Why did the conspirators offer the Z-film?

[Bill Miller]

On 22 November 1963, Zapruder said he filmed the turn from Houston.

Reporters who viewed the film 23 November and shortly thereafter said/wrote they saw the turn.

Film as available to be viewed as film - since late 1964? - has NO turn.

Not that difficult, surely?

Paul

Paul, Mike has raised some valid points pertaining to your responses. I couldn't help but notice that some of your remarks seem to be in opposition to things you have posted on Lancer, unless I am thinking of another person. Now having said this .... supposed you tell us what reporters said that they actually saw on the Zapruder film on 11/23/63 that the limo made its wide turn from Houston to Elm Street?

Bill Miller

[Paul Rigby]

Bill,

Apologies for the delay in responding – off looking at other things.

And may I say what a pleasure it is to encounter an old opponent from the Department of Zapruderland Security (DZS). At the sight of Miller lumbering into view, I just know I’m going to have some fun. So let’s get to it….

Paul, Mike has raised some valid points pertaining to your responses.

No he hasn’t: He spat his dummy out because I refused to take seriously two of his splendidly absurd propositions. You agree with him, as we shall see, because you’ve a record of responding with strikingly similar guff.

Here’s Mr. H’s prize pair of nonsenses:

1. Zapruder’s testimony in 1968 is to be preferred to Zapruder’s description of the film on the afternoon of 22 November 1963, even though the latter, with respect to the first version of the Z film capturing the presidential limo’s turn from Houston onto Elm, was confirmed independently by at least two journos, CBS’ Dan Rather and Snider of the Chicago Daily News, within days of the assassination;

2. That Zapruder really meant “at an acute angle from me back down Elm toward Houston” when he said the first bullet struck Kennedy “as the car came in line almost” with him. Again, I furnished prior independent corroboration of Zapruder’s own Warren Commission testimony/description from two newspaper reports, one by an anonymous AP-er, the second from John Herbers of the NYT.

Unless we assume the four journos above were psychic, none could have known that the Z-film was to be suppressed. All described what they or their sources had seen in Dallas – note, not where CIA (Life) was altering its version – in the reasonable expectation that the version they saw would appear on U.S. television. As you know, I think it did.

The true measure of any researcher’s authenticity is how he/she deals with inconvenient evidence. Hulk Hogan fell at the first hurdle. He couldn’t even bring himself to mention the independent journalistic corroboration, never mind furnish some rational account of how and why it was to be discounted. In previous exchanges, I’d dealt with Hogan with courtesy and honesty. Hogan showed he couldn’t deal with key points, so simply evaded them. I thereupon adopted the motto of that legendary British JFK researcher, Sir Arthur Strebe-Greebling: “Why bother?!”

Hogan’s pattern of evasion was repeated in regard to my point that Zapruder testified that he was conscious of the potential street sign impediments on Elm, and positioned himself accordingly to avoid them. Odd, then, to find a bloody big street sign blocking his camera line of site!

But I am haunted, as I suggested earlier, when reading Hogan’s responses, by an overwhelming sense of déjà vu. Haven’t I heard Hogan’s guff somewhere before? Ah, yes, from Bill Miller. What an extraordinary coincidence. Could this be – I tremble at the line of wild speculation upon which I am embarked – the official DZS line?:

Let’s compare Hogan and Miller on the point 2 above.

Here’s Hogan:

Hogan on 14 August 2006 I this thread:

“[Zapruder at Shaw trial – PR] 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.

“Semantics,” forsooth! The testimonies are patently irreconcilable. Now here is your vastly different piece of weasling:

Bill Miller on JFK Lancer Forum, 26 January 2006

#41689, "RE: Z-film chain of possession needs revising?"

Now what did the AP report mean by "abreast" to Zapruder. One thing comes to mind. One is that Elm Street angles away from Zapruder and is doing so as JFK come from behind the road sign, but the Z film gives a false impression that JFK is out in front of Zapruder.

