Zapruder, Four questions..

[Guest John Woods]

One other thought comes to mind, How do you control all the other Film/photographs taken in D/P that day. It would be physically impossible to confiscate all of them, so how could you possibly know that a day, week, month or year one, or more of them is not going to surface, and blow the faked Z Film out of the water. If you cant exercise total control of the wider environment, you cant be sure of the outcome.

Steve...COMPLETE CONTROL WAS EXERCISED by the govt. All KNOWN films

and photos WERE in their hands for extended periods. They had plenty

of time to attempt making all of them show what was wanted. If you know

of ANY evidence film not in the govt's hands, please let us know.

But there were a few WILD CARDS. Beverly Oliver's film was confiscated

and never resurfaced. Gordon Arnold took a film that was confiscated.

Despite claims of the ignorant, the FBI DID CONDUCT A DRAGNET to

obtain films from individuals as well as ALL processing facilities. I myself

received several of these (see below) but unfortunately did not save them.

Other photographers are seen to be present whose photos never surfaced.

Nix claimed his film was NOT THE SAME when returned to him.

Zapruder's testimony indicates he was not sure that frames shown to him

were from his film. He insisted he filmed the limo turning the corner.

Dan Rather describes having seen a different film than the extant Zfilm.

Altgens indicated that at least two photos attributed to him were not his.

And on and on.

Jack

Hi Jack,

How about the interview of Kodak supervisor John Harrision who talks

about two images taken in Dealey Plaza? One of the TSBD and the other

of the grassy knoll . Oliver's testimony before the AARB she refer's to

a document stating that they (the FBI) had her film but in reality, she is

refering to a letter from the FBI to me regarding my inquiry.

John

Steve...COMPLETE CONTROL WAS EXERCISED by the govt. All KNOWN films

and photos WERE in their hands for extended periods. They had plenty

of time to attempt making all of them show what was wanted. If you know

of ANY evidence film not in the govt's hands, please let us know.

Wasn't the Muchmore film shown on TV before the gov't got its hands on it? It makes sense that the gov't would want to get a hold of all evidence from DP no matter what your think happened that day.

But there were a few WILD CARDS. Beverly Oliver's film was confiscated

and never resurfaced. Gordon Arnold took a film that was confiscated.

I've heard this before what evidence is there that it's so?

Despite claims of the ignorant, the FBI DID CONDUCT A DRAGNET to

obtain films from individuals as well as ALL processing facilities. I myself

received several of these (see below) but unfortunately did not save them.

I'm still waiting for evidence a dragnet. I already mentioned those notices in a previous post. They hardly constitute a dragnet, they in no way compelled people to turn over there photos and films. Just one photo or film could have blown the whole ruse. And what about people from out of town, they wouldn't have gotten these notices. Are you sure they went to every developing joint in and near Dallas?

Other photographers are seen to be present whose photos never surfaced.

But no one said anything? Please show us images of these photographers. Isn't it just possible that their photos showed nothing of interest. Even if it's true how does this back your theory that the Zapruder and Nix films were altered?

Nix claimed his film was NOT THE SAME when returned to him.

Can you back this claim? What did believe had been done to his film?

Zapruder's testimony indicates he was not sure that frames shown to him

were from his film. He insisted he filmed the limo turning the corner.

Jack according to your theory Zapruder was part of the conspiracy. Why would he say this if he was? Please provide a citation. I though he testified at the Shaw trial that the film was the one he shot.

Dan Rather describes having seen a different film than the extant Zfilm.

As Pat explained he could have made a mistake, if Zapruder were part of the plot why would have allowed Rather and other journalists to see 'his' film? It would have made more sense for him to simply turn it over to the FBI or Secret Service. Instead he did the opposite he sought out the media.

Rather said he saw the LIMO TURN the corner. He saw the film several

times. Was he mistaken?

Rather could simply have been mistaken. Witnesses having false memories is well documented. Again why would Zapruder have let rather see the film if he was part of the conspiracy? It doesn't make any sense - show a movie to a journalist before altering it. Why would they have cut the limo turn if the film had already been seen by so many people?

There are at least two images attributed to Altgens which he disavowed.

Most notably the one showing Zapruder and Sitzman leaving the pedestal

I'd like to see a citation for this claim. Even if true it was probably a case of mistaken atribution. If the conspirators wanted to fake a photo why atribute it to a known photographer who wasn't in on the plot. There was another photo of 'Mr. Z' and Stizman near the pedestal. Any evidence that eithe rof those were faked?

Len,

I work on this alleged film since the 1970's and have concluded that two out-focus slides were

exposed, developed by the Kodak Company and than disappeared. I have made several efforts

to obtain the original slides via the inidivual who may have these slides.

john

The Nix film has been altered.

Jack, You got any evidence to back this assertion?

What about the Muchmore film was that altered too?

Unfortunately, in the White/Fetzer universe, everything that contradicts their claims is altered evidence.

Martin Shackelford

One other thought comes to mind, How do you control all the other Film/photographs taken in D/P that day. It would be physically impossible to confiscate all of them, so how could you possibly know that a day, week, month or year one, or more of them is not going to surface, and blow the faked Z Film out of the water. If you cant exercise total control of the wider environment, you cant be sure of the outcome.

Steve...COMPLETE CONTROL WAS EXERCISED by the govt. All KNOWN films

and photos WERE in their hands for extended periods. They had plenty

of time to attempt making all of them show what was wanted. If you know

of ANY evidence film not in the govt's hands, please let us know.

Jack

Jack, my point exactly, all KNOWN films and photo's, but how could the authorities be absolutely certain, as they had to be, that ALL Film/ photos were in their hands to ensure that they agreed with the faked Z film, the short answer? they couldn't, not without a veritable army of men to confiscate ALL camera's, if just one slips through, and shows scenes different to zapruder then the games up. At the very least they are taking a huge risk. Jack I know of no evidence of film not seen by the Gov, but that does not invalidate my point. BTW, what part do you believe Zapruder played in this if he didn't take the film, EG willing accomplice.

In fact, photos published the same day were not first in the hands of the government.

Also, the Muchmore film was included in a UPI newsreel before the government received a copy of the film. UPI also used the Nix film in a newsreel. Jack has to ignore many things to support his claims.

Martin Shackelford

One other thought comes to mind, How do you control all the other Film/photographs taken in D/P that day. It would be physically impossible to confiscate all of them, so how could you possibly know that a day, week, month or year one, or more of them is not going to surface, and blow the faked Z Film out of the water. If you cant exercise total control of the wider environment, you cant be sure of the outcome.

Point well taken, and understood, Stephen. However, prior the Geraldo show screening -- who cared about the contents of the Z-film? Nobody but the Warren Commssion saw the extant camera original Zapruder film run after Feb '64, if that late and IF what THEY saw was the alledged camera original in the first place!

Prints of prints of prints, ad nauseum are what researchers viewed/saw projected when they went to the archives for a "preview" of the film -- No side by side comparisons of ANYTHING (relating to OTHER DP films - not even in question at the time)

All the pissing and moaning by "preservers of Dealey Plaza Photographic history", he-he, if they wanted to deliver a "knock out" punch to the pro-alteration camp, they know whats required... they won't, because they can't. Any, ANY attempt on their part to clean up alledged Z-film/eye witness testimony - discrepancy would create a torrent of questions, most notably bringing the SBT theory (which ALSO drags in the Moorman5 photo and early SS/FBI re-enactments) into question and THAT will NEVER happen -- best they can do is stay below the radar screen (which means have others do your posting for you) and send in pissants, in a attempt to discredit those that question the *DP photographic record 'status quo' along with 6th floor museum endorsements...*

DH

This is simple nonsense, David. You suggest that the film wasn't viewed between 1963 and 1975 except by the Warren Commission, but that is completely false. It was viewed by many at Time-LIFE and shown to friends of Time-LIFE personnel very quickly. A good print was available for viewing at the National Archives by end of 1964, and many researchers viewed it there--frames slides were also available for viewing, as was the FBI frame album. The film was shown repeatedly at the Clay Shaw Trial in 1969. After that, bootleg copies were widely circulated. Mark Lane showed the film in his lectures. Robert Groden began showing the film at conferences in 1973. Copies were cheaply available to anyone who wanted to view one. Penn Jones and others sold a great many of them. Robert Groden sold sets of frame slides from 132-486.

Martin Shackelford

Richard Hotelett: The car never stopped did it!

Dan Rather: Thc car never stoppcd, it never paused.

