: 0:46 I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER OH IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING. Mark Lane: 0:53 In which direction did that fly? Charles Brehm: 0:56 IT SEEMED TO HAVE COME LEFT AND BACK...." Dealey Plaza witness Charles Brehm interviewed about JFK assassination by Mark Lane for the 1967 documentary "Rush to Judgment": https://youtu.be/RsnHXywKIKs __________ "...I SAW THE HEAD PRACTICALLY OPEN UP AND BLOOD AND MANY MORE THINGS, WHATEVER IT WAS, BRAINS, JUST CAME OUT OF HIS HEAD...." Testimony of Dealey Plaza witness Abraham Zapruder -- who filmed the assassination -- at the Clay Shaw trial -- https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/zapruder_shaw2.htm __________ "...I also asked him if he saw the explosion of blood and brains out of the head. He replied that he did. I asked him if he noticed which direction the eruption went. He pointed back over his left shoulder. He said, "IT WENT THIS WAY." I said, "You mean it went to the left and rear?" He said, "YES." Bartholomew then asked him, "Are you sure that you didn't see the blood and brains going up and to the front?" Schwartz said, "NO; IT WAS TO THE LEFT AND REAR...." Excerpt from interview of Erwin Schwartz -- Abraham Zapruder's business partner -- who accompanied Zapruder to develop the camera-original Zapruder film, and saw the camera-original projected more than a dozen times. Bloody Treason by Noel Twyman. __________ "...Brugioni's most vivid recollection of the Zapruder film was "...OF JFK'S BRAINS FLYING THROUGH THE AIR." He did not use the term 'head explosion,' but rather referred to apparent exit debris seen on the film the night he viewed it. "...AND WHAT I'LL NEVER FORGET WAS -- I KNEW THAT HE HAD BEEN ASSASSINATED -- BUT WHEN WE ROLLED THE FILM AND I SAW A GOOD PORTION OF HIS HEAD FLYING THROUGH THE AIR, THAT SHOCKED ME, AND THAT SHOCKED EVERYBODY WHO WAS THERE..." Excerpt from interview of Dino Brugioni -- Photoanalyst at the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center -- who viewed the camera-original Zapruder film the evening of 11/23/1963. Douglas Horne, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board" , 2009, Volume IV, Chapter 14, page 1329. What do we see at the back of President Kennedy's head instead of the biological debris described by so many Dealey Plaza witnesses? The black patch over the occipital-parietal region on the right side of the back of his head. Where is the blood, brain and skull that the witnesses reported? Zapruder film anti-alteration apologists most frequently argue that Abraham Zapruder's 8mm camera lacked the capacity to capture the details of blood, brain and skull; that the wound is obscured by shadow; or that there was no back-of-the-head wound. As for the notion that Zapruder's camera was incapable of capturing the details of blood, brain and skull, the camera captured the color and detail of Jackie's red roses which appear in fewer frames than the back of the President's head, and note that we see the entire dimensions of the roses, not just part of them with the remainder mysteriously blotted out in D-max black like the back-of the-head. As for whether we cannot see the blood, brain and skull due to the wound being obscured by shadow, there is no need for us to rely upon self-proclaimed amateur armchair film experts. We can instead rely upon the expert analysis of Hollywood film professionals Paul Rutan, Jr., and Garrett Smith who list their qualifications and provide their expert analysis of what we are seeing at the back of President Kennedy's head in the fames that follow Z-313: Smith: .…Now, as to my credibility, thirty-seven years in the movie business, I’m not sure how much lower you can go than that; and [I] just got done with nearly twenty-five years at Paramount, where I basically ran their mastering for most of those years and spent the last few years investigating new digital production technology. Rutan: [I’ve] been doing this since 1968, I was delivering film in New York City; and then full time from ’74 I got hired to work for my Dad, and I worked for him for 12 years — started out as janitor, and then shipping, and then film cleaning, and then film repair, and then optical lineup, and then optical printing. So, ever since then I’ve worked for a couple of companies, set up a department at COMPAC video, and I had my own company for 14 years doing restoration. Whitehead: Do you see any signs of alteration? Rutan: Yes. Whitehead: Where do you see them? Rutan: Well [speaking while pointing at frame 313 on a large HD monitor], in the — this explosion right here doesn’t look, it’s, see [pointing] — it’s got defects on it — but it just doesn’t look real, it doesn’t look like blood, it just doesn’t look real…. Rutan: I think you’re looking at a patch, at a photographic patch that they put on the back of his [JFK’s] head. It’s crude, but if you run the film you’ll see that it moves — differently than his head does, as well. So, it’s an optical, some sort of an optical [effect] that they put on there, to not show the back of his head. Whitehead: In your opinion, what do you think would have been the most likely way this would have been accomplished? Rutan: With an optical printer, with an aerial optical printer…. Rutan: Well, the only thing I can see really is how predominant the black patch is in this particular frame [pointing]. I mean, it’s clear to me that that is not the back of his head, that that is some kind of a [sic] optical effect, that has been laid on the back of his head by an optical house. And this [pointing at the large pink “blob” on the right side of JFK’s head] is also an optical effect. But the back of his head is what always — what I’m always drawn to, because you — it’s almost like he’s wearing a toupee, because there’s the top of his head [pointing at JFK’s auburn hair on the very top of his head] and that’s basically the color it should be, and then it’s black, it’s just solid black. Smith: You know, the density doesn’t match — the shoulders don’t match that [meaning that the shadow on the back of JFK’s shoulders does not match the black patch on the back of his head] and [the black patch] doesn’t match the top of his head [pointing to JFK’s auburn colored hair on top]…. Smith: It just seems really obvious that the frames where they’ve matted out the back of the head, and added in the pink splash, the pink water-balloon — whatever it is that’s supposed to be the blood — it’s just not even believable … maybe fifty years ago that might have passed muster, but for anybody — I mean — my impression is if I showed it to a 12-year old kid, they would say it was a cartoon…." https://www.fff.org/2023/08/16/the-evidence-that-convicts-the-cia-of-the-jfk-assassination-part-4/ And as to the question of whether there is a back-of-the-head wound at all, to be perfectly honest, I don't take individuals who make such an argument seriously, especially if they have enough familiarity with the evidence to know better. Sandy Larsen's mathematical calculations showing essentially that it is impossible that the 50+ back-of-the-head wound witnesses are mistaken are perfectly on point. Chris Bristow wrote: In my opinion, the logic Doug Horne employed in support of his conclusion that CIA/LIFE suppressed the altered Zapruder film from public consumption due to the shortage of time and limitations in technology resulting in a flawed product is impeccable. If the alterations had been undetectable, I think the extant "original" Zapruder film would have been projected from the rooftops throughout the land. Instead, the government sought to suppress it to avoid what Sydney Wilkinson, Thom Whithead and the Hollywood Seven are on the verge of accomplishing today: Exposing the extant Zapruder film as the fraud that it is to all the world... Doug Horne wrote: "...(1) those altering the Zapruder film at “Hawkeyeworks” on Sunday, November 24, 1963 were extremely pressed for time, and could only do “so much” in the twelve-to-fourteen hour period available to them; (2) the technology available with which to alter films in 1963 (both the traveling matte, and aerial imaging) had limitations—there was no digital CGI technology at that time—and therefore, I believe the forgers were limited to basic capabilities like blacking out the exit wound in the right-rear of JFK’s head; painting a false exit wound on JFK’s head on the top and right side of his skull (both of these seem to have been accomplished through “aerial imaging”—that is, animation cells overlaid “in space” on top of the projected images of the frames being altered, using a customized optical printer with an animation stand, and a process camera to re-photograph each self-matting, altered frame); and removing exit debris frames, and even the car stop, through step-printing. In my view, the alterations that were performed were aimed at quickly removing the most egregious evidence of shots from the front (namely, the exit debris leaving the skull toward the left rear, and the gaping exit wound which the Parkland Hospital treatment staff tells us was present in the right-rear of JFK’s head). I believe that in their minds, the alterationists of 1963 were racing against the clock—they did not know what kind of investigation, either nationally or in Texas, would transpire, and they were trying to sanitize the film record as quickly as possible before some investigative body demanded to “see the film evidence.” There was not yet a Warren Commission the weekend following the assassination, and those who planned and executed the lethal crossfire in Dealey Plaza were intent upon removing as much of the evidence of it as possible, as quickly as possible. As I see it, they did not have time for perfection, or the technical ability to ensure perfection, in their “sanitization” of the Zapruder film. They did an imperfect job, the best they could in about 12-14 hours, which was all the time they had on Sunday, November 24, 1963, at “Hawkeyeworks.” Besides, there was no technology available in 1963 that could convincingly remove the “head-snap” from the Zapruder film; you could not animate JFK’s entire body without it being readily detectable as a forgery, so the “head-snap” stayed in the film. (The “head snap” may even be an inadvertent result—an artifact of apparently rapid motion—caused by the optical removal of several “exit debris” frames from the film. When projected at normal speed at playback, any scene in a motion picture will appear to speed up if frames have been removed. Those altering the film may have believed it was imperative to remove the exit debris travelling through the air to the rear of President Kennedy, even if that did induce apparent “motion” in his body which made it appear as though he might have been shot from the front. The forgers may have had no choice, in this instance, but to live with the lesser of two evils. Large amounts of exit debris traveling toward the rear would have been unmistakable proof within the film of a fatal shot from the front; whereas a “head snap” is something whose causes could be debated endlessly, without any final resolution.) Those who altered the Zapruder film knew that the wound alteration images in frames 317, 321, 323, 335, and 337, for example, were “good enough” to show investigators the film on a flimsy movie screen coated with diamond dust, but they also knew the alterations were not good enough to withstand close scrutiny. That is why I believe C.D. Jackson—the CIA’s asset at LIFE and its best friend in the national print media—instructed Richard Stolley to again approach Abraham Zapruder on Sunday night, and to offer a much higher sale price for Zapruder’s movie, in exchange for LIFE’s total ownership of the film, and all rights to the film. By Sunday night, the name of the game at LIFE was suppression, not profit-making. By Sunday night, November 24th, C. D. Jackson was wearing his CIA hat, not his Time, Inc. businessman’s hat. After striking the new deal with Time, Inc. on Monday, Zapruder received an immediate $25,000.00, and the remainder of his payments ($25,000.00 per year, each January, through January of 1968), were effectively structured as “hush money” payments. His incentive to keep his mouth shut about the film’s alteration would clearly be his desire to keep getting paid $25,000.00 each January, for the next five years. The alterationists in 1963 also had a “disposal” problem, for they had three genuine “first day copies” of the Zapruder film floating around which threatened to proliferate quickly, unless they could get them out of circulation immediately, replaced with new “first generation copies” stuck from the new “Hawkeyeworks” master delivered to NPIC on Sunday night. For them, speed was of the essence, not perfection. I believe that once the new “master” was completed at “Hawkeyeworks” early Sunday evening, three new first generation copies were struck from it, as well as at least one “dirty dupe” for the LIFE editorial crew standing by in Chicago. Only after these products were exposed at Rochester, early Sunday evening, was the “new Zapruder film” (masquerading as an unslit, 16 mm wide camera-original “double 8” film) couriered down to NPIC by “Bill Smith,” who took his cock-and-bull story along with him, to his everlasting discredit. Of course, the cock-and-bull story worked, since Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter knew nothing about the event with the true camera-original film at NPIC the previous night. McMahon and Hunter had no reason, on Sunday night, 11/24/63, to disbelieve “Bill Smith” when he told them that he had brought “the camera-original film” with him, after it had been “developed” at Rochester. After all, the product handed to them looked like a camera-original “double 8” film: it was a 16 mm wide unslit film, with sprocket holes on both sides, and exhibited opposing image strips, upside down in relation to each other, and going in reverse directions. I am quite sure that by Tuesday, November 26th, all of the original “first day copies” had been swapped out with the three replacements made at “Hawkeyeworks” Sunday night from the new “original.” NPIC finished up with the new “original” Zapruder film by some time Monday morning, November 25th, or perhaps by mid-day Monday at the latest. McMahon went home after the enlargements (the 5 x 7 prints) were run off, but the graphics people at NPIC still had to finish assembling the three sets of four panel briefing boards. And the rest is history. Now, through the magic of high resolution digital scans—technology undreamed of in 1963, in an analog world—the forgery and fraud of November, 1963 is being exposed, slowly but surely. Alterations that were “good enough” to hold up on a flimsy, portable 8 mm movie screen back in 1963, look quite bad—very crude—today, under the magnifying glass of today’s digital technology...." "The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events: Signposts Pointing to the Film’s Alteration" by Douglas P. Horne https://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/ What happened to the three first gen copies made from the original after the film was altered is only a small mystery. One copy originally went to the CIA and one to the SS. There was no problem with them when new copies were made of the altered Z film at Hawkeye Works. Zapruder kept the third copy when he gave the original to Life in the initial deal. He was supposed to give his copy to Life in exchange for the original a few days later, after Life had prepared the stills it was publishing. When Life cancelled the original deal on Sunday, they struck a new, much more lucrative, deal with Zapruder to keep the original (then altered) film indefinitely. They had another copy made from the altered film to replace the copy Zapruder had from the original film. Make up your own speculation as to how that conversation went. $150,000 in '63 dollars buys a lot of cooperation. Zapruder died at the age of 65, just 2 years after the annual payments stopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 7 hours ago, Roger Odisio said: So we agree that there were plotters who wanted the blame to go to Cuba, possibly the Soviet Union too. Not only did they want that, they invested a lot of time developing a fake story that would create that pretext. And not only did they develop it, but they continued on with its execution even after the Johnson Administration decided not to take advantage of it. For example, Alvarado's story came out after. I think that David Phillips and Angleton were claiming it was a commie plot for years after the assassination. So you are saying that it was Johnson's decision to dismiss the commie plot and go with the lone gunman? If that's the case, why did Bundy inform Johnson on Air Force One that it wasn't a commie plot and that the lone gunman had been caught? RO: The message to AF1 was not directed at Johnson but to others on the plane and to the plane coming back from Hawaii. Particularly to members of Kennedy's team. A big, early hurdle for the killers was to make it clear to the Kennedy people and then others around Washington, that the story of the murder had already been established. No matter what you think you may have seen in Dealey Plaza, or thought about later, don't interfere. Per Salandria, the messenger (not actually Bundy, but Bundy was running the place) from the WH Situation Room was speaking for the killers. People got the idea. Also, if it was Johnson's decision to dismiss the commie plot, how could he do that before the (fake) commie plot had even been discovered by the FBI? RO: There were lots of people and groups who wanted Kennedy dead for their own reasons. The murder made Johnson president, which was the main thing he wanted. He was never going to allow the murder to embroil the country in a war with the SU. The extent to which he made that known to others, or how much they listened, before the murder is not clear. Believe or not there are still groups today wanting war with Russia. In order for you to be right about this, it seems that Johnson would have known before 11/22/63 about both Oswald AND the commie plot. I can't understand why the CIA plotters would spend all that time developing a fake commie plot if they knew Johnson would immediately nix it. RO: I'm not sure how much Johnson knew or cared about Oswald as the patsy before the murder. The planning for the murder was unquestionably compartmentalized. But he had to have known there were those who wanted to use the killing to attack Cuba and the SU. He killed the idea early on in his presidency. But he couldn't control what other plotters were working on before the murder. I don't think Johnson was aware of exactly what the CIA's plot was... only that there was a plot. RO: Probably not. It was compartmentalized. He didn't have a "need to know" everything. But the other plotters had to have confidence he would do the crucial things they needed him to do after the murder. I think I understand now what you believe: There were two plots (at least), one being controlled by Johnson and the other being controlled by the generals and conducted by an element of the CIA (Angleton and Philips). (The reason I associate the CIA plot with the generals is because the CIA's plot facilitated their goals). But who planned and conducted the Johnson plot? Another element of the CIA? The Mafia? The two plots had to be independent of each other because they had different, opposing goals. HOWEVER, there is a problem with this idea. It begs the question, how did the two independent, opposing groups of plotters happen to pick the same person, LHO, as the patsy? I'm afraid this doesn't work. Somebody had to get Oswald into the TSBD as an employee so that he could be blamed. This most likely was accomplished by having CIA handlers instruct Ruth Paine, Oswald, and Truly (or a CIA-connected person who could control Truly) to get Oswald to work there. (BTW I happen to believe that the TSBD or the whole building was a CIA front.) So how does your theory account for two independent groups both choosing LHO as the patsy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denise Hazelwood Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 On 2/10/2024 at 2:31 PM, Robert Reeves said: If you wanted to camouflage the contents of the retaining wall/knoll area you could easily over populate the frames from 410 onwards with painted in Pyracantha hedge foliage. No alterations