Ho-hum The DZS party line, methinks.

I couldn't help but notice that some of your remarks seem to be in opposition to things you have posted on Lancer, unless I am thinking of another person.

Sorry, Bill, but you are. That old amnesia rearing its ugly head again? We’ll explore that issue shortly.

And come on, Bill, who ya kiddin’? Of course you could help yourself – who else could? (Cancel that: Mr. Dunkel?)

In truth, this is a characteristically bungled attempt to repay an old bull’s eye I landed some months ago. Let us - purely in the interests of historical accuracy, you understand - revisit that terrible moment for you. I have my handkerchief at the ready. Cue the violins:

Rigby to Miller, JFK Lancer forum, June 2006

Ron,

My old sparring partner Mr. Bill Miller has been assailed by a most terrible memory lapse. I feel honour bound to help him, this noblest of opponents, in his hour of photographic amnesia.

On June 4, you asked him: “Do you know which specific [Zapruder] frames were published in Life [29 November 1963 edition]? (Sorry if this has already been covered; I have not plowed [sic] through Part 1 of this thread.)”

To this straightforward question, our photographic eminence replied, a day later, as follows: “I'd have to research it. I think Trask mentioned it in his books.”

But did Bill have to research it in Trask’s books? Not according to the evidence of a posting of his on 25 May, 2006, on the John Simkin-moderated Education Forum/JFK site.

Here – see below, I’m sure Mr. Simkin wont object to a little healthy cross-pollination – we find Bill relaying a lengthy Gary Mack assist addressing precisely this question:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...6733&st=120

25 May 2006, Today, 03:30 AM

Below is some data that I was able to obtain from Gary Mack concerning this discussion.

Bill

G.Mack:

LIFE's November 29, 1963 issue went to press late Sunday afternoon, 11/24, and subscribers started receiving their copies in the Tuesday, 11/26 mail. Orville Nix, Jr. has said he picked one up at a Dallas newsstand on Monday, 11/25, but there's no way to know for sure if his memory is accurate about that.

For subscribers to have received that issue on Tuesday or Wednesday means that within 48 hours of the assassination - before the Muchmore, Nix or Bronson films of the shooting were taken out of their cameras to be processed - LIFE chose and started printing 31 Zapruder frames in black & white. Here are the frame numbers appearing in that magazine:

126, 144, 166, 216, 226, 228, 232, 237, 244, 248, 254, 258, 261, 267, 269,

323, 325, 328, 337, 340, 342, 348, 351, 353, 355, 357, 359, 361, 363, 366,

and 369.

To promote the sale of the issue, LIFE temporarily licensed at least seven

frames to the Associated Press and United Press International for

distribution. Newspapers all over the world published them beginning on

Wednesday, 11/27. For example, The Sixth Floor Museum's collections include

the Brisbane, Australia Telegraph for 11/27. Almost half of its front page

is frame 230. Additional frames 237, 274, 307, 348, 369, and 382 appeared

on pages 2 and 3 of that newspaper.

Less than two weeks after LIFE's 11/29 regular issue, the magazine released

a special Memorial Edition devoted entirely to the assassination. That

issue included nine Zapruder frames in color, some of which were published

for the first time: 183, 226, 232, 258, 277, 309, 346, 369, and 392.

This means LIFE magazine published a total of 39 different frames of the

Zapruder film within two weeks of the assassination. The frames showing

President Kennedy, 144-392, cover a time period of 13.6 seconds.

This post has been edited by Bill Miller: Today, 04:28 AM

I can’t vouch for the accuracy of Mr. Mack’s match-ups of frames, but I can for his account of the earliest newspaper publication of Zapruder frames: It’s factually incorrect.

Zapruder frames appeared in the Daily Express in central London on the very late evening of Monday, 25 November 1963, as part of the following day’s edition, some time before their alleged debut in the pages of the “Australia Telegraph for 27/11.”