Those who argue film alteration are always very selective in their citation of Rather. They insist that his account is precisely the content of the "real" Zapruder film--and at the same time they argue that the film is altered because it doesn't show the limousine stopping--ignoring this quote from the same description.

Martin Shackelford

Colby is not aware that Wiegman, who caught several clear frames

of the pedestal, SHOWS THE PEDESTAL WITH NOBODY ON TOP.

Apparently in the dragnet of films, the govt missed this.

In FULL SUNLIGHT, Wiegman should have shown SOMETHING

on top of the pedestal. Below, Wiegman is compared to Betzner.

Both are in b/w just seconds apart.

Jack

In the Wiegman frame below which shows NOBODY ON THE PEDESTAL,

I have moved the man in the hardhat from the curb to the pedestal

to show what a person in FULL SUNLIGHT would look like.

Jack

"A few seconds" is all it took, Jack, for Zapruder to step down off the pedestal. Is it your claim that Zapruder wasn't up there filming?

Martin Shackelford

Colby is not aware that Wiegman, who caught several clear frames

of the pedestal, SHOWS THE PEDESTAL WITH NOBODY ON TOP.

Apparently in the dragnet of films, the govt missed this.

In FULL SUNLIGHT, Wiegman should have shown SOMETHING

on top of the pedestal. Below, Wiegman is compared to Betzner.

Both are in b/w just seconds apart.

Jack

In the Wiegman frame below which shows NOBODY ON THE PEDESTAL,

I have moved the man in the hardhat from the curb to the pedestal

to show what a person in FULL SUNLIGHT would look like.

Jack

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

Jack:

As I remember the Pergola area, the Zapruder "pedestal" is farther to the right, and just out of that photo.

_____________________

Jack has the pedestal located correctly--he is just playing games with the time factor.

Martin Shackelford

This is probably a stupid question, but would it not have been simpler to claim that the film showed nothing but static?Or that a technician made a terrible mistake and wiped the whole thing, sure questions would have been asked, and blame apportioned, but in the long run the film would have been nothing but a faded memory. Seems like an awful lot of trouble and risk to go through to produce a film that still makes it look like JFK took a frountal shot..

I am definitely in the midst of a subject I have somewhat intentionally stayed away from (Zapruder Film controversy) but didn't the History Channel show a 'unedited' version of the Zapruder film a couple of years ago? Was it the MPI Video 'Image of an Assassination?'

FWIW - I think there is an incredible lack of awareness regarding CIA technology circa 1963. And it is ironic how the 'temperature goes up', when 'certain aspects of the assassination' get brought up. I still havent quite figured that out, except it appears to be related to 'rejection of very cherished perceptions.'

A complete copy (no missing frames) of the Z film can be found in Robert Groden's DVD "The Assassination Films."

Martin Shackelford

Colby wrote:

One thing that's odd is that Jack White claims that (at least one of) Mary Moorman's Polaroids were altered and then uses one of the Poloroids as evidence that the Z-film was altered!

Anyone who says this clearly does not comprehend the subject!

Mary Moorman took a GENUINE Polaroid while standing in the street,

not on the grass. This is provable by anyone.

That genuine Polaroid was altered by ADDING or CHANGING two persons

on the pedestal to represent Zapruder/Sitzman.

The proof of this is a COMPARISON of the Badgeman image and the

Zapruder image, BOTH FROM THE SAME POLAROID. (see attachment)

Badgeman, standing in the SHADE, is clear, crisp and sharp.

Zapruder, standing in FULL SUNLIGHT, is fuzzy and indistinct.

Focus is not involved, since both are at infinity from Mary's position.

It is logical to assume that the sharp Badgeman image, which is compatible with

the rest of the photo is GENUINE, and the fuzzy Zapruder image is added by

retouching.

Jack

Tink Thompson just wiped the floor with Jim Fetzer when Fetzer supported this claim on another forum.

All of the photographic evidence shows Mary Moorman was standing in the grass, not the street.

Martin Shackelford

Colby is not aware that Wiegman, who caught several clear frames

of the pedestal, SHOWS THE PEDESTAL WITH NOBODY ON TOP.

Apparently in the dragnet of films, the govt missed this.

In FULL SUNLIGHT, Wiegman should have shown SOMETHING

on top of the pedestal. Below, Wiegman is compared to Betzner.

Both are in b/w just seconds apart.

Jack

In Wiegman, Zapruder is just off the pedestal, a short distance to the right of it.

Martin Shackelford

Colby is not aware that Wiegman, who caught several clear frames

of the pedestal, SHOWS THE PEDESTAL WITH NOBODY ON TOP.

Apparently in the dragnet of films, the govt missed this.

In FULL SUNLIGHT, Wiegman should have shown SOMETHING

on top of the pedestal. Below, Wiegman is compared to Betzner.

Both are in b/w just seconds apart.

Jack

Jack,

It was always my impression that Zapruder climbed off the pedestal nearly immediately after completing his film. Wiegman, I thought, caught the pedestal later -- after A.Z. had climbed off.

I also reviewed the Nix film -- seems to show A.Z. filming exactly as expected.

Is your contention that Abraham Zapruder was *not* the one who shot the film?

Also -- I was under the impression that the Badgeman image was the byproduct of some *extensive* photographic enhancement. Have these techniques ever been applied to the Zapruder pedestal area?

Frank...your "impression" is wrong. During his very short run, Wiegman

captured both the empty pedestal and the limo not yet to the underpass

(see attachment). The empty pedestal frame and the underpass frame

are a split second apart. Zapruder filmed the limo entering the underpass,

so MUST be on the pedestal when Wiegman films while running.

On Badgeman...he can be seen on the ORIGINAL, which I have copied.

There was NO EXTENSIVE PHOTO ENHANCEMENT. All I did was copy the

image making an OPTIMUM EXPOSURE (bracketing).

The Nix film has been altered.

Nobody knows who shot the Z film...but it likely was NOT Abe.

Jack

As must be clear to anyone, the three frames were taken at slightly different times. Add to that the fact that Wiegman shows the limo beyond the point where it passed out of Zapruder's line of sight--Jack doesn't take into account the substantially different angle from which the film was taken. By the time Wiegman panned to the pedestal, Zapruder had just stepped down from it.

Martin Shackelford

Hi Martin,

It has been a long time since we have talk!

Some time ago, I supplied Tink with copies of a film strip along with some individual frames taken

from the Wiegman film footage which shows Moorman standing in the grass. These slides are from

a 35mm film print.

I trust that you are well.

John

P.S. Do you ever hear from Todd?

[Robin Unger]

QUOTE:

Wiegman was in Camera Car 1. Towner's photo on p. 218 of POTP shows Camera Cars 1 and 2 as they are passing the knoll, and it also shows that Zapruder and Sitzman have already left the pedestal. As Trask notes, it may be Zapruder whose shape is discerned already inside the shelter.

IOW at the time of the Wiegman frame showing the empty pedestal, it was indeed empty because Zapruder and Sitzman already had promptly gotten down from it. So yes, there is no one on the pedestal, but not because of any photo fakery.

Ron Ecker.

Ron, this is an email i received from Gary Mack re: Weigman timeline and the camera cars.

QUOTE:

Robin,

All three camera cars came to a stop at the Elm-Houston intersection and they didn't start up until 25-30 seconds after the last shot. That's why some eyewitnesses said the MOTORCADE stopped. Kennedy and the four cars behind him, however, kept on going. The evidence appears in the early frames of the Couch film, for his car just starts to move as the film begins.

Gary Mack.

Edited December 31, 2005 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

[Ron Ecker]

Robin and Gary,

Thanks for the info on the camera cars. I guess this means we have to put Zapruder and Sitzman back on a pedestal in Wiegman.

Ron

[Robin Unger]

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack has advised me that Martin is over here claiming that Josiah Thompson

"cleaned my clock" on another forum! That is complete nonsense. The fact

is it went the other way around, as anyone can verify for themselves simply

by going to jfk-research@yahoogroups.com and reviewing the post archive.

The easiest way is to review my last ten or twelve posts. That will give you

the general idea. Or, better yet, just study this one as a very nice example.

It takes some kind of gall to make claims like this one which completely re-

verse the actual course of the exchange, especially when the whole thing is

archived. There are only two possible interpretations: either Shackelford

has gone stark, raving mad or he is willing to commit egregious lies here!

