Why did the conspirators offer the Z-film?

[Michael Hogan]

That, I think, would make for an interesting topic in and of itself.

Mike

Ya can't convince me that Weisberg was part of the coverup!.....please keep the good guys and the bad guys straight and separate...we have all made mistkes on the good guy side....

Peter, with due respect, the above quote was extremely out of context. I don't want anyone to think that I am advocating that Weisberg was part of the coverup. I believe that was Paul Rigby's contention.

I was going to quote Gerald McKnight and Howard Roffman (I could have picked twenty more researchers) that paid homage to Weisberg. In past posts I have quoted Weisberg and consistently praised his efforts in fighting the official story and setting the bar high in getting documents released.

When I get the time, I will probably start a new thread.

Mike Hogan

PS) Don't take this personally, Peter. I realize that all posts are fair game. But when two people are having a dialogue about a particular subject, why don't people show just a little patience and let the other person respond before interjecting? There is always plenty of time to comment after a few hours have gone by. I guess I just wanted to hear if Paul was going to elaborate on his comments about Weisberg.

Maybe I am wrong, but when someone addresses a post specifically to someone else, a little patience would be polite. And Peter, I like you and your approach to things. Please don't take what I said the wrong way.

[David G. Healy]

nor is this adversarial --

The importance of Trask, Wrone and Weisberg(?) making a comment that Zapruder had a false start while filming? Was Zapruder quoted, saying same?

Zapruder attest to: he stopped filming, began anew after spotting the limo on Elm Street? If so.... where, WC testimony, Shaw trial in NO, media interview, personal-private comments?

He is after all, a guy on-the-record as "wanting to cooperate"... If he did stop for a few seconds I suspect Ms. Sitzman would of known...

This IS adversarial.

I wrote:

Paul, your point is taken that in his WC testimony, Zapruder didn't mention the suspension of filming the motorcade, but both Trask and Wrone describe the motorcycles and lead cars were quite a bit in front of the President's Lincoln, and that when Zapruder realized this, he stopped filming after 7 seconds. Like Weisberg, I guess they just assumed this.

So why the f___ are you asking me such rhetorical questions? Shortly after joining this Forum you and I had a go of it. Since then, I learned never to comment on anything you say. But since you saw fit to interject, I've made an exception. I don't like your style. I don't like your attitude. I don't like your methods. I don't think I like you.

You type so much crap, I've quit trying to ascertain what is accurate and what is not.

Your grammar sucks. It's not "Sitzman would of known." It's Sitzman would have known.

It's not my style to point things like that out. You bring out the worst in me. That's why I vowed not to pay any attention to the stuff you post. Save it for Bill Miller, or someone else that is interested.

Mr. Hogan in adversarial mode, tsk-tsk

Rhetorical question? Did Wrone, Trask or Weisberg assume Zapruder stopped filming? Footnotes? Can you or anyone else point us to a cite "quoting" Zapruder halted Elm Street filming?

This is not rocket science Mr. Hogan, a simple question. Getting your panties in a uproar is unproductive, if you don't know or simply can't respond, sit quietly, someone else will.

As for my writing skills, I'll tell YOU what I tell the rest of the Lone Neuter's (their last vestiage is commenting on grammar) on this board: I hire writers, I make no claim being one. So stuff it in your ear Studley. Can't stand the heat, write a book....

[Michael Hogan]

Your response just confirmed everthing I said.

You greatly overestimate your own importance and your own knowledge. Using rhetoric like "panties in an uproar" and "Lone Neuter's" confirm you have problems.

Your just a lonely, bitter, sad man with nothing better to do. Undoubtedly you will keep foaming at the mouth.

Bill Miller may enjoy taking you on and making you look stupid. I have better things to do. Your posts speak for themselves.

And by the way....It's vestige. Not vestiage. And the plural of Neuter is Neuters. Not Neuter's with an apostrophe. Man, before you give other people advice, go get an education.

Edited August 13, 2006 by Michael Hogan

[Ashton Gray]

Too many "ifs," but a great theory for the 30 seconds it lasted, eh?

That's why I don't do theories.