In the U.S., four Zapruder frames were apparently scheduled for publication on the front page of the afternoon/evening paper, the Philadelphia Daily News on Tuesday, 26 November. Here is the blurb immediately above the four photos, under the headline “Man Who Came to See JFK Makes Tragic Movie”: “These dramatic pictures are from an 8mm ‘home movie’ reel, shot by Dallas dressmaker Abraham Zapruder who went to see President Kennedy ride through cheering throngs in Texas city. His camera recorded one of the most tragic moments in American history. Story page 3.”

Here is the article, in full, on page 3:

UPI (Dallas), “Movie Film Shows Murder of President,” Philadelphia Daily News, Tuesday, 26 November 1963, p.3 (4 star edition):

“An amateur photographer shot an 8-MM movie film that clearly shows, step-by-step, the assassination of President Kennedy.

The film was made by Abraham Zapruder, a Dallas dress manufacturer. He is selling rights to the film privately. It has been seen by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service and representatives of the news media.

It is seven feet long, 35 seconds in colour, a bit jumpy but clear.

It opens as the Kennedy motorcade rounds the corner from Houston Street and turns into Elm Street.

Then it picks up the President’s car and follows it down toward the underpass. Suddenly, in the film, Kennedy is seen to jerk. It is the first shot.

Mrs. Kennedy turns, puts her arms around him. A second later, the second shot. The President’s head becomes a blur on the film, lunged forward and up. The second bullet has torn into the back of his head.

He rolls towards Mrs. Kennedy and disappears from sight. Mrs. Kennedy lurches onto the flat trunk deck of the Presidential car as a Secret Service man races to their aid. She is on her hands and knees. She reaches for him. He leaps up on the bumper. She pulls him up on the bumper or he pushes her back as the film ends.

Other films show the car never stopped, but raced to the Parkland Memorial Hospital with Mrs. Kennedy cradling the President.”

There is just one minor problem: The four stills on the front page are all from…the Muchmore film!

The obvious question arises: Was this a simple mistake - or evidence of something much more interesting?

Did Zapruder frames appear in the very first (five star?) edition that day, only to be supplanted in later ones by Muchmore frames?

I don’t know the answer. Perhaps someone reading this does. Bill? Still with us?

And so to the crowning glory. Search me for where this last one came from. Presumably Bungler Bill wants to steer the debate in a direction he feels more comfortable with?

Now having said this .... supposed you tell us what reporters said that they actually saw on the Zapruder film on 11/23/63 that the limo made its wide turn from Houston to Elm Street?

Bill Miller

I’ve never referenced any such. Who you thinking of? Go on, give us a clue. Or perhaps ask Mr. Lamson. He always seems terribly keen to buy one.

Your enduringly grateful opponent,

Paul

[David G. Healy]

well, of course -- Bill Miller comes up with something original -- what-a-loon!

You know what's funny, David ... your responses are my best evidence.

Bill Miller

I don't know Bill -- looks like Rigby's gonna keep you busy for 'quite' a while -- if anything is left when your done, step on over here. Till then, enjoy the spotlight. Gentlemen!

[John Kennedy White]

Getting this back to the original question...

Is it possible that without Groden's centering, the original looked useless so they felt it was harlmess to the cause?

[Bill Miller]

Getting this back to the original question...

Is it possible that without Groden's centering, the original looked useless so they felt it was harlmess to the cause?

Of course the original film was of no threat. As I recall, it was that film that led to the first version to where The president was said to have been shot, then Connally, then the President again. So what I am saying is that the film was being used just as it was to try and determine what may have happened.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I’ve never referenced any such. Who you thinking of? Go on, give us a clue. Or perhaps ask Mr. Lamson. He always seems terribly keen to buy one.

Your enduringly grateful opponent,

Paul

Sorry, Paul ... it must have been Paul McCartney who posted:

"On 22 November 1963, Zapruder said he filmed the turn from Houston.

Reporters who viewed the film 23 November and shortly thereafter said/wrote they saw the turn.

Film as available to be viewed as film - since late 1964? - has NO turn.