To understand the post, Tink had repeatedly posted about the Moorman and

committed a colossal blunder. It was remarkable to me, since he claims to

be an expert on the Moorman and, in fact, it is virtually the only issue he is

willing to post on. Tink claimed that we had committed a mistake by taking

measurements over the grass. I had already explained that we used the

curb as the firm basis for establishing the line of sight, but he continued to

insist that we had taken measurements over the grass, citing specific data

he had obtained from David Mantik. This was such a massive mistake that

I wrote David about it and posted David's response along with my inquiry.

Of course, his response appears BEFORE my inquiry to him in what follows.

----- Forwarded message from jfetzer@d.umn.edu -----

Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:46:49 -0600

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Reply-To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Fwd: RE: You're not going to believe what I have to tell you . . .

To: jfk-research@yahoogroups.com

Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:15:27 -0800

From: David Mantik

Reply-To: David Mantik

Subject: RE: You're not going to believe what I have to tell you . . .

To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Jim,

Of course, your description of our experiment and of the significance of

our numbers is completely correct. To go further, I would have to dig

through my old files for the data. They are now in storage.

As I recall, however, my last detailed study of this issue (some years ago),

including margin of error analysis (partly based on simple experiments I did),

was still consistent with Mary in the street. This data and analysis was shared

with Tink.

To the best of my memory, we discussed this briefly, but I don't recall any

significant quantitative refutation from him re. this particular

data set. If he has something new, I have not seen it.

David Mantik

-----Original Message-----

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu [mailto:jfetzer@d.umn.edu]

Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 8:25 PM

To: David Mantik

Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: You're not going to believe what I have to tell you . . .

David,

This silly man (aka TT) has popped up on jfk-research@yahoogroups.com,

which is moderated by one Barbara Junk (who implies that you and she

are great friends, having stayed at your home or you at hers at some

point in the distant past). I was drawn onto the site by an abusive

remark from Shackelford in response to the suggestion by a reasonable

fellow, Greywolf, who suggested that, relative to ULTIMATE SACRIFICE,

it might be worth the members' time to listen to a critique that I'd

given on black op radio. So Martin said something like "Fetzer on a

book is like Bozo the Clown on foreign affairs"! (As Len Osanic, who

hosts blackopradio.com, said to me, "Jim denies he has ever worn those

big shoes!") Anyway, Junk piled on, saying something like, "She had

met me and I suckled paranoia!", which I thought was a bit much for

the moderator of a forum, who is supposed to be neutral and impartial.

Anyway, she said that Greywolf could not post on my behalf and if I

wanted to reply, then I had to join the forum. So I did. And what

you or I or anyone who knew anything at all would predict, who pops

up but the man himself! Incredible as it may seem, he resurrected

the Moorman all over again in relation to the question of Zapruder

film alteration. I explained that it was complex, convoluted, and

not easy to understand, but he insisted that it is actually a very

simple situation. So far as I can tell, he does not even understand

the difference between verification and falsification, and seems to

believe that, if this specific line of attack on the authenticity of

the film is unsuccessful, then the film has been proven to be authen-

tic! Unbelievable that this guy actually has Ph.D. in philosophy

from Yale, but that's the story. He has been recycying every argu-

ent he ever made, most recently claiming that your notes about our

measurements prove that we committed major blunders in our research!

He had suggested that we had made the mistake of measuring heights

relative to the grass, which is soft and mushy and therefore not a

suitable base of reference. I explained that we used the mid-point

of the curb (between the street and the grass), which for some odd

reason he did not understand until I drew a diagram, explaining it

would be "monumental stupidity" to have used the grass (meaning of

course as the basis for our experiment, since we needed a reference

point that was solid and relatively immobile, which the mid-point

on the curb supplied). So I thought I had settled this (again),

but today, in a mood of triumph, he posted copies of notes that

you had lent him, which included the following kinds of notation:

........on grass (distance...... elevation of

............from curb)...................LOS

..............3 ft...........................3'3"

..............2 ft...........................3'5"

..............1 ft...........................3'8"

............1 1/2 ft.....................3'6 3/4"

..........(not measured but interpolated)

What you are not going to believe is that he thinks this shows

we were measuring on the grass and therefore vindicates his

claim that we committed a blunder! Can you believe how stupid

that is? I mean, this is supposed to be his strongest attack

upon our work, and he doesn't even understand the difference

between (a) having a firm base on the curb as the foundation

for establishing the line of sight and ( using that line of

sign to determine its elevation above the grass if the photo

had been taken somewhere on the grass rather than somewhere

in the street! Of course, we would not have completed our

work if we hand done (a) but not (! He appears to have

forgotten that we are looking for evidence as to where Mary

must have been, when Mary was 5"2" tall (actually, 5'1 1/2"

in her bare feet). So if she was holding her camera up to

her eye level, or about 4" below the top of her head, the

line of sight should have been about 4" below 5'2", which

is 62", leaving the LOS at about 58", far too high to be

on the grass at any point, given your measurements on the

grass! Tink seems to have completely lost his marbles on

this one. I think there are signs of mental deterioration.

Unless Mary was a midger, she cannot have been on the LOS

we determined anywhere on the grass but has to have been

in the street. I have suggested that the members of this

forum actually read Jack's chapter, "Was Mary Standing in

the Street?", in HOAX, but so far as I can see, no one has

done that. They seem to think that Tink can lead them to

the promised land, but he has gone bonkers and thinks the

line of argument I have sketched here PROVES THAT WE WERE

WRONG! It's an interesting tag-team performance around

here, moreover, where Martin pipes off whenever he feels

like it and other shady characters are lurking just off

stage. Junk interevenes every now and them to support

Tink by implying that his questions and arguments are so

clear and obvious, whilel my explanations are convoluted

and complex! Really fascinating! Well, I just wanted to

let you know what's happening and ask you to write back

confirming everything I am saying here about your numbers

in relation to their significance within the context of

our experiment. I have the feeling that, when the men

in white coats finally come to take him away to a home

for the mentally bewildered, he will still be muttering

under his breath, "Moorman! Fetzer! Goddamn him!" but

no one will understand him and no one will even care.

Jim

P.S. Don't rush back with a reply. In the meanwhile,

Tink will be boasting about how he ran me off the

forum with a devastating argument! (Just for an

example of how bizarre this gets, one morning I

awakened to discover that, since my last post,

Martin had put up exactly thirty-two (32) replies!

----- Forwarded message from josiah@direcway.com -----

Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 01:27:25 -0000

From: gumshoe882000 <josiah@direcway.com>

Reply-To: jfk-research@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [jfk-research] PHOTOS POSTED UNDER "FILES" SECTION

To: jfk-research@yahoogroups.com

The "Photos" section has been useless to me. Instead, I went to

the "Files" section. I set up a folder under "Moorman Photo" and

then added the following photos:

(1) Mantik's Notes.

(2) Moorman Segment.

(3) Perfect line-up with location in Z-film (53.75")

(4) Red lines and without.

(5) Zapruder frame 303 showing Moorman and Hill.

I'm sorry I couldn't figure this out earlier, everyone. But there

you are, Len. Mantik's notes in living color and all the rest!

I ask you, Len. How the heck is Fetzer going to get out of this one?

Josiah Thompson

-- In jfk-research@yahoogroups.com, "Leonard" <lenbrasil@y...> wrote:

>

> Tink - I'd like to see those (Mantik's)notes although I'm not sure

> Fetzer does! I'd also like to see you LOS photo. I remember you

> attaching something to a previous post but attachments don't go

> through on Yahoo groups. The best thing to do would be to upload

the

> images to this group's `Photos' section .

>

> Jim - You think your publisher would pop for a professional

surveyor

> to verify the LOS? Even if they don't you might want to consider

> paying out of your own pocket. If you are so sure of the result it

> would worth it to humiliate your nemesis. Of course if his findings

> agree with Tink's you might not want to show your face in public

for a

> while. Not afraid of the results I hope!

>

> If anybody from the 6th Floor or Conspiracy Museums is reading this

> maybe you might want to pay the surveyor.

>

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "jfk-research" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

jfk-research-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

----- End forwarded message -----

Edited December 31, 2005 by James H. Fetzer

[Bernice Moore]

More information for whomever......

David Wiegman:

"We were in that straight-a-way heading down to what I now know as

the Book Depository, and I heard the first report and I thought like every

body that it was a good size firecracker---a cherry bomb .Then when I

heard the second one, the adrenaline really started pumping because

there was a reaction in the motorcade, I was sitting on the edge of the

(car door) frame,which I sometimes did. I keenly remember right after

the incident that my feet were on the ground during one of the reports.