The salient fact remains that Decker emptied the County Courts building (a.k.a. "Criminal Courts building") and sent all his force out behind the TSBD. That's good, solid ground, innit? That's gonna last longer than an all-day sucker.

Asthon

Edited August 13, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Paul Rigby]

…Paul, please don't take my responses to you as adversarial.

Mike,

Rest assured, I didn’t. You pointed out a mistake – “abreast” – and were entirely justified in doing so. You made a series of rational objections, supported by quotations and citations. Again, admirable, and no possible offence could be taken, or was. I profoundly disagreed with them, that’s all, and sought to demonstrate why.

Please bear with me, I have some more questions. Are you maintaining that the Stemmons sign did not interfere with Zapruder's filming? Are you maintaining that the first shot did not happen until President Kennedy emerged from behind the sign? Are you saying Zapruder did not stop filming when he realized that the lead motorcycles were not the sequence he was intending to shoot?

Absolutely, yes, to all three. That’s exactly where the evidence points.

Note that it wasn’t just Zapruder who saw a different, earlier version: Journos and their sources did, too, as I demonstrated above. The concordance between Z’s description and that contained in early reportage is striking. It just ain’t the same film.

And that’s to exclude not merely eyewitness testimony which placed the bullets’ impacts further up Elm, but also at least one early re-enactment.

Paul, do I have it right now? The first uninterruptedly refers to the break in filming the motorcade and the second uninterrupted refers to the street sign?

Yes. A failure of diction on my part, for which resultant lack of clarity, apologies. In mitigation, it was late, I was tired, and I was going purely from memory.

Paul, your point is taken that in his WC testimony, Zapruder didn't mention the suspension of filming the motorcade, but both Trask and Wrone describe the motorcycles and lead cars were quite a bit in front of the President's Lincoln, and that when Zapruder realized this, he stopped filming after 7 seconds. Like Weisberg, I guess they just assumed this.

Yes. Very convenient assumption, it has to be said. And are we really to believe that Trask, Wrone and Weisberg had no inkling of the journalism I’ve instanced? Or missed that Zapruder’s early interviews and testimony contained no reference to a suspension in filming? Is this plausible? It’s as if an archaeologist pronounced definitively upon a recently exposed cliff face after examining only the top layer.

I do want to mention one more thing, though. About Weisberg, you wrote: He was part of the cover-up. Only a witting servant of the CIA could conceivably have written...........

That, I think, would make for an interesting topic in and of itself.

Apply Peter Dale Scott’s “negative template” to Weisberg’s oeuvre, and the results are striking. Was Weisberg really unaware, for example, when he began writing in 1964/5, of the Luce empire’s fanatical hostility to Kennedy? Over, say, most obviously, Cuba? Or of its history of collusion with the CIA? Such propositions are self-evidently absurd. This was, after all, an ex-OSS man, a former Congressional researcher – in short, a politically savvy guy, with a fine mind, and a real eye for detail.

My broader point is this. For the past forty-plus years some simple-minded myths have dominated what is what called, rather grandly, “the research community.” A couple of useful correctives:

The fact that a critic opposes the Warren Report is no guarantee that he/she works in the interests of truth.

The Report was designed to be demolished by the evidence contained in the 26 evidentiary volumes.

Salandria saw this blatant disjuncture between Warren Report and the 26 volumes as evidence of what he termed, courtesy of an academic friend, a “transparent conspiracy.” I agree, but with this important addition: We were confronted by not one, but two layers of deception. The outer was the Oswald-from-the-rear-with-flintlock idiocy. For those who flattered themselves cleverer than the herd, however, there was a second, inner layer of deception provided, the grassy knoll.

The work of Weisberg (and others) in the sixties and seventies pierced the outer layer, precisely as intended, and left us stranded, none the wiser and permanently susceptible to further befuddlement, on the knoll.

PS Dave Healey's question about Zapruder's own testimony on the duration of his filming seem to me entirely legitimate. If there is a source for Zapruder himself attesting to his stopping, please instance it. It's not an unreasonable request.

[Michael Hogan]

PS Dave Healey's question about Zapruder's own testimony on the duration of his filming seem to me entirely legitimate. If there is a source for Zapruder himself attesting to his stopping, please instance it. It's not an unreasonable request.