Not that difficult, surely?

Paul"

I guess what threw me was that the text was found in YOUR response, had YOUR name and YOUR photo attached to it ... thus I believed it was YOU who wrote the post. I suggest you contact John Simkin and let him know that someone is posting under your name.

As I said before, the "abreast" remark attributed to Zapruder can be easliy understood by cross-referencing that remark to what other witnesses had said. Such witnesses such as Phil Willis, Hugh Betzner, Mary Woodard, Bill Newman, just to name a few. There is a point in time when JFK's location on Elm Street fits their descriptions. One can take any one statement and try and make something out of nothing from it, but when these witnesses statements are plotted out - the limo's position on Elm Street becomes quit obvious. Mary Woodard for example said that the President was directly out in front of her location while smiling and waving to her and the women she was standing near when the first shot rang out. That time span falls between Z193 to Z198. Willis said the first shot sounded just prior to his taking his photo, Betzner said that he had just snapped his shutter when the first shot sounded. Betzner and Willis are talking about a time frame between Z189 to Z202. I have given you an explanation as to why Zapruder chose the words that he did ... I cannot give you the ability to formulate a rational understanding of the evidence pertaining to this particular matter.

Bill Miller

Edited August 29, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Paul Rigby]

Getting this back to the original question...

Is it possible that without Groden's centering, the original looked useless so they felt it was harlmess to the cause?

John,

The version circulating in Dallas and beyond in the period November 22-26 was quite simply a different version than the version we are familiar with.

There is no mention whatever in the early print and electronic media coverage of the first version of a centering problem: That change came with the second version, and was the consequence of a need to abolish a specific presence between the camera and presidential limo.

This obstacle's removal should be tied to the change in the direction of Kennedy's head upon impact of the fatal head shot. Dan Rather, on November 25, notoriously described that movement as "violently forward." I believe his description, not least, as I earlier pointed out in this thread, because Rather had every reason to suppose that day that the film would be shown in short order. (It was, but that's another subject...)

The version with which we are familiar today instead offers Kennedy as moving "back and to the left" - a change of shooting point from the rear, to the right front. In shifting attention to the grassy knoll, the conspirators effectively reverted to the built-in fall back position, and created what may usefully be characterised as a pillory, into which an endless supply of suspects could be slipped, switched, multiplied and retracted as and when required.

The success of that counter-intelligence gambit is all about you on this thread: 40+ years of chasing shadows on the grassy knoll.

Paul

[John Kennedy White]

Getting this back to the original question...

Is it possible that without Groden's centering, the original looked useless so they felt it was harlmess to the cause?

John,

The version circulating in Dallas and beyond in the period November 22-26 was quite simply a different version than the version we are familiar with.

There is no mention whatever in the early print and electronic media coverage of the first version of a centering problem: That change came with the second version, and was the consequence of a need to abolish a specific presence between the camera and presidential limo.

This obstacle's removal should be tied to the change in the direction of Kennedy's head upon impact of the fatal head shot. Dan Rather, on November 25, notoriously described that movement as "violently forward." I believe his description, not least, as I earlier pointed out in this thread, because Rather had every reason to suppose that day that the film would be shown in short order. (It was, but that's another subject...)

The version with which we are familiar today instead offers Kennedy as moving "back and to the left" - a change of shooting point from the rear, to the right front. In shifting attention to the grassy knoll, the conspirators effectively reverted to the built-in fall back position, and created what may usefully be characterised as a pillory, into which an endless supply of suspects could be slipped, switched, multiplied and retracted as and when required.

The success of that counter-intelligence gambit is all about you on this thread: 40+ years of chasing shadows on the grassy knoll.

Paul

Interesting theory... although, hindsight tells me that Dan Rather is not the beacon of truth in this matter...

I'm sure every researcher has daydreamed about the moment when someone discovers a dusty film canister in a dead relative's safety deposit box that can be described as the "smoking gun" in this case... will that be this "original" film?