I don't think I was fast enough to react to the second, but I think on the

third one I was running.

The car had slowed down enough for me to jump out. I swung my leg

over and jumped while the car was still moving, but it was very slow.

I jumped and I remember running and I remember the third shot.

When I got out I knew I better get around the corner. The car was

stopping. I'd better run around there and see what was happening. I

knew the reaction was to run forward. I'd done this before in other

motorcades because a lot of times the President will stop and do

something. He might just shake a hand. He might look at a sign.

So your doing no good sitting in your car, and you can always

retrieve your car as it goes by....It was a technique I've used and

I've gotten some good pictures that way. That may have been built

in to get out and run and get up there and see what the heck's

happening . The motorcade has stopped, plus you heard a report

I don't think I thought on the first or second ( shot ), but when the

third one went off, I really thought I felt the compression on my face.

----I really thought I felt it. The I thought "Somebody is shooting".

The idea of turning on the camera, I don't know where that came

from. I’ve turned in some real sloppy work over the years that

went into editing because I believed that sometimes your not

photographing what's happening as much as the moment. It's a

slice of time. And something told me, "hey look, what have I got to

lose. I've got a full spring and just turn it on." I can't stop and plant

my feet, so I put it against my chest because you can't run with a

Filmo up to your eyes. So I just slid it down under my chin and

looked forward and ran as fast as I could and took in everything I

could."

Telephone interview Wiegman, 3/11/89..P.O.T.P...Trask..

pages 371-372.

..........................

He was in the Press car 1."the reel car"

the first with photographers aboard..A yellow 1964 Chev.Impala

convertible.

The President's Lincoln..The Queen Mary.SS...L.B.Js ...

SS..The Bell Telephone press pool car ..then the Press #1 Car..

(Wiegman's). Along with Atkins,Craven,John Hoefen,( Wiegman's

sound man..Front seat driving a Texas Ranger..then Cleve Ryan

then Wiegman on the passenger seat in the sixth car behind the

President..

He was carrying a Filmo movie camera,used no handle,

shot with left eye finders on left side of camera.Wide angle lens,

He thought he used a 10mm.that day..

Worked for NBC..TV cameraman..White House attachment every

day for 8 years..37 years old..

.........................

"It would appear through careful analysis of this film, and aided in

research done by Richard Sprague and Gary Mack ,on the timing

of the sequence, that Wiegman began filming

A LITTLE OVER THREE SECONDS:....

prior to the President BEING HIT IN THE HEAD".

Gary Mack 's,"Coverups!"..9/1982..p.2-5...9/1985, p.1-2..

Letter Richard Sprague to Robert Cuttler, 10/31/1982.

..........................

"Wiegman probably first pressed his camera trigger just after

the second shot."..clip.."begins as Wiegman's car is approaching

the TSDB, while the telephone car infront begins making the

left hand turn.".." shows various spectators on the steps of the

Book Depository as well as others on the sidewalk..Many are

looking forwards towards the presidential vehicle while some

are gazing back at the vehincles coming in their direction."

.Trask..p373

.......

In the film we see, the film begins with a panning of the front

entrance of the TSBD,swings to the left, then back to the right,

he then was on his way to the knoll,and behind the fence...see.

the film at below...click, Wiegman, then when page loads, click top

right hand corner button....ta da..

http://www.jfk-online.com/films.html

.................................

We have Wiegman capturing the TSBD entrance approximately

"A little over three seconds" prior to the President being hit in

head."..see above..Sprague..Mack..

......................

He continued filming as he ran his film shakes and jumps as he

spans the grassy knoll area, the Limo travelling to the underpass,

and what appears to

be smoke coming from under the trees in the area

of the fence ,then the pergola area

again, and some of the witnesses laying on the

ground,finally he proceeded to the

parking lot behind the fence area..

************************************8

Wiegman Film........

Dave Wiegman, Jr. (MPG, 7.5 MB)

http://www.jfk-online.com/1wiegman.html

********************************

59 Witnesses: Delay on Elm Street

(Revised update-1998)

by Vince Palamara

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

-UPI's "Four Days" (1964), p. 17---In the right hand picture [a frame from the Muchmore film], the driver slams on the brakes and the police escort pulls up."

-"Newsweek", 12/2/63, p. 2---"For a chaotic moment, the motorcade ground to an uncertain halt."

-"Time", 11/29/63, p. 23---"There was a shocking momentary stillness, a frozen tableau."

-"Case Closed" by Gerald Posner (1993), p. 234---

"Incredibly, SA Greer, sensing that something was wrong in the back of the car, slowed the vehicle to almost a standstill." AND -Gerald Posner, with Dan Rather, on CBS' "Who Killed JFK: The Final Chapter?", 11/19/93---By turning around the second time and looking at JFK as the car slows down, Posner says that "What he [Greer] has done is inadvertently given Oswald the easiest of the three shots."

DID JOHN F. KENNEDY'S LIMOUSINE COME TO A STOP DURING THOSE TERRIBLE SIX SECONDS ON ELM STREET, OR DID IT SLOW DOWN? OR NEITHER? I INVITE THE READER TO LOOK AT THE STATEMENTS OF THE FOLLOWING WITNESSES; THEIR TESTIMONY AND COMMENTS, AS WE SEEK TO FIND THE TRUTH:

1) Houston Chronicle Reporter Bo Byers (rode in White House Press Bus)---twice stated that the Presidential Limousine "almost came to a stop, a dead stop"; in fact, he has had nightmares about this. [C-SPAN, 11/20/93, "Journalists Remember The Kennedy Assassination"; see also the 1/94 "Fourth Decade": article by Sheldon Inkol];

2) ABC Reporter Bob Clark (rode in the National Press Pool Car)---Reported on the air that the limousine stopped on Elm Street during the shooting [WFAA/ ABC, 11/22/63];

3) UPI White House Reporter Merriman Smith (rode in the same car as Clark, above)---"The President's car, possibly as much as 150 or 200 yards ahead, seemed to falter briefly" [uPI story, 11/23/63, as reported in "Four Days", UPI, p. 32];

4) DPD motorcycle officer James W. Courson (one of two mid-motorcade motorcycles)--"The limousine came to a stop and Mrs. Kennedy was on the back. I noticed that as I came around the corner at Elm. Then the Secret Service agent [Clint Hill] helped push her back into the car, and the motorcade took off at a high rate of speed." ["No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), p. 129];

5) DPD motorcycle officer Bobby Joe Dale (one of two rear mid-motorcade motorcycles)---"After the shots were fired, the whole motorcade came to a stop. I stood and looked through the plaza, noticed there was commotion, and saw people running around his [JFK's] car. It started to move, then it slowed again; that's when I saw Mrs. Kennedy coming back on the trunk and another guy [Clint Hill] pushing her back into the car." ["No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), p. 134];

6) Clemon Earl Johnson---"You could see it [the limo] speed up and then stop, then speed up, and you could see it stop while they [sic; Clint Hill] threw Mrs. Kennedy back up in the car. Then they just left out of there like a bat of the eye and were just gone." ["No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), p. 80];

7) Malcolm Summers---"Then there was some hesitation in the caravan itself, a momentary halt, to give the Secret Service man [Clint Hill] a chance to catch up with the car and jump on. It seems to me that it started back up by the time he got to the car "["No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), p. 104];

8) NBC reporter Robert MacNeil (rode in White House Press Bus)---"The President's driver slammed on the brakes---after the third shot " ["The Way We Were, 1963: The Year Kennedy Was Shot" by Robert MacNeil (1988), p. 193];

9) AP photographer Henry Burroughs (rode in Camera Car #2)---" we heard the shots and the motorcade stopped." [letter, Burroughs to Palamara, dated 10/14/98];

10) DPD Earle Brown---" The first I noticed the [JFK's] car was when it stopped..after it made the turn and when the shots were fired, it stopped." [6 H 233];

11) DPD motorcycle officer Bobby Hargis (one of the four Presidential motorcyclists)---" At that time [immediately before the head shot] the Presidential car slowed down. I heard somebody say 'Get going.' I felt blood hit me in the face and the Presidential car stopped almost immediately after that." [6 H 294; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams (1974), p. 71; 6/26/95 videotaped interview with Mark Oakes & Ian Griggs: "That guy (Greer) slowed down, maybe his orders was to slow down slowed down almost to a stop." Like Posner, Hargis feels Greer gave Oswald the chance to kill Kennedy.];