Paul, I believe I addressed that when I originally responded:

Paul, your point is taken that in his WC testimony, Zapruder didn't mention the suspension of filming the motorcade....

Regards,

Mike Hogan

PS) Your thoughts about the grassy knoll as a fallback are interesting and plausible in many ways. As to Weisberg, in all of his writing that I remember, he refused to engage in speculation beyond the official record. He said so many times. He limited himself to taking the government's own investigation and proving that they had something to hide. As to speculation about others' means and motives, he always said that was not his provenance. Perhaps one of us can start a thread on that one of these days.

Edited August 13, 2006 by Michael Hogan

[Paul Rigby]

PS) Your thoughts about the grassy knoll as a fallback are interesting and plausible in many ways. As to Weisberg, in all of his writing that I remember, he refused to engage in speculation beyond the official record. He said so many times. He limited himself to taking the government's own investigation and proving that they had something to hide. As to speculation about others' means and motives, he always said that was not his provenance. Perhaps one of us can start a thread on that one of these days.

Mike,

Point taken - he didn't. I rather admire his deftness on that score. But my general point, I think, is a fair one.

Paul

[Michael Hogan]

PS Dave Healey's question about Zapruder's own testimony on the duration of his filming seem to me entirely legitimate. If there is a source for Zapruder himself attesting to his stopping, please instance it. It's not an unreasonable request.

Paul,

Thanks for the interesting discussion. You strike me as fair minded, astute and a critical thinker. I've about exhausted what I have to say on this subject, but I have taken some excerpts from Zapruder's testimony at the Clay Shaw Trial. I'll be interested in your thoughts. (Any emphases below are mine)

Q: What did you see as you took your films in Dealey Plaza that day? Explain to the Jury.

A: I saw the approaching motorcade of the President coming from Houston Street, turning left on Elm Street and coming down towards the underpass.

As they were approaching where I was standing I heard a shot

and noticed where the President leaned towards Jackie. Then I heard another shot which hit him right in the head, over here, and his head practically opened up and a lot of blood and many more things came out.

and:

Q: During the time your film was being processed, were you present, sir?

A: Yes, sir, I was.

Q: On that particular day did you have occasion to view what your film showed?

A: Yes, the same evening I saw this film.

and:

Q: Is the copy you have here today identical to the original or are there any plates missing out of this copy?

A: That would be hard for me to tell, sir.

THE COURT: I cannot hear the witness. What is it?

THE WITNESS: That would be hard for me to say. He asked me if there are any frames missing.

THE COURT: What is your answer?

THE WITNESS: I couldn't say.

BY MR. DYMOND:

Q: So you don't know whether it is a complete copy of the film you took on the 22nd of November?

A:

Not if there are one or two frames missing, I couldn't tell you.

And finally:

BY MR. OSER:

Q: Mr. Zapruder, from having seen the film just projected on the screen, can you tell us whether or not this represents what you saw on November 22, 1963, after your original film was developed in Dallas, Texas?

A: I would say they do.

THE COURT: I didn't hear you again.

THE WITNESS: I would say that they do. Yes, they do.

BY MR. DYMOND:

Q: Mr. Zapruder, are you able to testify that this film that you have just seen run is a complete copy of the pictures taken by you on that day, no frames being missing?

A: By complete, what do you mean? If there are any frames removed or so?

Q: Any frames removed or damaged or for any reason not shown in this film?

A: I couldn't tell you.

Q: So you couldn't tell whether any part has been skipped, is that correct?

A: I could not.

THE COURT: Bring the Jury back.

(WHEREUPON, the Jury returned to the courtroom.)

THE COURT: All right, Mr. Oser, you may proceed.

BY MR. OSER:

Q: Mr. Zapruder, from having seen what was projected on this film, can you tell the Court whether or not it

appears to be the same

as you viewed your original film on November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas?

A:

Yes, it does.

MR. OSER: I tender the witness on traverse.

BY MR. DYMOND:

Q: This will sound repetitious, but it is because the Jury has now come in. Having viewed this film, sir, are you in a position to say whether the film you have just seen is a complete copy of what you took without any frames having been deleted or taken out or skipped?

A: I couldn't tell if any frames were removed.