needed to the Nix, Muchmore, etc. The Z-Film compared to the FBI recreation (film from Z's position on both zoom and non} I believe filmed on the 11/27/63 clearly show exaggerated Pyracantha foliage displayed in the Z-film. Unless anyone can explain how filmed from Zapruder's perch this could have happened? I just copied this above image from Robert Reeves' Feb 10 post. Has anyone else noticed that in this particular frame of the Z-film (center bottom, Z413) Clint Hill appears to be crouched with both feet on top of the trunk of the car? And yet, in the immediately preceding and following frames, his feet are still on the back step? Or is it just me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denise Hazelwood Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 On 2/13/2024 at 6:08 AM, Chris Bristow said: There is another interview in which she specifically shows the Willis 5 photo and says this is the photo that her dad said the trains were missing from. Here are both interviews. She shows Willis 5 and confirms it as the photo the trains were removed from at 25:20. Chris, I only see the Texas Monthly interview. Could you re-post a link to the "other" interview where she shows Willis 5, please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bristow Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 (edited) 1 hour ago, Denise Hazelwood said: Chris, I only see the Texas Monthly interview. Could you re-post a link to the "other" interview where she shows Willis 5, please? Denise, I checked the link I provided and it has both interviews. The second interview has her pointing to the Willis 5 photo as she says that is the photo her dad said had the trains removed. It starts at 25:16. EDIT: Just took another look and I think it is the same interview with some extra footage and a later interview spliced in the middle of it. Either way go to 25:16 Edited February 19 by Chris Bristow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bristow Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 Roger, Sandy and Keven: Thanks for all the additional information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Odisio Posted February 19 Author Share Posted February 19 14 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: I think I understand now what you believe: There were two plots (at least), one being controlled by Johnson and the other being controlled by the generals and conducted by an element of the CIA (Angleton and Philips). (The reason I associate the CIA plot with the generals is because the CIA's plot facilitated their goals). But who planned and conducted the Johnson plot? Another element of the CIA? The Mafia? The two plots had to be independent of each other because they had different, opposing goals. HOWEVER, there is a problem with this idea. It begs the question, how did the two independent, opposing groups of plotters happen to pick the same person, LHO, as the patsy? I'm afraid this doesn't work. Somebody had to get Oswald into the TSBD as an employee so that he could be blamed. This most likely was accomplished by having CIA handlers instruct Ruth Paine, Oswald, and Truly (or a CIA-connected person who could control Truly) to get Oswald to work there. (BTW I happen to believe that the TSBD or the whole building was a CIA front.) So how does your theory account for two independent groups both choosing LHO as the patsy? RO: No, Sandy, I'm afraid you don't get what I'm saying. It's well known that many groups wanted to get rid of Kennedy. To name a few: the "intelligence services", the military, disgruntled Cubans, the Mafia, the banks, Wall Street, the oil companies. But killing Kennedy and making sure they got him was such an enormous and dangerous task, the main players who were serious eventually coalesced around one plan. Peter Dale Scott has told the story of going to a dinner party as a young man in the early 60s. People around the table were loudly criticizing Kennedy. Until one guy got up and said "The old man will take care of it." That ended the conversation. Scott thought he was saying Kennedy's father would straighten him out. Later he came to understand the guy was referring to Allen Dulles, known at the time as the old man at the CIA. Who was still running parts of the CIA after Kennedy fired him. Allen Dulles and the war machine wanted to run cold war foreign policy. Lyndon Johnson, with some exceptions, was largely indifferent to that but wanted to be president. They had different goals. But those goals were clearly complementary, not *opposing* ones. They and their cohorts worked together in the successful plot. . They were two centers of Washington power, and each was necessary for the plan's success. Each expected to get enough of what they wanted out of Kennedy's death to go ahead with the plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 (edited) Sydney Wilkinson's 6k Copy of NARA's "Forensic Version" of the Zapruder Film -- https://youtu.be/n8lIl7fHUh0 SYDNEY WILKINSON PROVIDES A BRIEF HISTORY OF HER 35MM DUPLICATE NEGATIVE OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM "In 2008, my partner (and husband), Thom Whitehead, sold our startup editing company to Deluxe Film Labs. Thom was hired to oversee their newly created editorial department in Burbank, and I chose a new path. After spending over twenty years in sales and development in the post-production industry, I was ready for a new challenge. I have been interested in the JFK assassination history for decades. In 1978, I spent a memorable college semester in Washington, D.C., working as a congressional intern and studying the activities of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). One of the key subjects that piqued my interest was the iconic Zapruder film. In 2008, I rekindled my interest and began to read about the film with a renewed vigor. I was surprised to discover there were serious concerns about its authenticity. Most notably, there had never been a truly independent, forensic, imaging study---one that was not connected to a government or private entity. It suddenly dawned on me that I might have a golden opportunity to delve deeper into the film imagery by utilizing the resources of Deluxe Labs92--one of the largest and most prestigious professional film labs in history. We knew they would allow us to use any/all of their state-of-the-art film and digital technology. Additionally, considering that Thom and I had spent years working with the top film restoration and post-production experts in the world, I felt confident we would be able to solicit their professional, unbiased guidance. With the absolute best technology and talent available at the time, all we needed was the best possible film element to study. In November 2008, we purchased a 35mm duplicate negative (dupe neg) of the "forensic version' of the Zapruder "camera original" 8 mm film housed at NARA. It is a US government authorized and certified, third generation film copy. To our surprise, and to the best of our knowledge (as of 2018), it is the only third generation 35mm dupe neg acquired for the purpose of an independent, expert evaluation since NARA made such elements available to the public in 2003. According to NARA, the film element used to complete my transfer was their 35mm Intermediate (or "reproduction") copy, which is an interpositive,97 silent, color film descended from the direct blow-up 35mm Internegative. NARA considered it to be a "preservation master." At that time, they offered two versions to the public: (1) a "forensic” version--a 35mm, direct optical blow-up Internegative (without any image improvement) from Zapruder's 8mm camera "original,"98 and (2) a “de-scratched" version--a 35mm film element that has been "cleaned up" to look visually appealing. The latter effectively removes dirt and scratches via "a diffused light source in analog printing instead of using a traditional wet-gate method.99 We chose the forensic version because we wanted to work with unadulterated images--as close to the "original" as possible--where nothing had been done to enhance or improve them in any way. TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF OUR 6K SCANS (SW) We scanned our 35mm dupe neg directly to 6k files using a Northlight film scanner. At the time, the Northlight scanner was instrumental in the production of Hollywood films and was considered state-of-the-art technology in post production.100 It created digital files from the optical image of a film. Great care was accorded to this process in a post-production environment because the introduction of any artifacts or discontinuities could ruin the day for a film director or director of photography. The digital file that is created must replicate exactly the image on the film and reveal all the information present on each film frame. Due to the relatively small size of the original 8mm Zapruder film (when viewing the entire 35 mm frame on the dupe neg) we decided to scan at Northlight’s maximum available scan size of 6k. The 6k refers to a size of 6144 x 4668 pixels with an effective size of 114.7 Mb of digital data per frame. To put this into perspective, a home HDTV only presents 1920 x 1080 pixels with about 9.7 Mb per frame. Therefore, our scans have more than ten times the resolution and data size as an HD television image. This additional resolution allowed us to electronically zoom into the image without any apparent loss of detail or fidelity. Finally, we could see down to the grain of the 8mm film with complete sharpness and detail--including all of the inter-sprocket and edge areas. As far as we know, the Zapruder film had never been reproduced or studied at this level of digital resolution. Another important aspect of our scanning process was the use of logarithmic color space, rather than linear color space. This is critical because the use of logarithmic color allows all the color information of the image to be present in the scans, preserving all of the highlight and shadow information. Linear color is what we are accustomed to seeing on TV and computer screens. Although linear color looks correct/normal and lifelike to our eyes, very bright and dark areas of the image must be "clipped" in order to make the majority of the image appear