12) DPD D.V. Harkness---" I saw the first shot and the President's car slow[ed] down to almost a stop I heard the first shot and saw the President's car almost come to a stop and some of the agents [were] piling on the car." [6 H 309];

13) DPD James Chaney (one of the four Presidential motorcyclists)---stated that the Presidential limousine stopped momentarily after the first shot (according to the testimony of Mark Lane; corroborated by the testimony of fellow DPD motorcycle officer Marion Baker: Chaney told him that " at the time, after the shooting, from the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped Now I have heard several of them say that, Mr. Truly was standing out there, he said it stopped. Several officers said it stopped completely." [2 H 44-45 (Lane)---referring to Chaney's statement as reported in the "Houston Chronicle" dated 11/24/63; 3 H 266 (Baker)];

14) DPD motorcycle officer B.J. Martin (one of the four Presidential motorcyclists)---saw JFK's car stop " just for a moment." ["Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 71];

15) DPD motorcycle officer Douglas L. Jackson (one of the four Presidential motorcyclists)---stated " that the car just all but stopped just a moment." ["Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 71];

16) Texas Highway Patrolman Joe Henry Rich (drove LBJ's car)---stated that " the motorcade came to a stop momentarily." ["Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 71];

17) DPD J.W. Foster---stated that " immediately after President Kennedy was struck the car in which he was riding pulled to the curb." [CD 897, pp. 20, 21; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 97];

18) Secret Service Agent Sam Kinney (driver of the follow-up car behind JFK's limo)---indicates, via his report to Chief Rowley, that Greer hit the gas after the fatal head shot to JFK and after the President's slump to the left toward Jackie. [18 H 731-732]. From the HSCA's 2/26/78 interview of Kinney: "He also remarked that 'when Greer (the driver of the Presidential limousine) looked back, his foot must have come off the accelerator' Kinney observed that at the time of the first shot, the speed of the motorcade was '3 to 5 miles an hour.'" [RIF#180-10078-10493; author's interviews with Kinney, 1992-1994];

19) Secret Service Agent Clint Hill (follow-up car, rear of limo)---" I jumped from the follow-up car and ran toward the Presidential automobile. I heard a second firecracker-type noise SA Greer had, as I jumped onto the Presidential automobile, accelerated the Presidential automobile forward." [18 H 742; Nix film; "The Secret Service" and "Inside The Secret Service" videos from 1995];

20) Secret Service Agent John Ready (follow-up car)---" I heard what sounded like fire crackers going off from my post on the right front running board. The President's car slowed " [18 H 750];

21) Secret Service Agent Glen Bennett (follow-up car)---after the fatal head shot "the President's car immediately kicked into high gear." [18 H 760; 24 H 541-542]. During his 1/30/78 HSCA interview, Bennett said the follow-up car was moving at "10-12 m.p.h.", an indication of the pace of the motorcade on Elm Street [RIF#180-10082-10452];

22) Secret Service Agent "Lem" Johns (V.P. follow-up car)---" I felt that if there was danger [it was] due to the slow speed of the automobile." [18 H 774]. During his 8/8/78 HSCA interview, Johns said that "Our car was moving very slowly", a further indication of the pace of the motorcade on Elm Street [RIF# 180-10074-10079; Altgens photo];

23) Secret Service Agent Winston Lawson (rode in the lead car)---" I think it [the lead car on Elm Street] was a little further ahead [of JFK's limo] than it had been in the motorcade, because when I looked back we were further ahead." [4 H 352], an indication of the lag in the limo during the assassination.;

24) Secret Service Agent William "Tim" McIntyre (follow-up car)---"He stated that Greer, driver of the Presidential limousine, accelerated after the third shot." [RIF#180-10082-10454: 1/31/78 HSCA interview];

25) Mrs. Earle ("Dearie") Cabell (rode in the Mayor's car)---the motorcade "stopped dead still when the noise of the shot was heard." [7 H 487; "Accessories After the Fact" by Sylvia Meagher (1967), p. 4; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 71];

26) Phil Willis---" The [Presidential] party had come to a temporary halt before proceeding on to the underpass." [7 H 497; "Crossfire" by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 24];

27) Mrs. Phil (Marilyn) Willis---after the fatal head shot, "she stated the Presidential limousine paused momentarily and then sped away under the Triple Underpass." [FBI report dated 6/19/64; "Photographic Whitewash" by Harold Weisberg (1967), p. 179];

28) Mrs. John (Nellie) Connally (rode in JFK's limo)---JFK's car did not accelerate until after the fatal head shot. [4 H 147; WR

50; "Best Evidence" by David Lifton (1988), p. 122];

29) Texas Governor John Connally (rode in JFK's limo and himself a victim of the assassination)---" After the third shot, I heard Roy Kellerman tell the driver, 'Bill, get out of line.' And then I saw him move, and I assumed he was moving a button or something on the panel of the automobile, and he said 'Get us to a hospital quick' at about this time, we began to pull out of the cavalcade, out of line." [4 H 133; WR50; "Crossfire" by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 13];

30) Dallas Morning News reporter Robert Baskin (rode in the National Press Pool Car)---stated that " the motorcade ground to a halt." ["Dallas Morning News", 11/23/63, p. 2; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 71];

31) Dallas Morning News reporter Mary Woodward (Pillsworth)---" Instead of speeding up the car, the car came to a halt."; she saw the President's car come to a halt after the first shot. Then, after hearing two more shots, close together, the car sped up. [2 H 43 (Lane); DMN, 11/23/63; 24 H 520; "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" 1988]. She spoke forcefully about the car almost coming to a stop and the lack of proper reaction by the Secret Service in 1993. [C-SPAN, 11/20/93, "Journalists Remember The Kennedy Assassination"; see also the 1/94 "Fourth Decade": article by Sheldon Inkol];

32) AP photographer James Altgens---"He said the President's car was proceeding at about ten miles per hour at the time [of the shooting] Altgens stated the driver of the Presidential limousine apparently realized what had happened and speeded up toward the Stemmons Expressway." [FBI report dated 6/5/64; "Photographic Whitewash" by Harold Weisberg (1967), p. 203] "The car's driver realized what had happened and almost if by reflex speeded up toward the Stemmons Expressway." [AP dispatch, 11/22/63; "Cover-Up" by Stewart Galanor (1998), Document 28];

33) Alan Smith---" the car was ten feet from me when a bullet hit the President in the forehead the car went about five feet and stopped." ["Chicago Tribune", 11/23/63, p. 9; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 71];

34) Mrs. Ruth M. Smith---confirmed that the Presidential limousine had come to a stop. [CD 206, p. 9; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 97];

35) TSBD Supervisor Roy Truly---after the first shot " I saw the President's car swerve to the left and stop somewheres down in the area [it stopped] for a second or two or something like that I just saw it stop." [3 H 221, 266];

36) L.P. Terry---" The parade stopped right in front of the building [TSBD]." ["Crossfire" by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 26];

by Vince Palamara

37) Ochus V. Campbell---after hearing shots, "he then observed the car bearing President Kennedy to slow down, a near stop, and a motorcycle policeman rushed up. Immediately following this, he observed the car rush away from the scene." [22 H 845];

38) Peggy Joyce Hawkins---she was on the front steps of the TSBD and " estimated that the President's car was less than 50 feet away from her when he was shot, that the car slowed down almost coming to a full stop." ["Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 97];

39) Billy Lovelady---"I recall that following the shooting, I ran toward the spot where President Kennedy's car had stopped." [22 H 662];

40) An unnamed witness---from his vantage point in the courthouse building, stated that "The cavalcade stopped there and there was bedlam." ["Dallas Times Herald", 11/24/63; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 97];

41) Postal Inspector Harry Holmes (from the Post Office Annex, while viewing through binoculars)---"The car almost came to a stop, and Mrs. Kennedy pulled loose of him and crawled out over the turtleback of this Presidential car." [7 H 291]. He noticed the car pull to a halt, and Holmes thought: "They are dodging something being thrown." ["The Day Kennedy Was Shot" by Jim Bishop (1967), p. 176];

42) Peggy Burney---she stated that JFK's car had come to a stop. ["Dallas Times Herald", 11/24/63; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 97; interestingly, during the 11/20/93 C-SPAN "Journalists Remember" conference, Vivian Castleberry of the Dallas Times Herald made the claim that her first cousin, Peggy Burney, was Abraham Zapruder's assistant "and was next to him when he shot his famous film. She called and said, 'Vivian, today I saw the President die.'"!---See Sheldon Inkol's article on this conference in the January 1994 "Fourth Decade"];