Seen as a whole it shows that I have seen

. Seeing you have 18 frames a second

you can take out one or two

and I couldn't tell.

Paul, it seems to me that Zapruder testified under oath that the film shown at the Shaw trial was essentially the same one he thought he had taken.

He was only willing to admit that he could not tell if one or two frames were missing. But certainly if his opening sequence had been edited, he would have been able to tell that. If one assumes that Zapruder was honest in his testimony he would not have said what he did if the film had been subtantially altered.

Also, in describing the film this time, he says "As they were approaching where I was standing I heard a shot...." Different semantics than his WC testimony and to me, at least, not entirely inconsistent with frame 190 or so......Two or three seconds later Kennedy's Lincoln would no longer be approaching, but more in front of Zapruder, I think.

Mike

Edited August 14, 2006 by Michael Hogan

[Duke Lane]

Too many "ifs," but a great theory for the 30 seconds it lasted, eh?

That's why I don't do theories.

The salient fact remains that Decker emptied the County Courts building (a.k.a. "Criminal Courts building") and sent all his force out behind the TSBD. That's good, solid ground, innit? That's gonna last longer than an all-day sucker.

Asthon

What I'd said is also good, solid ground, and indisputable fact. Forgive my facetiousness because the "ifs" are not really "ifs," but merely blanks.

[Ashton Gray]

Too many "ifs," but a great theory for the 30 seconds it lasted, eh?

That's why I don't do theories.

The salient fact remains that Decker emptied the County Courts building (a.k.a. "Criminal Courts building") and sent all his force out behind the TSBD. That's good, solid ground, innit? That's gonna last longer than an all-day sucker.

Asthon

What I'd said is also good, solid ground, and indisputable fact. Forgive my facetiousness because the "ifs" are not really "ifs," but merely blanks.

No, no, not at all, and I didn't mean to take a thing away from a single one of your fine, good solid indisputable facts. Just didn't want that one getting lost in all the Keystone Cops cattle-prodding that was going on that day.

"Blanks" is an interesting choice of words in this context, too, because I still am in slack-jawed awe at what a giant "blank"—or, put another way, at what a massive sucking vacuum—sits across an entire city block of Houston Street, staring placidly, innocently—if blankly—down on Dealey Plaza.

It seems to me a shooter's paradise with a custom made shooting gallery. Yet of the ten billion to the googleplex power of words and wailings and wishes and wonderings in all the Kennedy assassination lore, there is not a single goddamned syllable expended on who was in that entire city block and what the hell they were doing.

It's just...

It's...

Well, it's blank.

I don't think it was blanks that went off at the picket fence around the parking lot above the knoll, though: just flash powder, old school. And, no: Zapruder didn't flinch (just to give a nod back to the topic).

Ashton

[David G. Healy]

PS Dave Healey's question about Zapruder's own testimony on the duration of his filming seem to me entirely legitimate. If there is a source for Zapruder himself attesting to his stopping, please instance it. It's not an unreasonable request.

Paul,

Thanks for the interesting discussion. You strike me as fair minded, astute and a critical thinker. I've about exhausted what I have to say on this subject, but I have taken some excerpts from Zapruder's testimony at the Clay Shaw Trial. I'll be interested in your thoughts. (Any emphases below are mine)

Q: What did you see as you took your films in Dealey Plaza that day? Explain to the Jury.

A: I saw the approaching motorcade of the President coming from Houston Street, turning left on Elm Street and coming down towards the underpass.

As they were approaching where I was standing I heard a shot

and noticed where the President leaned towards Jackie. Then I heard another shot which hit him right in the head, over here, and his head practically opened up and a lot of blood and many more things came out.

and:

Q: During the time your film was being processed, were you present, sir?

A: Yes, sir, I was.

Q: On that particular day did you have occasion to view what your film showed?

A: Yes, the same evening I saw this film.

and:

Q: Is the copy you have here today identical to the original or are there any plates missing out of this copy?

A: That would be hard for me to tell, sir.

THE COURT: I cannot hear the witness. What is it?

THE WITNESS: That would be hard for me to say. He asked me if there are any frames missing.

THE COURT: What is your answer?

THE WITNESS: I couldn't say.