correctly. Logarithmic color, although looking to the untrained eye as "muddy" or "flat," is actually the best way to retain all of the color information in the film. Finally we used the film industry standard "DPX" (Digital Picture eXchange)101 format to allow easy transfers between various professional workstations. One of the state-of-the-art workstations we continue to use is an Autodesk product called Smoke." Excerpt from 'MASQUERADE AT THE MUSEUM' from 'THE JFK ASSASSINATION DECODED: Criminal Forgery in the Autopsy Photographs and X-rays' by David Mantik, MD, PhD. - - April 15, 2013 - Revised November 2021 -- David W. Mantik (DM) and Sydney Wilkinson (SW) ------------------------------------------------- WITH REGARD TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF LOGARITHMIC AS OPPOSED TO LINEAR COLOR: Doug Horne provided the following from Sydney Wilkinson during his 2019 podcast interview on the subject (you might want to listen to that podcast for background on where the whole Sydney Wilkinson documentary was at in 2019): ___________ "Our scans show everything in the frame, the good, the bad, and the ugly." By that they mean the scratches and the mold on the film. They wrote "There is so much detail that individual grains of 8mm film stock are evident in the 6k logarithmic scans. It's hardly pretty, but the images are glaringly sharp. That is why we see all the scratches, mold, dirt, stains, and other film anomalies. Linear color is what we view on our TVs and computers, the color looks right to us. The versions of the Zapruder film we see on television documentaries or DVDs like "Images of an Assassination" sold in 1998 or on YouTube have been cleaned up and color corrected. Much of the scratches, dirt, mold, etc., have been removed along with color correcting each scene to create a much richer looking element. The processes used to do this can be grueling and take a long time depending upon how much money and how much time the producers want to spend on it. But we did not want to make our images look prettier. We did not want to touch anything because our goal was to conduct a forensic scientific study of the film. We wanted to see what was really there in every frame not what might have been hidden or obscured by cleaning or color correcting. So logarithmic color, or log color for short, is what professionals use when coming from or going to film because it brings out much more detail in blacks and mid-blacks by stretching the blacks into grays. However, without color correction, which we have not done, the image looks a little washed out, but the amount of information in the blacks is substantially increased. The primary reason we want log color space was to see all the information in the shadows, and what we saw was astounding. If our transfer was linear color we never would have seen the patch on the back of the head in frame 317 or it would have looked like a shadow. Most importantly, log shadow space does not make a shadow look like a patch." ___________ If you want to hear this for yourself in the Doug Horne podcast, start at 138:30: https://midnightwriternews.com/?powerpress_pinw=1749-podcast At the Midnight Writer News site for the podcast, you can find the copy of Z-317 that Wilkinson supplied to Horne -- and several others -- embedded in the site, at this link: https://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-episode-107-douglas-horne-on-the-zapruder-film-alteration-debate/ HOLLYWOOD PROFESSIONALS PAUL RUTAN JR. AND GARRETT J. SMITH COMMENT ON Z-317: https://www.fff.org/2023/08/16/the-evidence-that-convicts-the-cia-of-the-jfk-assassination-part-4/ Jacob Hornberger wrote: "...I’m going to present one last piece of evidence to complete my case. That evidence consists of expert testimony from three witnesses — Paul Rutan, [and] Jr., Garrett Smith... In my book An Encounter with Evil: The Abraham Zapruder Story, I include a partial transcript of an interview of Rutan and Smith, both of whom closely examined a high-quality copy of the extant Zapruder film — that is, the film that is in the National Archives that is purported to be the original film but that is actually the altered, fraudulent copy of the film that the CIA secretly produced at its top-secret Hawkeyeworks facility in Rochester, New York. I was fortunate to be able to include a portion of that interview in my book. The interview was conducted by Thom Whitehead, a Hollywood television and feature-film mastering editor specializing in motion pictures. The interview was conducted as part of a documentary [entitled "Alteration"] on the Zapruder film that is being produced by Whitehead and his colleague Sydney Wilkinson. Douglas Horne, the author of the watershed book Inside the Assassination Records Review Board and who served on the staff of the ARRB, requested permission from Whitehead and Wilkinson to include a portion of the interview in my book, and they graciously agreed. As far as I know, my book is the first and only place where that portion of the interview has been published. Rutan and Smith The following are excerpts from the partial transcript of that interview that I included in my book: Smith: .…Now, as to my credibility, thirty-seven years in the movie business, I’m not sure how much lower you can go than that; and [I] just got done with nearly twenty-five years at Paramount, where I basically ran their mastering for most of those years and spent the last few years investigating new digital production technology. Rutan: [I’ve] been doing this since 1968, I was delivering film in New York City; and then full time from ’74 I got hired to work for my Dad, and I worked for him for 12 years — started out as janitor, and then shipping, and then film cleaning, and then film repair, and then optical lineup, and then optical printing. So, ever since then I’ve worked for a couple of companies, set up a department at COMPAC video, and I had my own company for 14 years doing restoration. Whitehead: Do you see any signs of alteration? Rutan: Yes. Whitehead: Where do you see them? Rutan: Well [speaking while pointing at frame 313 on a large HD monitor], in the — this explosion right here doesn’t look, it’s, see [pointing] — it’s got defects on it — but it just doesn’t look real, it doesn’t look like blood, it just doesn’t look real…. Rutan: I think you’re looking at a patch, at a photographic patch that they put on the back of his [JFK’s] head. It’s crude, but if you run the film you’ll see that it moves — differently than his head does, as well. So, it’s an optical, some sort of an optical [effect] that they put on there, to not show the back of his head. Whitehead: In your opinion, what do you think would have been the most likely way this would have been accomplished? Rutan: With an optical printer, with an aerial optical printer…. Rutan: Well, the only thing I can see really is how predominant the black patch is in this particular frame [pointing]. I mean, it’s clear to me that that is not the back of his head, that that is some kind of a [sic] optical effect, that has been laid on the back of his head by an optical house. And this [pointing at the large pink “blob” on the right side of JFK’s head] is also an optical effect. But the back of his head is what always — what I’m always drawn to, because you — it’s almost like he’s wearing a toupee, because there’s the top of his head [pointing at JFK’s auburn hair on the very top of his head] and that’s basically the color it should be, and then it’s black, it’s just solid black. Smith: You know, the density doesn’t match — the shoulders don’t match that [meaning that the shadow on the back of JFK’s shoulders does not match the black patch on the back of his head] and [the black patch] doesn’t match the top of his head [pointing to JFK’s auburn colored hair on top]…. Smith: It just seems really obvious that the frames where they’ve matted out the back of the head, and added in the pink splash, the pink water-balloon — whatever it is that’s supposed to be the blood — it’s just not even believable … maybe fifty years ago that might have passed muster, but for anybody — I mean — my impression is if I showed it to a 12-year old kid, they would say it was a cartoon…." Edited February 19 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 8 hours ago, Roger Odisio said: RO: No, Sandy, I'm afraid you don't get what I'm saying. It's well known that many groups wanted to get rid of Kennedy. To name a few: the "intelligence services", the military, disgruntled Cubans, the Mafia, the banks, Wall Street, the oil companies. But killing Kennedy and making sure they got him was such an enormous and dangerous task, the main players who were serious eventually coalesced around one plan. Peter Dale Scott has told the story of going to a dinner party as a young man in the early 60s. People around the table were loudly criticizing Kennedy. Until one guy got up and said "The old man will take care of it." That ended the conversation. Scott thought he was saying Kennedy's father would straighten him out. Later he came to understand the guy was referring to Allen Dulles, known at the time as the old man at the CIA. Who was still running parts of the CIA after Kennedy fired him. Allen Dulles and the war machine wanted to run cold war foreign policy. Lyndon Johnson, with some exceptions, was largely indifferent to that but wanted to be president. They had different goals. But those goals were clearly complementary, not *opposing* ones. They and their cohorts worked together in the successful plot. . They were two centers of Washington power, and each was necessary for the plan's success. Each expected to get enough of what they wanted out of Kennedy's death to go ahead with the plan. Roger, I want to understand your theory. Please explain what specifically of the following is NOT the case, according to your theory: The CIA plotters designed and implemented a plan, centered around, Mexico City, whereby LHO was made to look like he was in cahoots with Cuba and the Soviet Union in a deal to assassinate Kennedy. The reason the CIA plotters did this was to create a pretext for invasion of Cuba and/or a war with the Soviet Union. The CIA plotters hoped the Johnson Administration would order an invasion of Cuba and/or a war with the Soviet Union. The CIA plotters made sure that LHO was working for the TSBD during 11/22/63 so that he could be blamed as the patsy. (That is to say, the American patsy who was in cahoots with Cuba and the Soviet Union.) The CIA plotters plan failed because the Johnson Administration rejected their international commie plot. Instead, they blamed the shooting solely on Oswald. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 (edited) Larry Rivera says 14 January 2019 at 12:19 pm https://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-episode-107-douglas-horne-on-the-zapruder-film-alteration-debate/?fbclid=IwAR35u0BwOj_E7KrNwURsgGoBuwHM236yxWMOkUs1wO-Q0RdIKHuhpmAgixI ST, unfortunately, my two-part “JFK Horsemen” videos mentioned by Douglas were scrubbed by Youtube last year after receiving thousands of views and likes. In the audiotapes provided to me by Tyler Newcomb, whose father Fred wrote “Murder From Within”, it was clearly established by the motorcycle escort, Hargis, Martin, Chaney, Jackson, and their supervisor Stavis Ellis, that the limo came to a complete stop, where a Secret Service agent snatched a piece of JFK’s skull from a kid standing on the South curb of Elm Street then tossed into the limo, five Secret Service agents dismounted and ran up to and surrounded JFK’s limo with guns drawn, AND Chaney described how Hargis parked his bike and “ran in between the two limos” on his way up the embankment. None of this is seen in any of the films that survive today. Moreover, one of the very first reports by Cronkite described “Secret Service Agents fanning out into the crowd, looking for the assassin” This is the reason why the motorcycle cops were hidden away and suppressed for years from researchers. To give you an example, Hargis and Martin were the only ones who testified before the Warren Commission for a grand total of 7 1/2 pages! The FBI did not interview any of the escorts until 1975, well after the fact, and it was only to establish shots from behind. These reports read like true theater of the absurd, where they are portrayed as looking over their shoulders toward the TSBD when in fact you see none of this in any of the films. "The vagaries of eyewitness testimony are well known, and it might be argued that these police witnesses (as well as the other witnesses who also reported the limousine deceleration) were simply mistaken about what they observed. This seems extremely unlikely, however, because all four of the Dallas police motorcyclists flanking the rear of JFK’s limousine also reported the limousine stopped or slowed." "...I will now point to some of the evidence that the limousine did indeed stop or slow down. I pass over similar reports made by civilian spectators and news media people, and limit myself to reports made by police officers in or near Dealey Plaza. Using binoculars, Harry D. Holmes, a federal postal inspector, watched the presidential limousine as it turned from Houston Street and then proceeded down Elm Street from his fifth floor office window in a building two blocks from Dealey Plaza. He testified to the Warren Commission that he heard what sounded like three firecrackers. He saw what he thought was dust coming out of JFK’s head. Then: “The car almost came to a stop." Earle V. Brown was a Dallas policeman standing on the overpass of the Stemmons Freeway, about 100 yards from Elm Street. Here is an excerpt from his Warren Commission testimony: MR. BROWN: “[T]he first I noticed the car was when it stopped.” MR. BALL (Warren Commission counsel): “Where?” MR. BROWN: After it made the turn [from Houston Street to Elm Street] and when the shots were fired, it stopped.” MR. BALL: “Did it come to a complete stop?” MR. BROWN: “That I couldn’t swear to.” MR. BALL: “It appeared to be slowed down some?” MR. BROWN: “Yes; slowed down.” MR. BALL: “Did you hear the shots?” MR. BROWN: “Yes, sir.” J.W. Foster was a Dallas policeman stationed on the railroad overpass at the corner of Elm, Main and Commerce Streets. In a statement to the FBI made on Mar. 26, 1964, he said: “Immediately after President Kennedy was struck with a second bullet, the car in which he was riding pulled to the curb ...” D.V. Harkness was a Dallas policeman standing in Dealey Plaza south of Elm Street. Here is part of his Warren Commission testimony: MR. BELIN (Warren Commission counsel): “What did you do [when you heard the gunshots]?” MR. HARKNESS: “When I saw the first shot and the President’s car slow down to almost a stop—“ MR. BELIN: “When you saw the first shot. What do you mean by that?” MR. HARKNESS: “When I heard the first shot and saw the President’s car almost come to a stop and some of the agents piling off the car, I went back to the intersection to get my motorcycle.” The vagaries of eyewitness testimony are well known, and it might be argued that these police witnesses (as well as the other witnesses who also reported the limousine deceleration) were simply mistaken about what they observed. This seems extremely unlikely, however, because all four of the Dallas police motorcyclists flanking the rear of JFK’s limousine also reported the limousine stopped or slowed. Officer Bobby Hargis was the inside rider at the left rear of the limousine. In his testimony to the Warren Commission he said: “[W]hen President Kennedy straightened back up in the car the bullet hit him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood and brain, and kind of bloody water. It wasn’t really blood. And at that time the Presidential car slowed down... I felt blood hit me in the face, and the Presidential car stopped immediately after that and stayed stopped for about half a second, then took off at a high rate of speed.” According to an undated, unpublished transcript of an interview he had with the Dallas Times-Herald, Hargis told the newspaper: “I felt blood hit me in the face, and the presidential car stopped immediately after that and stayed stopped about half a second, then took off at a high rate of speed.” (In a video of a 1995 interview, now on YouTube, you can watch Hargis tell the interviewer: “That guy [the Secret Service agent driving JFK’s limousine] slowed down... [He] slowed down almost to a stop.” Hargis died in 2014. Officer B.J. Martin was the outside rider at the left rear of the limousine. He told the Warren Commission: “It [the motorcade] slowed down just before we made the turn on Elm Street [from Houston Street].” Officer Martin was later interviewed by researchers Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams and told them, as reported in their unpublished 1974 manuscript Murder from Within, that he observed the limousine stop for “just a moment.” Officer James M. Chaney was the inside rider at the right rear of the limousine. He did not testify before the Warren Commission, but two days after the assassination he was quoted in the Houston Chronicle as stating that the limousine stopped immediately after the first shot. Furthermore, Dallas police officer Marrion L. Baker, a Dallas police motorcyclist who was on Houston Street when the first shot was fired, testified to the Warren Commission that shortly after the assassination he had talked with officer Chaney and that Chaney told him that “from the time the shot rang out, the [limousine] stopped completely, pulled to the left, and stopped.” Officer Baker added: “Several officers said it stopped completely.” When then asked whether he had heard from other Dallas police officers that the limousine had stopped, he testified: “Yes, sir; that it had completely stopped, and then for a moment there, and then they rushed on out to Parkland [Hospital].” Officer Douglas Jackson was the outside rider at the right rear of the limousine. He did not testify before the Warren Commission, but he did tell researchers Newcomb and Adams that “the [limousine] just all but stopped... just a moment.”..." "Grassy Knoll Shots? Limousine Slowdown?" By Donald E. Wilkes, Jr. https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1284&context=fac_pm Donald E. Wilkes, Jr. is a Professor of Law Emeritus at thev University of Georgia School of Law, where he taught for 40 years.vHe has published nearly 50 articles in Flagpole magazine on the JFKvassassination. Four of the Dealey Plaza witnesses closest to the presidential limo at the time of the headshot -- Bill Newman, Charles Brehm, Mary Moorman and Jean Hill -- in their earliest descriptions of the assassination, also attested that the limo came to a complete stop (or SIGNIFICANTLY slowed): --------------------------------------------------------------- FROM 'AN INTERVIEW WITH ASSASSINATION EYE WITNESS BILL NEWMAN', THE DEALEY PLAZA ECHO, VOLUME 2, MARCH 1992: " and the car momentarily stopped" And then I can remember that when we were on the ground - I'd like to bring this up if I may - looking back over my shoulder I can remember, I believe it was the passenger in the front seat - there were two men in the front seat - had a telephone or something to his ear and the car momentarily stopped. Now everywhere that you read about it, you don't read anything about the car stopping. And when I say "stopped" I mean very momentarily, like they hit the brakes and just a few seconds passed and then they floorboarded and accelerated on." LAW: "But you don't really see that in the Zapruder film." NEWMAN: "No, you don't. But anyway, that's the impression I'm left with." LAW: "Several people said that the car stopped." NEWMAN: "Yes, and then they shot on. You know, through the overpass, the railroad overpass, and that's the last we saw of them." http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/N%20Disk/Newman%20William%20&%20Gayle/Item%2001.pdf ---------------------------------------------------------- FROM THE 11/25/1963 FBI REPORT OF INTERVIEW OF CHARLES F. BREHM: "...BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only Seemed to move some 10 or 12 feet . It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain . After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight...." https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1425.pdf ---------------------------------------------------------- FROM THE 11/22/1963 FBI REPORT OF INTERVIEW OF MARY MOORMAN: "...