43) David Broeder--"The President's car paused momentarily, then on orders from a Secret Service agent, spurted ahead." ["Washington Evening Star", 11/23/63, p. 8];

44) Sam Holland---stated that the Presidential limousine slowed down on Elm Street. [taped interview with Holland conducted in April, 1965];

45) Maurice Orr---noted that the motorcade stopped. [Arch Kimbrough, Mary Ferrell, and Sue Fitch, "Chronology", unpublished manuscript; see also "Conspiracy" by Anthony Summers, pages 20 & 23];

46) Mrs. Herman (Billy P.) Clay---"When I heard the second and third shots I knew someone was shooting at the President. I did not know if the President had been hit, but I knew something was wrong. At this point the car President Kennedy was in slowed and I, along with others, moved toward the President's car. As we neared the car it sped off." [22 H 641];

47) Mrs. Rose Clark---"She noted that the President's automobile came almost to a halt following the three shots, before it picked up speed and drove away." [24 H 533];

48) Hugh Betzner---"I looked down the street and I could see the President's car and another one and they looked like the cars were stopped then the President's car sped on under the underpass." [19 H 467];

49) John Chism---after the shots he saw "the motorcade beginning to speed up." ["Crossfire" by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 29];

50) Bill Newman---after the fatal head shot "the car momentarily stopped and the driver seemed to have a radio or phone up to his ear and he seemed to be waiting on some word. Some Secret Service men reached into their car and came out with some sort of machine gun. Then the cars roared off "; "I've maintained that they stopped. I still say they did. It was only a momentary stop, but" ["Crossfire" by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 70; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 96] "I believe Kennedy's car came to a full stop after the final shot." ["JFK: Breaking The Silence" by Bill Sloan (1993), p. 169] "I believe it was the passenger in the front seat [Roy Kellerman]---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 [sic] and accelerated on." [11/20/97 videotaped interview with Bill Law, Mark Row, & Ian Griggs, as transcribed in "November Patriots" by Connie Kritzberg & Larry Hancock (1998), p. 362] "One of the two men in the front seat of the car had a telephone in his hand, and as I was looking back at the car covering my son, I can remember seeing the tail lights of the car, and just for a moment they hesitated and stopped, and then they floorboarded [sic] the car and shot off." ["No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), p. 96];

51) Charles 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. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of sight." [22 H 837-838];

52) Mary Moorman---"She 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." [22 H 838-839];

53) Jean Hill---"The motorcade came to almost a halt at the time the shots rang out and I would say it [JFK's limo] was just approximately, if not---it couldn't have been in the same position, I'm sure it wasn't, but just a very, very short distance from where it had been. It [JFK's limo] was just almost stunned." [6 H 208-209; Hill's testimony on this matter was dramatized in the Oliver Stone movie "JFK" (1991): "The driver had stopped-I don't know what was wrong with that driver." See also "JFK: The Book of the Film" (1992), p. 122. Therein is referenced a March 1991 conversation with Jean Hill.];

54) James Leon Simmons---"The car stopped or almost stopped." [2/15/69 Clay Shaw trial testimony; "Forgive My Grief Vol. III" by Penn Jones, p. 53; "High Treason" by Groden & Livingstone (1990 Berkley Edition), p. 22];

55) Norman Similas---"The Presidential limousine had passed me and slowed down slightly." ["Liberty" Magazine, 7/15/64, p. 13; "Photographic Whitewash" by Harold Weisberg (1967), p. 233];

56) Presidential Aide Ken O'Donnell (rode in the follow-up car)---" If the Secret Service men in the front had reacted quicker to the first two shots at the President's car, if the driver had stepped on the gas before instead of after the fatal third shot was fired, would President Kennedy be alive today? [as quoted in Marrs' "Crossfire", p. 248, based off a passage from O'Donnell & Powers' book "Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye"] On page 40 of O'Donnell's book "Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye", the aide reports that "Greer had been remorseful all day, feeling that he could have saved President Kennedy's life by swerving the car or speeding suddenly after the first shots." Indeed, William E. Sale, an airman first class aircraft mechanic assigned to Carswell AFB and who was stationed at Love Field before, during, and after the assassination, stated that "when the agent who was driving JFK's car came back to Air Force One he was as white as a ghost and had to be helped back to the plane *[undated Sale letter, provided to the author by Martin Shackelford];

57) Presidential aide Dave Powers (rode in the follow-up car)---" At that time we were traveling very slowly At about the time of the third shot, the President's car accelerated sharply." [7 H 473-475]. On 11/22/88, Powers was interviewed by CBS' Charles Kuralt. Powers remarked about the remorse Greer felt about not speeding up in time to save JFK"s life and agreed with Kuralt that, if Greer had sped up BEFORE the fatal head shot instead of afterwards, JFK might still be alive today [CBS, 11/22/88---this is a very dramatic and compelling short interview]. If that weren't enough, the ARRB's Tom Samoluk told me that, during the course of an interview he conducted in 1996 in which the Board was in the process of obtaining Powers' film, Powers said that he agreed with my take on the Secret Service!;

58) Texas Senator Ralph Yarborough (rode in LBJ's car)---" When the noise of the shot was heard, the motorcade slowed to what seemed to me a complete stop (though it could have been a near stop) After the third shot was fired, but only after the third shot was fired, the cavalcade speeded up, gained speed rapidly, and roared away to the Parkland Hospital."; " The cars all stopped. I put in there [his affidavit], 'I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but for the protection of future Presidents, they [the Secret Service] should be trained to take off when a shot is fired." [7 H 439-440; "Crossfire" by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 482; see also "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" 1988: "The Secret Service in the car in front of us kind of casually looked around and were rather slow to react."];

59) First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy (rode in the Presidential limousine)---"We could see a tunnel in front of us. Everything was really slow then [immediately after shooting] And just being down in the car with his head in my lap. And it just seemed an eternity And finally I remember a voice behind me, or something, and then I remember the people in the front seat, or somebody, finally knew something was wrong, and a voice yelling, which must have been Mr. Hill, "Get to the hospital," or maybe it was Mr. Kellerman, in the front seat.We were really slowing turning the corner [Houston&Elm] I remember a sensation of enormous speed, which must have been when we took off those poor men in the front" [5 H 179-181] Mary Gallagher reported in her book: "She mentioned one Secret Service man who had not acted during the crucial moment, and said bitterly to me, 'He might just as well have been Miss Shaw!'" ["My Life With Jacqueline Kennedy" by Mary Barelli Gallagher (1969), p. 342---Secret Service Agent Marty Venker and Jackie biographer C. David Heymann confirm that this unnamed agent was indeed Greer ("Confessions of an Ex-Secret Service Agent", p. 25; "A Woman Called Jackie", p. 401)] Jackie also told Gallagher that "You should get yourself a good driver so that nothing ever happens to you" [ibid., p. 351] * William Manchester, who interviewed Greer, tells us what the driver told Jackie on 11/22/63 at Parkland Hospital: "Oh, Mrs. Kennedy, oh my God, oh my God. I didn't mean to do it[?!?!], I didn't hear[who, Kellerman?], I should have swerved the car[how about hitting the gas!], I couldn't help it[!]. Oh, Mrs. Kennedy, as soon as I saw it[?] I swerved. If only I'd seen it in time! Oh!" (Manchester, p.290). 59 witnesses (10 police officers, 7 Secret Service agents, 37 spectators, 2 Presidential aides, 1 Senator, Governor Connally, and Jackie Kennedy) and the Zapruder film document Secret Service agent William R. Greer's deceleration of the presidential limousine, as well as his two separate looks back at JFK during the assassination (Greer denied all of this to the Warren Commission-2HGREER[see his entire testimony]). By decelerating from an already slow 11.2 mph, Greer greatly endangered the President's life, and, as even Gerald Posner admitted, Greer contributed greatly to the success of the assassination. When we consider that Greer disobeyed a direct order from his superior, Roy Kellerman, to get out of line BEFORE the fatal shot struck the President's head, it is hard to give Agent Greer the benefit of the doubt. As ASAIC Roy H. Kellerman said: "Greer then looked in the back of the car. Maybe he didn't believe me"("The Death of a President" by William Manchester, p.160). Clearly, Greer was responsible, at fault, and felt remorse. In short, Greer had survivor's guilt.