BY MR. DYMOND:

Q: So you don't know whether it is a complete copy of the film you took on the 22nd of November?

A:

Not if there are one or two frames missing, I couldn't tell you.

And finally:

BY MR. OSER:

Q: Mr. Zapruder, from having seen the film just projected on the screen, can you tell us whether or not this represents what you saw on November 22, 1963, after your original film was developed in Dallas, Texas?

A: I would say they do.

THE COURT: I didn't hear you again.

THE WITNESS: I would say that they do. Yes, they do.

BY MR. DYMOND:

Q: Mr. Zapruder, are you able to testify that this film that you have just seen run is a complete copy of the pictures taken by you on that day, no frames being missing?

A: By complete, what do you mean? If there are any frames removed or so?

Q: Any frames removed or damaged or for any reason not shown in this film?

A: I couldn't tell you.

Q: So you couldn't tell whether any part has been skipped, is that correct?

A: I could not.

THE COURT: Bring the Jury back.

(WHEREUPON, the Jury returned to the courtroom.)

THE COURT: All right, Mr. Oser, you may proceed.

BY MR. OSER:

Q: Mr. Zapruder, from having seen what was projected on this film, can you tell the Court whether or not it

appears to be the same

as you viewed your original film on November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas?

A:

Yes, it does.

MR. OSER: I tender the witness on traverse.

BY MR. DYMOND:

Q: This will sound repetitious, but it is because the Jury has now come in. Having viewed this film, sir, are you in a position to say whether the film you have just seen is a complete copy of what you took without any frames having been deleted or taken out or skipped?

A: I couldn't tell if any frames were removed.

Seen as a whole it shows that I have seen

. Seeing you have 18 frames a second

you can take out one or two

and I couldn't tell.

Paul, it seems to me that Zapruder testified under oath that the film shown at the Shaw trial was essentially the same one he thought he had taken.

He was only willing to admit that he could not tell if one or two frames were missing. But certainly if his opening sequence had been edited, he would have been able to tell that. If one assumes that Zapruder was honest in his testimony he would not have said what he did if the film had been subtantially altered.

Also, in describing the film this time, he says "As they were approaching where I was standing I heard a shot...." Different semantics than his WC testimony and to me, at least, not entirely inconsistent with frame 190 or so......Two or three seconds later Kennedy's Lincoln would no longer be approaching, but more in front of Zapruder, I think.

Mike

A few things jump out during Zapruder's New Orleans questioning:

A: I saw the approaching motorcade of the President coming from Houston Street, turning left on Elm Street and coming down towards the underpass....

He saw the limo turn but doesn't film it? The extant Zapruder film does NOT doesn't show the President's Limo turn onto Elm St. Why didn't he film it?

BY MR. DYMOND:

Q: So you don't know whether it is a complete copy of the film you took on the 22nd of November?

COPY? Who provided the copy, where did the copy come from? It appears the same....?

[Thomas H. Purvis]

nor is this adversarial --

The importance of Trask, Wrone and Weisberg(?) making a comment that Zapruder had a false start while filming? Was Zapruder quoted, saying same?

Zapruder attest to: he stopped filming, began anew after spotting the limo on Elm Street? If so.... where, WC testimony, Shaw trial in NO, media interview, personal-private comments?

He is after all, a guy on-the-record as "wanting to cooperate"... If he did stop for a few seconds I suspect Ms. Sitzman would of known...

This IS adversarial.

I wrote:

Paul, your point is taken that in his WC testimony, Zapruder didn't mention the suspension of filming the motorcade, but both Trask and Wrone describe the motorcycles and lead cars were quite a bit in front of the President's Lincoln, and that when Zapruder realized this, he stopped filming after 7 seconds. Like Weisberg, I guess they just assumed this.

So why the f___ are you asking me such rhetorical questions? Shortly after joining this Forum you and I had a go of it. Since then, I learned never to comment on anything you say. But since you saw fit to interject, I've made an exception. I don't like your style. I don't like your attitude. I don't like your methods. I don't think I like you.

You type so much crap, I've quit trying to ascertain what is accurate and what is not.

Your grammar sucks. It's not "Sitzman would of known." It's Sitzman would have known.