[Mary Moorman] recalls that the President's automobile was moving at the time she took the second picture, and when she heard the shots, and has the impression that the car either stopped momentarily or hesitated and then drove off in a hurry..." https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1426.pdf ---------------------------------------------------- FROM THE 11/22/1963 DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT REPORT OF INTERVIEW OF JEAN HILL: "Mary Moorman started to take a picture. We were looking at the president and Jackie in the back seat... Just as the president looked up two shots rang out and I saw the president grab his chest and fell forward across Jackie's lap... There was an instant pause between two shots and the motorcade seemingly halted for an instant. Three or four more shots rang out and the motorcade sped away." https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340264/m1/1/ --------------------------------------------------- Chapter Ten of 'HONEST ANSWERS ABOUT THE MURDER OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY' by Vince Palamara (Courtesy of Vince Palamara) "Master List of Witnesses Who Stated That the Limousine Slowed or Stopped – A Deadly Delay on Elm Street" The following is a complete listing, the largest one ever compiled, of every single witness I could find – over 70 in all – who stated that the limousine either slowed down or stopped. This deadly delay on Elm Street was Secret Service agent Bill Greer’s fault, pure and simple; he was the limousine driver. As even lone-nut authors agree, Greer’s inept driving of the limo during the shooting allowed the assassination to be a tragic success.... LINK TO PDF OF CHAPTER TEN: https://1drv.ms/b/s!AnVVyr2Qcdy-gccV7bF_4Je5GuEYaA?e=E6b8Ay LINK TO POST OF CHAPTER TEN: https://www.facebook.com/groups/political assassinations researchhgroup/posts/5063457320376963/ Joseph McBride says 15 January 2019 at 2:40 am https://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-episode-107-douglas-horne-on-the-zapruder-film-alteration-debate/?fbclid=IwAR35u0BwOj_E7KrNwURsgGoBuwHM236yxWMOkUs1wO-Q0RdIKHuhpmAgixI One of the witnesses to the president’s limousine “stopping” was Senator Ralph Yarborough (D-Texas), who was riding in the back seat of the open convertible behind the Queen Mary with LBJ and Lady Bird Johnson. Yarborough told me in 1988, “The first shot I heard I thought was a rifle shot. The second shot, the motorcade almost came to a halt. They said later that the president’s car slowed to something like five miles an hour. I wondered what the hell they were stopping for when somebody is shooting. People were jumping out of the car in front of me [the Secret Service foll0wup car] and running to the president’s car. I thought maybe somebody had thrown a bomb in there. The third shot I heard was a rifle shot.” So Yarborough also saw more than one Secret Service agent jump out of the Queen Mary and run to the president’s car; on the Zapruder film we see only Clint Hill do that. This interview is quoted in my 2013 book INTO THE NIGHTMARE: MY SEARCH FOR THE KILLERS OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY AND OFFICER J. D. TIPPIT. — Joseph McBride "A couple of fellows [from the Warren Commission] came to see me. They walked in like they were a couple of deputy sheriffs and I was a bank robber. I didn't like their attitude. As a senator I felt insulted. They went off and wrote up something and brought it back for me to sign. But I refused. I threw it in a drawer and let it lay there for weeks. And they had on there the last sentence which stated: 'This is all I know about the assassination.' They wanted me to sign this thing, then say this is all I know. Of course, I would never have signed it. Finally, after some weeks, they began to bug me. 'You're holding this up, you're holding this up' they said, demanding that I sign the report. So I typed one up myself and put basically what I told you about how the cars all stopped. I put in there, 'I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but for the protection of future presidents, they should be trained to take off when a shot is fired.' I sent that over. That's dated July 10, 1964, after the assassination. To my surprise, when the volumes were finally printed and came out, I was surprised at how many people down at the White House didn't file their affidavits until after the date, after mine the 10th of July, waiting to see what I was going to say before they filed theirs. I began to lose confidence then in their investigation and that's further eroded with time." - Texas Sen. Ralph Yarborough https://senatoryarborough.tripod.com/ Edited February 20 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denise Hazelwood Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 17 hours ago, Chris Bristow said: Denise, I checked the link I provided and it has both interviews. The second interview has her pointing to the Willis 5 photo as she says that is the photo her dad said had the trains removed. It starts at 25:16. Thank you, Chris. I get a "playback error," but Willis #5 makes sense as the original having shown "a train." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 It sounds like the limo did stop and that motorcycle cops were running around. Something that could not be removed by Hawkeye Works over the weekend. So, perhaps what happened was that Hawkeye Works only blackened the wound on the back of the head and painted in a new wound on the right-top of the head. It was decided that the limo-stop remaining in the film was too incriminating against the Secret Service, and so the film was withheld. Since the film was withheld, there was plenty of time to do further work on the film. It was decided to remove the limo stop. Which they did. Is there a problem with this hypothesis? For example, were copies made of the weekend Hawkeye Works' film and distributed? If so, this would complicate my hypothesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 (edited) 43 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: It sounds like the limo did stop and that motorcycle cops were running around. Something that could not be removed by Hawkeye Works over the weekend. So, perhaps what happened was that Hawkeye Works only blackened the wound on the back of the head and painted in a new wound on the right-top of the head. It was decided that the limo-stop remaining in the film was too incriminating against the Secret Service, and so the film was withheld. Since the film was withheld, there was plenty of time to do further work on the film. It was decided to remove the limo stop. Which they did. Is there a problem with this hypothesis? For example, were copies made of the weekend Hawkeye Works' film and distributed? If so, this would complicate my hypothesis. Dr. David Mantik and Doug Horne agree with you. 'The "Car Stop" Missing From the Extant Zapruder Film' By Douglas Horne | INSIDETHEARRB | November 20th, 2023, 10:54 | https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/21299.html Dr. David Mantik and I collaborated on a recent lecture on November 16, 2023, at the "JFK at 60" academic conference at Duquesne University's Cyril Wecht Institute of Forensic Science and Law, in Pittsburgh. The title of Dr. Mantik's lecture was "A CLOSER LOOK AT THE ZAPRUDER FILM: THE CASE FOR ALTERATION." Dr. David Mantik presented at the podium, and we displayed crucial interviews with three professional film experts in support of the conclusion that the film has been altered, primarily to: (1) obscure and cover up the large occipital-parietal exit wound in the right rear of JFK's head; (2) optically excise much of the exit debris flying through the air that would have blatantly revealed multiple head shots from different directions; and (3) remove the brief and sudden stop of JFK's limousine, lasting between .5 and 1.5 seconds---which we are absolutely convinced has been optically excised from the film. All of the Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses closest to the limousine with the best ability to judge whether it truly stopped or not agreed that it HAD BRIEFLY STOPPED: Bill Newman (in numerous personal interviews over the years), Jean Hill and Hugh Betzner (in Sheriff's Affidavits executed on 11/22/63), and the four motorcycle policemen directly escorting the vehicle (in an unpublished but typewritten draft newspaper article by a local Dallas reporter, recounting an interview Bobby W. Hargis gave the weekend of the assassination; and in numerous telephone interviews with the motorcycle escorts, recorded on audio circa 1971---well documented by researcher Larry Rivera). To emphasize the "reality" of the car stop issue, Dr. Mantik and I played the CAR STOP AUDIO of both Walter Cronkite of CBS, and Bob Clark of ABC, telling American television viewers on the day of the assassination, that the limousine had suddenly stopped during the shooting. Cronkite said the limousine "stopped momentarily," and Bob Clark (who was actually in the motorcade, in an open camera car a short distance behind JFK's limousine), said about the limousine: "this car came to an immediate stop." On the following day at this conference, November 17, 2023, Robert Groden presented (by Zoom) on the reasons he still believes the Zapruder film is an authentic, unaltered film. Most of his comments were the usual ones he began espousing in 2018 in Dallas and in a researcher PODCAST that year on Midnight Writer News. Most of his objections to the alteration hypothesis have been more than adequately addressed by Dr. Mantik and me. The one comment he made on November 17th at the Duquesne conference that merits a direct response is when he said: "IF THE LIMOUSINE STOPPED ON ELM STREET, WHERE IS THE JUMP CUT ONE WOULD EXPECT TO SEE IN THE FILM?" IT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS BLOG POSTING TO RESPOND TO THIS QUESTION, AND TO EXPLAIN HOW A VERY BRIEF CAR STOP COULD HAVE BEEN REMOVED, WITHOUT CREATING A 'JUMP CUT' IN THE FILM. I provided the answer to this concern of Robert Groden's in the year 2009, in volume IV of my 5-volume memoir, Inside the ARRB, in chapter 14, on page 1335. Because my Zapruder film chapter was 192 pages long---almost