But, then, stories and feelings changed.

Agent Greer to the FBI 11/22/63: "Greer stated that he first heard what he thought was possibly a motorcycle backfire and glanced around and noticed that the President had evidently been hit [notice that, early on, Greer admits seeing JFK, which the Zapruder proves he did two times before the fatal head shot occurred]. He thereafter got on the radio and communicated with the other vehicles, stating that they desired to get the President to the hospital immediately [in reality, Greer did not talk on the radio, and Greer went on to deny ever saying this during his WC testimony] Greer stated that they (the Secret Service) have always been instructed to keep the motorcade moving at a considerable speed inasmuch as a moving car offers a much more difficult target than a vehicle traveling at a very slow speed. He pointed out that on numerous occasions he has attempted to keep the car moving at a rather fast rate, but in view of the President's popularity and desire to maintain close liaison with the people, he has, on occasion, been instructed by the President to "slow down". Greer stated that he has been asking himself if there was any thing he could have done to have avoided this incident, but stated that things happened so fast that he could not account for full developments in this matter(!) [the "JFK-as-scapegoat" theme and so much for Greer's remorse from earlier the same day!]."(Siebert & O'Neill Report, 11/22/63)

Agent Greer to the FBI 11/27/63: "She heard a noise which sounded like a motorcycle backfire. On hearing this noise he glanced to his right toward Kellerman and out of the corner of his eye noticed that the Governor appeared to be falling toward his wife [notice that Greer now mentions nothing about seeing JFK hit---he does the same thing in his undated report in the WC volumes (18 H 723)] He thereafter recalls hearing some type of outcry after which Kellerman said, "Let's get out of here." He further related that at the time of hearing the sound he was starting down an incline which passes beneath a railroad crossing and after passing under this viaduct, he closed in on the lead car and yelled to the occupants and a nearby police motorcyclist, "Hospital, Hospital! [nothing about using the radio this time out]" Thereafter follows a complete physical description of Greer, as if the FBI agents considered him a suspect, inc. age, height, and color of eyes! (Siebert & O'Neill Report, 11/29/63)

Critical excerpts from Greer's 3/9/64 Warren Commission testimony before Arlen Specter: Mr. Specter. Were you able to see anything of President Kennedy as you glanced to the rear? Mr. Greer. No, sir; I didn't see anything of the President, I didn't look, I wasn't far enough around to see the President. Mr. Specter. When you started that glance, are you able to recollect whether you started to glance before, exactly simultaneously with or after that second shot? Mr. Greer. It was almost simultaneously that he had--something had hit, you know, when I had seen him. It seemed like in the same second almost that something had hit, you know, whenever I turned around. I saw him start to fall. Mr. Specter. Did you step on the accelerator before, simultaneously or after Mr. Kellerman instructed you to accelerate? Mr. Greer. It was about simultaneously. Mr. Specter. So that it was your reaction to accelerate prior to the time-- Mr. Greer. Yes, sir. Mr. Specter. You had gotten that instruction? Mr. Greer. Yes, sir; it was my reaction that caused me to accelerate. Mr. Specter. Do you recollect whether you accelerated before or at the same time or after the third shot? Mr. Greer. I couldn't really say. Just as soon as I turned my head back from the second shot, right away I accelerated right then. It was a matter of my reflexes to the accelerator. Mr. Specter. Was it at about that time that you heard the third shot? Mr. Greer. Yes, sir; just as soon as I turned my head [ ] Mr. Specter. To the best of your current recollection, did you notice that the President had been hit? Mr. Greer. No, sir; I didn't know how badly he was injured or anything other than that. I didn't know. Mr. Specter. Did you know at all, from the glance which you have described that he had been hit or injured in any way? Mr. Greer. I knew he was injured in some way, but I didn't know how bad or what. Mr. Specter. How did you know that? Mr. Greer. If I remember now, I just don't remember how I knew, but I knew we were in trouble. I knew that he was injured, but I can't remember, recollect, just how I knew there were injuries in there. I didn't know who all was hurt, even. Mr. Specter. Are you able to recollect whether you saw the President after the shots as you were proceeding toward Parkland Hospital? Mr. Greer. No; I don't remember ever seeing him any more until I got to the hospital, and he was lying across the seat, you know, and that is the first I had seen of him. Mr. Specter. Your best recollection is, then, that you had the impression he was injured but you couldn't ascertain the source of that information? Mr. Greer. Right. I couldn't ascertain the source.

Warren Commission finding: "The driver, Special Agent William R. Greer, has testified that he accelerated the car after what was probably the second shot...The Presidential car did not stop or almost come to a complete halt after the firing of the first shot or any other shots."(WC Report, page 641)

11/19/64 interview with "Death of a President" author William Manchester [RIF#180-10116-10119]---"After the second shot I glanced back. I saw blood on the Governor's white shirt, and I knew we were in trouble. The blood was coming out of his right breast. When I heard the first shot, I had thought it was a backfire. I was tramping on the accelerator and at the same time Roy was saying, let's get out of here fast."

But remember what Roy Kellerman said: "Greer then looked in the back of the car. Maybe he didn't believe me"("The Death of a President" by William Manchester, p.160).

2/28/78 HSCA interview [RIF#180-10099-10491]---"The first shot sounded to him like a backfire. He did not react to it. After the second shot he turned to his right and saw blood on Governor Connally's shirt. At the same moment he heard Kellerman say "We're hit. Let's get out of here," or words to that effect. He said he immediately accelerated and followed the pilot car to Parkland Hospital [However, DNC Advance man Jack Puterbaugh, who rode in the pilot car, said they "pulled over and let the motorcade pass" (HSCA interview 4/14/78). The Washington Post from 2/28/85 reported Greer as saying that "I just looked straight ahead at the car in which the police chief was leading our way to the hospital"---this is the lead car. Nevertheless, the Daniel film and still photos depict the limousine AHEAD of the lead car, as it appear it was the lead motorcyclists who actually guided Greer to Parkland! (see pp. 21-22 and 59 of "The Third Alternative" by the author)]

Bill Greer passed away from cancer on 2/23/85.

The End?---

The following is from a 9/17/91 interview with Bill Greer's son Richard:

When asked, "What did your father think of JFK," Richard did not respond the first time. When this author asked him a second time, he responded: "Well, we're Methodists..and JFK was Catholic..." (Bill Greer was born and raised in County Tyrone, Ireland; 2 H 112 - 113)

"My father certainly didn't blame himself; it's not one of those things - if only I was driving one mile per hour faster

"My father had absolutely no survivor's guilt...he figured that events were kind out of their control...it was pretty common knowledge that a person riding in an open car was subject to a bullet at any time..."

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

(based on the original 1991 article "47 Witnesses" that appeared in "The Third Decade", Jan/March 1992, and which has since been cited in "The Third Decade"[11/92], "The Fourth Decade[11/93 and 9/97], "Proceedings of the Second Research Conference of the Third Decade, 6/18-6/20/93", pages 128 & 162, "The Proceedings of the Research Conference of the Fourth Decade, 7/19-7/21/96", p. 277, [1997], pages 20& 53, the website "The Puzzle Palace", "Assassination Science" [1998], p. 274, "Bloody Treason" [1997], Z-frame 313 photo section, "November Patriots" [1998], p. 465, and the 1998 revised version of "High Treason", p. 551)

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

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_...Issue/59_1.html

B..

Edited December 31, 2005 by Bernice Moore

[Ron Ecker]

The Z film shows Mary Moorman on the grass. I believe that's where she was. But if she was in the street, and conspirators who altered the film put her on the grass, why would they do that? What damn difference would it make to the people who killed JFK if Mary Moorman was on the grass or in the street? Why wouldn't they just leave her alone?

But there's no need for anyone to answer these questions. They're rhetorical. I'm fairly sure that Mary Moorman was on the grass. One thing that I'm absolutely certain about is that Mary Moorman was a babe. I think that this photo proves it:

Some may disagree, but I don't care. There is nothing that will make me change my mind.

[John Dolva]

The Z film shows Mary Moorman on the grass. I believe that's where she was. But if she was in the street, and conspirators who altered the film put her on the grass, why would they do that? What damn difference would it make to the people who killed JFK if Mary Moorman was on the grass or in the street? Why wouldn't they just leave her alone?