It's not my style to point things like that out. You bring out the worst in me. That's why I vowed not to pay any attention to the stuff you post. Save it for Bill Miller, or someone else that is interested.

Mr. Hogan in adversarial mode, tsk-tsk

Rhetorical question? Did Wrone, Trask or Weisberg assume Zapruder stopped filming? Footnotes? Can you or anyone else point us to a cite "quoting" Zapruder halted Elm Street filming?

This is not rocket science Mr. Hogan, a simple question. Getting your panties in a uproar is unproductive, if you don't know or simply can't respond, sit quietly, someone else will.

As for my writing skills, I'll tell YOU what I tell the rest of the Lone Neuter's (their last vestiage is commenting on grammar) on this board: I hire writers, I make no claim being one. So stuff it in your ear Studley. Can't stand the heat, write a book....

Can you or anyone else point us to a cite "quoting" Zapruder halted Elm Street filming?

Although I personally have some difficulty accepting that Zapruder stood and filmed motorcycles for 133 frames of the film, only to wait until the Presidential Limo had completely made the turn onto Elm St. prior to again beginning of filming, this is nevertheless what we are informed occurred.

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

Mr. SHANEYFELT. At the time of frame 1, the police motorcycle lead portion of the parade is in view, and that goes for several frames. Then he stopped his camera, feeling that it might be some time before the Presidential car came into view. Then when the Presidential car rounded the corner and came into view, he started his camera again, and kept it running throughout the route down Elm Street until the car went out of sight on his right.

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

This testimony is of course "hearsay", and is merely based on what Shaneyfelt observed in the film when he reviewed it.

[Paul Rigby]

Can you or anyone else point us to a cite "quoting" Zapruder halted Elm Street filming?

Although I personally have some difficulty accepting that Zapruder stood and filmed motorcycles for 133 frames of the film, only to wait until the Presidential Limo had completely made the turn onto Elm St. prior to again beginning of filming, this is nevertheless what we are informed occurred.

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

Mr. SHANEYFELT. At the time of frame 1, the police motorcycle lead portion of the parade is in view, and that goes for several frames. Then he stopped his camera, feeling that it might be some time before the Presidential car came into view. Then when the Presidential car rounded the corner and came into view, he started his camera again, and kept it running throughout the route down Elm Street until the car went out of sight on his right.

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

This testimony is of course "hearsay", and is merely based on what Shaneyfelt observed in the film when he reviewed it.

Tom,

Always felt sorry for Shaneyfelt. Imagine trying to reconstruct what happened on the basis of a film previously dismissed by one of your bosses as being of "no evidentiary value"! (Was this Hoover or one of his top lieutenants? Nor can I remember the bloody date...)

I wont labour the obvious objections to Shaneyfelt's claim re the hiatus in filming: you anticipated them perfectly well.

Paul

[Paul Rigby]

If one assumes that Zapruder was honest in his testimony he would not have said what he did if the film had been substantially altered.

Mike

Mike,

Reposing all that weight on the severed crutch of Zapruder’s honesty strikes me as unwise. Valiant, but unwise. If the issue is the limo turn, whether filmed or not, then the burden is positively overwhelming.

Here is his very first public testimony on the matter:

This transcript is from video tape of the live broadcast seen nationwide on the ABC network at about 2:10pm CST, November 22, 1963. The interviewer, seated on the left, is WFAA-TV program director Jay Watson. On the right, with his hat on the desk, is Abraham Zapruder.

ZAPRUDER: “I got out in, uh, about a half-hour earlier to get a good spot to shoot some pictures. And I found a spot, one of these concrete blocks they have down near that park, near the underpass. And I got on top there, there was another girl from my office, she was right behind me.

And as I was shooting*, as the President was coming down from Houston Street making his turn, it was about a half-way down there, I heard a shot, and he slumped to the side, like this. Then I heard another shot or two, I couldn't say it was one or two, and I saw his head practically open up, all blood and everything, and I kept on shooting. That's about all, I'm just sick, I can't…”

Early viewers of the Z film (public version 1) - Rather, Snider, and, I have no doubt, others – were thus merely following the film-taker himself when they described the filmed turn from Houston onto Elm!