book length---this entry near the end of the chapter may have been missed by some people...or even intentionally ignored, because it was "inconvenient." So let me restate the hypothesis here, and then I will share with you two strongly supporting opinions, that both lend serious weight to my explanation for why optically removing the "car stop" would NOT have created a jump cut in the film as we know it today. IN SHORT: I believe that Zapruder shot the entire sequence involving the limousine at 48 frames per second (using the "slow motion" operating switch on his camera), instead of at the normal "run" speed, which was supposed to have been set at 16 frames per second at the factory. He had plenty of film to do this! The entire extant Zapruder film as we know it today is only about 6 feet, 3 inches long. The "B" side of his double-8 movie film provided him with 25 feet of film with which to record the motorcade sequence, so there was plenty of film available to do this if he had wished. Shooting the motorcade sequence at three times the normal frame rate (48 fps instead of 16 fps) would have allowed those altering the film at the Kodak "Haweyeworks" research and development laboratory in Rochester, N.Y. plenty of latitude to remove a very brief car stop without a jump cut. The altered film was created in an aerial optical printer, which was probably an Oxberry brand optical printer with an animation stand installed in the middle of it. As the process camera rephotographed the original film, frame by frame, to create a new film "masquerading as the camera original," step printing would have removed approximately two thirds of the "slow motion" frames (which were shot very fast, at 48 fps), to create a new (altered) film which would play back at something approximating "normal" speed (16 fps) on a standard projector. So, there would have been plenty of film available to eliminate the abrupt but very brief car stop during the editing process at Hawkeyeworks on Sunday, November 24, 1963. Plenty of film to eliminate any possibility of a "jump cut" in the new film masquerading as a camera original. The result of this handiwork at Hawkeyeworks? The car noticeably slows, but does not stop, in the Zapruder film we have been watching since 1975. Working with three times the normal number of frames permitted the editors at Kodak headquarters to avoid a "jump cut!" Two film experts have provided corroborating evidence for this, as explained below: (1) First, in the 18 minute-long preview for the forthcoming Sydney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead film ALTERATION, shown at two JFK conferences in Dallas in 2018, a noted film restoration expert, Ned Price, made an important observation which supports my contention that the motorcade sequence involving the limousine (but not the sequence showing only motorcycle cops prior to the appearance of the limousine) was filmed at a frame rate designed to create "slow motion" during playback on a projector, i.e., when the 48 frames per second of exposed film was played back at the projector's standard speed of only 16 fps, which matches the normal "run" speed. First, understand that Ned Price was the Head of Film Restoration at Warner Bros. studios for many years, a man who had 27 years of experience in film preservation and restoration at the time he was interviewed. He knows film as only a Hollywood professional can. He stated in the preview for ALTERATION that when comparing the first 132 frames of the extant Zapruder film (nothing but the motorcycle advance escort), with all of the frames containing the limousine (which appear beginning at frame 133), THERE IS A MARKED DENSITY CHANGE between those two segments. As he put it, the shadows on the backs of all the Elm Street spectators were much darker, and more "contrasty," in the frames after 132, when the limousine suddenly appears (in a massive jump cut). Ned Price said that this kind of change does NOT occur naturally inside a camera, and is likely a strong indicator that all of the limousine frames in the Zapruder film are of a subsequent generation. This is 100% consistent with my hypothesis that Zapruder actually shot his limousine sequence at 48 fps, and that approximately two thirds of those frames were subsequently optically removed (in an aerial optical printer) during the editing process, creating a new film (A SUBSEQUENT GENERATION) in the process---a subsequent generation that shows more contrast, or greater density. (2) Second, during the "JFK at 60" conference at Duquesne, there was a cinematographer who was filming conference events. One of those assisting her was her former film professor at college, in film school. He told me that she had been "his brightest student," which is why he was helping her to film interviews of conference speakers and participants. This film professor told me that he was amazed, even troubled, by the fact that so many of the frames in the extant Zapruder film were so sharp, and so clear---he didn't understand why they weren't as blurry as most film he had seen shot in 8 mm home movies with the relatively slow frame rate of 16 fps. When I explained to him that I believed the film was actually shot with the "slow motion" switch activated, at 48 fps, he had an "epiphany" before my very eyes! He slapped his forehead, and said, "Of course, that is why the frames in the Zapruder film, even of a moving car, were so preternaturally sharp, instead of being softer and more blurred," as he would have expected. This was what attorneys would call an "excited oral utterance," of great import in eyewitness testimony. This "epiphany" he had before my eyes, where "the light bulb came on on," was highly significant to me, because the appearance of the Zapruder film today supports my contention that it was actually filmed at three times the normal frame rate, creating MUCH SHARPER INDIVIDUAL FRAMES than would have been created at the 16 fps frame rate (the normal run speed). Those 48 frames filmed each second would have been much sharper than the normal 16 frames filmed per second at the normal "run" speed, because they would all have had a much shorter exposure time. Less exposure time equals less blur, and yields a sharper image. [At 16 fps, the shutter speed in Zapruder's camera would have been 1/32 of a second, and at 48 fps, the shutter speed would have been 1/92 of a second, yielding a much sharper image, particularly in the background objects filmed by a camera panning from left to right.] The film professor indicated an intent to purchase a Bell and Howell 414 PD camera, examine its shutter mechanism, and conduct film tests, in the future. During our discussion he looked up the Zapruder camera (the Bell and Howell 414 PD) online, using his cell phone, and saw a great photo of the operating switch and its four choices: "animation, stop, run, and slow motion." I explained that the only thing Zapruder would have had to do when filming the limousine sequence was to increase the downward pressure of his index finger, moving the switch from "run" to "slow motion." The camera's light meter would have adjusted the exposure (the f-stop) automatically, to match the higher frame rate. SO THAT"S IT, MY FRIENDS. NOW YOU KNOW WHY THERE IS NOT A JUMP CUT IN THE EXTANT ZAPRUDER FILM, EVEN THOUGH A BRIEF CAR STOP WAS REMOVED. The editors at Hawkeyeworks had three times the normal number of frames to work with, and could optically erase a brief car stop through step printing in the optical printer, and make it look like the car just slowed down slightly, instead. We therefore should have faith in what Walter Cronkite and Bob Clark told us on national TV the day of the assassination, and have faith in the 60-plus eyewitnesses who remember the limousine stopping during the assassination of JFK. A closing thought: a close friend of mine, who has studied the case for years (and who teaches 3 courses on the assassination to retired adults), has always been fascinated by the fact that two noteworthy persons who saw the unaltered Zapruder film the weekend of the assassination---Dan Rather of CBS, and Cartha DeLoach of the FBI---both emphatically stated that JFK's head went violently FORWARD in the Zapruder film that they watched. Of course, we certainly don't see this in the film today. My friend has suggested that if the driver "stood on the brakes," resulting in a rapid deceleration and brief car stop, this alone could have caused JFK's head (and upper body) to go "violently forward" (as Dan Rather put it), simply because the car stopped, but his body didn't! Thus, their observations do not mean that either Dan Rather or Cartha DeLoach were lying (why would they?), but rather, that when the car stop---evidence of either Secret Service incompetence or malfeasance at the time of the head shots---was removed from the film, it was in connection with removing all evidence that the driver's actions had been improper and contributed to JFK's death. The forward motion of JFK's head when the car suddenly braked, at a time when his body was probably limp and without any neuromuscular control, had to be optically excised because it was evidence that the driver hit the brakes during the shooting. It certainly makes sense to me. END __________ "...WHY DO SO MANY IN THE JFK RESEARCH COMMUNITY RESIST THE MOUNTING EVIDENCE THAT THE ZAPRUDER FILM IS AN ALTERED FILM? I do not include here, in this question, those who have written books defending the Zapruder film’s authenticity; their obstinacy and closed-mindedness is related to ego, reputation, and to lifelong defense of their established turf. The old orthodoxy always resents the new paradigm that threatens established ways of thinking.