But there's no need for anyone to answer these questions. They're rhetorical. I'm fairly sure that Mary Moorman was on the grass. One thing that I'm absolutely certain about is that Mary Moorman was a babe. I think that this photo proves it:

Some may disagree, but I don't care. There is nothing that will make me change my mind.

I agree, it seems peculiar. Is it in order to support a particular theory that a choice has been made that things must be so and this guides the interpretation of 'evidence'?

The notion that the zfilm supports the SBT also seems strange, could someone who believes this please explain how?

[David G. Healy]

James H. Fetzer wrote:

Jack has advised me that Martin is over here claiming that Josiah Thompson

"cleaned my clock" on another forum! That is complete nonsense. The fact

is it went the other way around, as anyone can verify for themselves simply

by going to jfk-research@yahoogroups.com and reviewing the post archive.

The easiest way is to review my last ten or twelve posts.

[...]

I wouldn't worry about Martin these day's - he's had a difficult time surviving the 60's

[Robin Unger]

Thanks for the information on Wiegmans movements Bernice.

Exellent.

A lot of that is new to me.

Ron.

I beleive Moorman was a strong willed woman, you can see by reading her testimony that she didn't let those goons push her around.

[Bernice Moore]

The Z film shows Mary Moorman on the grass. I believe that's where she was. But if she was in the street, and conspirators who altered the film put her on the grass, why would they do that? What damn difference would it make to the people who killed JFK if Mary Moorman was on the grass or in the street? Why wouldn't they just leave her alone?

But there's no need for anyone to answer these questions. They're rhetorical. I'm fairly sure that Mary Moorman was on the grass. One thing that I'm absolutely certain about is that Mary Moorman was a babe. I think that this photo proves it:

Some may disagree, but I don't care. There is nothing that will make me change my mind.

I agree, it seems peculiar. Is it in order to support a particular theory that a choice has been made that things must be so and this guides the interpretation of 'evidence'?

The notion that the zfilm supports the SBT also seems strange, could someone who believes this please explain how?

**********************************************

I am well aware some don't care, number one problem...as far as I can see.

The point being if any of the films and or photographs were altered, it was done

eventually by the Government, who had possession of them, and at that time,

there was only one theory, the lone assassin....they had to comply..

Some will say well this one and that one was in such and such newspaper back

on Nov 23rd, etc, or shown on telly, the next day whatever...Do you remember

what a photo looked like or a film, 43 years ago.....I certainly do not..

Some photos have been released and found, films etc, it took many years

for many to be.....I do not believe all have been touched, in

any way.....but some have been cut, and cropped, and I shall say adjusted,

what does that mean in the dictionary, alterations.....when any photo or

film has been touched in anyway, it has been altered...very simply to

comprehend...and all should want to know why.....Why was the Altgens cropped

in the WC..for instance??

I prefer to believe that it is the difference between looking at all the evidence

and documentation, not "guiding the interpretation of 'evidence'?, anything but...

It is a matter of reporting and researching all ,whether it be in an article such as Vince

Palamara's, or as in my previous posts on such as the Nix film and the medical evidence

that came from Parkland, and from the books, and or photographic analysis..so they do not

agree with the WCR or what the Government has chosen to report to us...That should make

us all as curious as hell, and ask why ????..and search for the answer..

It doesn't for some, they agree seemingly with what the

Government has stated........again why????

We cannot pick and choose, unless as some do, they have a particular theory......I do not post

and spend the time on research that I do, for those who seemingly believe they know it

all, and have made up their minds, and they are now closed....I do so to get all the

information out to the students and the young who do attend this forum, and need

it all.....

Not, as Gary Mack seemingly has done in a previous post he sent to a fellow member, that has

been posted here in this thread above...where

he simply made mention of the photographers cars stopping, he neglected to mention

as well he knew, that in the past he and Mr. Sprague has researched the Wiegman film,the

timing

and knew, what I had to post for him....and he is well aware, as I had contacted him

about this a year ago...at which time he was of no help..Now I know the why, and that was when

we were still communicating at times....that is deliberate misinformation, not giving the all...only part..

why would he not want the students to know the all.....???? He gave the impression that because

the three photo cars stopped, without revealing Mr Wiegman had jumped from the "reel" car

number one, that he nor any ,did not start getting any film till 25 to 30 seconds after the last shot,

that is misinformation IMO.....This also explains to me the why the TSBD does not sell, and what

they call conspiracy books, it was a conspiracy....not even Mr Harold Weisberg's whose information is

now all related to and has been available for their students at Hood College for many years..as well as

his books..though the

excuse they gave was that they were not educational books, and not taught in schools...poor excuse..

But they sell the WC and Posners and other government supported crap..

The good, bad and the ugly needs to be

looked at in all this......not just posting or being too quick agreeing to what seemingly,

backs up what someone may want to believe....for whatever reason they have chosen.

Some seemingly talk so much and have so many opinions, and read so extremely little....

it appears....all should do their homework, in otherwards, before they jump to

agree to anything....IMO........not abide by what anyone says, do not believe anyone,

not me, not any, do your own research, both sides, the other as well as the WC and

the Governments....What they have chosen not to report, hide, made light of, whatever

all....of it, it is out there all you have to do is to want to find it..if you are really and

truthfully interested in trying to help in anyway get to the bottom of the murder of a

President....at high noon, on a Dallas street..in his own country, where he should have

been safe...but where he was slaughtered in front of his wife,and the whole world...

including children.............

B...

[Craig Lamson]

Some may disagree, but I don't care. There is nothing that will make me change my mind.

You are talking about Moorman being a babe right?

[John Dolva]

......I do not post and spend the time on research that I do, for those who seemingly believe they know it

all, and have made up their minds, and they are now closed....I do so to get all the

information out to the students and the young who do attend this forum, and need

it all.....

This I can certainly respect.

However

The hypthesis that there is noone on the pedestal. That Zapruder didn't take the film. That the Limo came to acomplete halt. That Zapruders film is a fake as well as all photos and films are also faked where they show this hypothesis to be dubious begs a conspiracy that seems absurd.

The evidence being presented here is not convincing and this remains just a hypothesis. I'm happy to continue to see what reasons people have for believing all this. Should something come along that cannot be shown to be doubtful or is clear proof that its more than just another hypothesis among many? Well, thats another story.

Edited December 31, 2005 by John Dolva

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

So, Ron, it's your conclusion (a) that Mary was a babe, (b ) that Mary was a midget, © that Mary was both a babe and a midget, or (d) that you are ready for the men in white coats to cart you away, too? What is the point of research and evidence (including observations, experiments, and measurements) if you aren't willing to allow it to affect your beliefs? What are you--some kind of seer with direct access to the truth?

Bernice's quotes from Nix provide powerful evidence that his film was changed. Is it so difficult for you to appreciate that, to cover up what actaully happened, they needed a logical skeleton, which a recreated Z-film provided? Then they made the changes they had to make in other photos and films for consistency and they can claim that the Z-film must be authentic because otherwise they would have had to mess with Nix!

Do you and John allow your conclusions to be affected by evidence and argument? Have you ever studied THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX, for example? Could you enumerate for me the lines of argument that lead to the conclusion that the film has been faked? Have you even visited http://www.assassinationscience.com to view Costella's introduction to Z-film alteration? If not, after all, why should anyone care about your opinion?

To offer one example, you cannot know why the film was edited unless you know what was in it (or probably in it) to begin with. If there was a limo stop, that would have been such an obvious indication of Secret Service complicity that it had to be taken out. What if there were six to eight impacts from at least three directions? Leaving that in would have destroyed the "magic bullet" theory and Oswald as "the lone assassin"!

So why don't you give this matter just a little more thought. Remember, frames 314-315 were printed in the reverse order in the supporting volumes. That greatly mitigates the impression of a violent "back and to the left" motion. Perhaps that was cleaning up a mistake made in the production of the film when someone "didn't get the word"? Have you thought of that? Have you thought about this at all? Have you studied the evidence?

The Z film shows Mary Moorman on the grass. I believe that's where she was. But if she was in the street, and conspirators who altered the film put her on the grass, why would they do that? What damn difference would it make to the people who killed JFK if Mary Moorman was on the grass or in the street? Why wouldn't they just leave her alone?

But there's no need for anyone to answer these questions. They're rhetorical. I'm fairly sure that Mary Moorman was on the grass. One thing that I'm absolutely certain about is that Mary Moorman was a babe. I think that this photo proves it:

Some may disagree, but I don't care. There is nothing that will make me change my mind.

Edited December 31, 2005 by James H. Fetzer