Paul

* Trask, Pictures of the Pain, p.77, offers the parenthetic variant “filming” for “shooting.”

[Michael Hogan]

Reposing all that weight on the severed crutch of Zapruder’s honesty strikes me as unwise. Valiant, but unwise. If the issue is the limo turn, whether filmed or not, then the burden is positively overwhelming.

Paul,

In your first response to me you wrote:

"When Zapruder came before the Presidential Commission of enquiry, he told us some very remarkable things. He was, for example, conscious of the possible impediments - street signs etc. - on Elm Street to a clear line of filming sight, and positioned himself accordingly. He told us that he filmed the motorcade uninterruptedly. He told us that Kennedy was first struck when "abreast" - parallel - to him."

At that point in time you expressed no misgivings about the veracity of Zapruder's testimony. In fact, you showed no compunction in interpreting that at the time of the first shot Kennedy was parallel (not Zapruder's words) to him. Parallel refers to two lines that will never converge - not two fixed locations at a point in time.

However, the nuances of Zapruder's words is not my point, My point is that you were most willing to use Zapruder's testimony to support your claims.

In that same response you concluded:

The film version served up by the WC was true, he (Weisberg) sought to convince us, not the testimony of the very man alleged to have taken it.

In discrediting Weisberg, you as much said that Zapruder's testimony was true, not the version served up by the WC. Once again, by your own standards, Zapruder's testimony was used as a description of the way things really happened.

In your next response to me you wrote:

When did Zapruder start filming?

“ I started shooting--when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street” (7WCH571)

I interpret this as meaning there was no break in filming. After all, there's nothing in Z's testimony to suggest there was.

Once again, you are willing to interpret Zapruder's testimony in a most literal sense. You draw inferences from that one sentence from Zapruder that there was no break in filming. Again you attempt to use Zapruder's testimony to support your claims. No disclaimer that he might be mistaken or lying. Or seemingly not even allowing that his statement might not preclude a break in the shooting.

Paul, it appears to me that in all the above instances, you are willing to assign probative value to Zapruder's testimony before the WC.

Then, in another response you write:

PS Dave Healey's question about Zapruder's own testimony on the duration of his filming seem to me entirely legitimate. If there is a source for Zapruder himself attesting to his stopping, please instance it. It's not an unreasonable request.

Paul, it is an unreasonable request in light of your response when the source was provided as asked.

I responded by referencing Zapruder's sworn testimony in front of a jury at the Shaw murder trial. Now, all of a sudden it seems, you are no longer willing to accept what Zapruder says as truthful, when in all instances cited above you never expressed any misgivings whatsoever about whether he was telling the truth or not, nor even if he was describing events accurately as they happened. You were perfectly willing to use his words, and in my mind, even mold those words to try and fit your claims.

Now, when confronted with Zapruder's own words that the film shown at the Shaw trial appeared to be the same as the one he took, you take the position that Zapruder is dishonest. In fact, you write:

Reposing all that weight on the severed crutch of Zapruder’s honesty strikes me as unwise. Valiant, but unwise. If the issue is the limo turn, whether filmed or not, then the burden is positively overwhelming.

Paul, why ask for someone to cite Zapruder's testimony and then when provided with it, all of a sudden claim he is being dishonest? If you are not willing to accept Zapruder's testimony as honest, what's the point of discussing it? You are not going to accept the words of Shaneyfelt, or Weisberg, or Trask, or Wrone, or anyone else that posits what most researchers involved in this case believe, i.e. that Zapruder paused, then resumed filming.

I submit that you have a burden of proof in proving that there was no pause that is much greater than the evidence you have provided so far. Zapruder's testimony before the WC and in New Orleans was very brief. In both cases, as is common in jurisprudence, he is responding to questions from attorneys. Yes, in otherwords he is being led in his testimony as I think you and I both agree. But in using his lack of mentioning an interruption in his filming and what you refer to as inference and supporting contemporaneous evidence to prove your point requires much more than what you have furnished thus far, in my opinion.

This post of mine has been too verbose and too long, but let me try and summarize. It's not fair to selectively pick and choose what parts of Zapruder's testimony you want to use to support events as you interpret them, and than dismiss other parts of his testimony by claiming he is being less than honest.

Mike