[38] There is a bigger problem within the JFK research community, and it revolves around the following question commonly posed by perplexed members of the “old guard,” first-generation JFK researchers, to whom the concept of an altered Zapruder film seems dangerous heresy. They usually ask, “Why would anyone alter the film, and yet still leave evidence of conspiracy in the film?” (By this they usually mean the “timing problem” in the extant film which makes the single bullet theory impossible; and the “head snap” of JFK’s upper torso and head to the left-rear after frame 313—which they equate with a shot, or shots, from the right front, and not from the Texas School Book Depository.) The answers to this valid question are clear to me: (1) those altering the Zapruder film at “Hawkeyeworks” on Sunday, November 24, 1963 were extremely pressed for time, and could only do “so much” in the twelve-to-fourteen hour period available to them; (2) the technology available with which to alter films in 1963 (both the traveling matte, and aerial imaging) had limitations—there was no digital CGI technology at that time—and therefore, I believe the forgers were limited to basic capabilities like blacking out the exit wound in the right-rear of JFK’s head; painting a false exit wound on JFK’s head on the top and right side of his skull (both of these seem to have been accomplished through “aerial imaging”—that is, animation cells overlaid “in space” on top of the projected images of the frames being altered, using a customized optical printer with an animation stand, and a process camera to re-photograph each self-matting, altered frame); and removing exit debris frames, and even the car stop, through step-printing. In my view, the alterations that were performed were aimed at quickly removing the most egregious evidence of shots from the front (namely, the exit debris leaving the skull toward the left rear, and the gaping exit wound which the Parkland Hospital treatment staff tells us was present in the right-rear of JFK’s head). I believe that in their minds, the alterationists of 1963 were racing against the clock—they did not know what kind of investigation, either nationally or in Texas, would transpire, and they were trying to sanitize the film record as quickly as possible before some investigative body demanded to “see the film evidence.” There was not yet a Warren Commission the weekend following the assassination, and those who planned and executed the lethal crossfire in Dealey Plaza were intent upon removing as much of the evidence of it as possible, as quickly as possible. As I see it, they did not have time for perfection, or the technical ability to ensure perfection, in their “sanitization” of the Zapruder film. They did an imperfect job, the best they could in about 12-14 hours, which was all the time they had on Sunday, November 24, 1963, at “Hawkeyeworks.” Besides, there was no technology available in 1963 that could convincingly remove the “head-snap” from the Zapruder film; you could not animate JFK’s entire body without it being readily detectable as a forgery, so the “head-snap” stayed in the film. (The “head snap” may even be an inadvertent result—an artifact of apparently rapid motion—caused by the optical removal of several “exit debris” frames from the film. When projected at normal speed at playback, any scene in a motion picture will appear to speed up if frames have been removed. Those altering the film may have believed it was imperative to remove the exit debris travelling through the air to the rear of President Kennedy, even if that did induce apparent “motion” in his body which made it appear as though he might have been shot from the front. The forgers may have had no choice, in this instance, but to live with the lesser of two evils. Large amounts of exit debris traveling toward the rear would have been unmistakable proof within the film of a fatal shot from the front; whereas a “head snap” is something whose causes could be debated endlessly, without any final resolution.) Those who altered the Zapruder film knew that the wound alteration images in frames 317, 321, 323, 335, and 337, for example, were “good enough” to show investigators the film on a flimsy movie screen coated with diamond dust, but they also knew the alterations were not good enough to withstand close scrutiny. That is why I believe C.D. Jackson—the CIA’s asset at LIFE and its best friend in the national print media—instructed Richard Stolley to again approach Abraham Zapruder on Sunday night, and to offer a much higher sale price for Zapruder’s movie, in exchange for LIFE’s total ownership of the film, and all rights to the film. By Sunday night, the name of the game at LIFE was suppression, not profit-making. By Sunday night, November 24th, C. D. Jackson was wearing his CIA hat, not his Time, Inc. businessman’s hat. After striking the new deal with Time, Inc. on Monday, Zapruder received an immediate $25,000.00, and the remainder of his payments ($25,000.00 per year, each January, through January of 1968), were effectively structured as “hush money” payments. His incentive to keep his mouth shut about the film’s alteration would clearly be his desire to keep getting paid $25,000.00 each January, for the next five years...." http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/ _________ A NON-TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATION OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM HEADSHOT IMAGERY: My interpretation of what is going on (in the headshot sequence of the Zapruder film) with Greer's faster than humanly possible head turns and the simultaneous involuntary movements of all of the occupants of the presidential limousine -- EXCEPT FOR JFK AND JBK -- is that we are seeing two moments in time spliced together. Greer's faster than humanly possible head turns are the result of the removal of frames from the sequence, and the simultaneous involuntary movement of the Connally's and SS agents is what remains from a camera-original Zapruder film in which imagery of the presidential limo coming to a screeching halt was depicted -- but which has been removed from the extant Zapruder film in the National Archives today. This is the sequence of events that I believe the Zapruder film alterationists at Hawkeyeworks removed from the Zapruder film during the weekend of the assassination: When William Greer first heard gunfire as he commenced the journey through Dealey Plaza, he immediately stepped on the brakes and stopped the presidential limousine in the predetermined "kill zone" (thus accounting for the involuntary movements of all the limo occupants except for the Kennedy's). Greer looked behind to assess President Kennedy's condition to make sure JFK had sustained fatal bullet wounds. The limo was at a full stop for 2-3 seconds during which several additional gunshots were heard by many Dealey Plaza witnesses (including Jean Hill: See below), and it was while the limo was at a full stop that the fatal head shot impacted President Kennedy at his right temple. Once Greer had seen the fatal head shot take place, he stepped on the gas and sped away from the scene. Thus, the reason it appears that JFK and JBK are not reacting to the same gravitational forces of the car coming to a stop as all four of the other occupants of the limo is that the imagery of the Kennedy's at the time of the head explosion is from a later point in time when the car was at a full stop; and said imagery has been combined with earlier Zapruder film footage taken while the limo was in the process of coming to a hasty stop (See first comment below for an idea of how it might have been accomplished). This scenario is exactly what witness Jean Hill described to a Dallas County Sheriff's deputy on 11/22/1963, shortly after the assassination (See below). If you review Vince Palamara's list of 74 witnesses to a limo stop (or in some cases, SIGNIFICANT slowing At this link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/politicalassassinationsresearchgroup/posts/5063457320376963/ you will see that Jean Hill is by no means the only witness who described the sequence of events set forth above: ------------------------------------------------------- From the 11/22/1963 Dallas County Sheriff's Department report of interview of Jean Hill: "Mary Moorman started to take a picture. We were looking at the president and Jackie in the back seat... Just as the president looked up two shots rang out and I saw the president grab his chest and fell forward across Jackie's lap... There was an instant pause between two shots and the motorcade seemingly halted for an instant. Three or four more shots rang out and the motorcade sped away." Edited February 20 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said: Dr. David Mantik and Doug Horne agree with you. Actually, they agree with what I thought earlier... that Hawkeye Works painted the black patch on the back of the head and the red blob on the top-side of the head, and removed a quick, short limo stop via the removal of frames. My latest hypothesis attempts to explain a longer stop that has motorcycle cops running around the cars. I said that this would have been too complicated to remove the weekend after the assassination at Hawkeye Works. And so this longer stop must have been removed later, after the film had been given to Life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bristow Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: It sounds like the limo did stop and that motorcycle cops were running around. Something that could not be removed by Hawkeye Works over the weekend. So, perhaps what happened was that Hawkeye Works only blackened the wound on the back of the head and painted in a new wound on the right-top of the head. It was decided that the limo-stop remaining in the film was too incriminating against the Secret Service, and so the film was withheld. Since the film was withheld, there was plenty of time to do further work on the film. It was decided to remove the limo stop. Which they did. Is there a problem with this hypothesis? For example, were copies made of the weekend Hawkeye Works' film and distributed? If so, this would complicate my hypothesis. The only complication I see is the switching out of Zapruder's copy. I think the story is that Life mag traded a 1st generation copy for his original on that weekend. If the limo stop was taken out the night of the assassination then Zapruder was given that altered copy. If they took out the Limo stop much later, they would have had to covertly switch out Zapruder's first generation copy given to him on that weekend. Breaking into his home is definitely something the C.I.A would be capable of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now