[Paul Rigby]

Sorry, Paul ... it must have been Paul McCartney who posted:

Bill,

This is outrageous, and unacceptable: Paul McCartney?

I might yet contact a lawyer with a view to my lawyer contacting your lawyer so that both shysters can make a huge some of money at our expense.

Paul McCartney?! I ask you! Now, if you'd offered someone from the Kinks, the Small Faces, or the 'Oo, that would have been fine. But Paul bloody McCartney? This is war...

"On 22 November 1963, Zapruder said he filmed the turn from Houston.

Reporters who viewed the film 23 November and shortly thereafter said/wrote they saw the turn.

Film as available to be viewed as film - since late 1964? - has NO turn.

Not that difficult, surely?

Paul"

Yup, Bill, that's me - and nothing at all about reporters describing a wide turn in any of the press reports I've instanced. It's that amnesia thingy again....

As I said before, the "abreast" remark attributed to Zapruder can be easliy understood by cross-referencing that remark to what other witnesses had said. Such witnesses such as Phil Willis, Hugh Betzner, Mary Woodard, Bill Newman, just to name a few. There is a point in time when JFK's location on Elm Street fits their descriptions. One can take any one statement and try and make something out of nothing from it, but when these witnesses statements are plotted out - the limo's position on Elm Street becomes quit obvious. Mary Woodard for example said that the President was directly out in front of her location while smiling and waving to her and the women she was standing near when the first shot rang out. That time span falls between Z193 to Z198. Willis said the first shot sounded just prior to his taking his photo, Betzner said that he had just snapped his shutter when the first shot sounded. Betzner and Willis are talking about a time frame between Z189 to Z202. I have given you an explanation as to why Zapruder chose the words that he did ... I cannot give you the ability to formulate a rational understanding of the evidence pertaining to this particular matter.

Get over it, the film's a fake, as you confirm by your silence on the early journalism - not to mention Z himself -on the first film version that described the presidential limo's turn onto Elm.

As Newcomb and Adams observed long ago, "With time removed, the film is useless as a clock for the assassination" (Murder From Within, p.113).

Amen.

[Paul Rigby]

Interesting theory... although, hindsight tells me that Dan Rather is not the beacon of truth in this matter...

John,

Dan Rather was an ambitious careerist of no obvious scruple, but nevertheless a thoroughly rational one. Given that according to the conventional timeline the Z film rights were not sold until November 26, a day after Rather described seeing both the presidential limo turn on Elm, and Kennedy's head being driven forward by the impact of the lethal head shot, he would have been an idiot to lie about two key, obvious features of a film he had every reasonable expection would be shown soon on US TV.

Now, that is not to say the original version - the one described by Rather on November 25 - was a true or accurate version of what happened on Elm. I don't believe that for a moment. It's just that Rather was not in the loop, and simply described what he saw. No more, no less.

I'm sure every researcher has daydreamed about the moment when someone discovers a dusty film canister in a dead relative's safety deposit box that can be described as the "smoking gun" in this case... will that be this "original" film?

Lovely thought, and utterly improbable, more's the pity. If any film should appear in such circumstances, I'd work from the assumption it's a further CIA fraud, until proven otherwise.

Whither next the Agency, one wonders, on this subject? Heavy concentration on a long-distance south knoll shooter, perhaps? And how about a flood of film and bits of film, stills and negatives seemingly contradicting the Z film? Makes sense: If you can't hold a strong point, deny it to the enemy - better still, plant a few booby-traps!

Paul

[Bill Miller]

Get over it, the film's a fake, as you confirm by your silence on the early journalism - not to mention Z himself -on the first film version that described the presidential limo's turn onto Elm.

As Newcomb and Adams observed long ago, "With time removed, the film is useless as a clock for the assassination" (Murder From Within, p.113).

Amen.

Paul, you can call a rock - a tree, but it is no truer by you merely repeating it over and over again. Zapruder's film never captured the President's turn onto Elm Street. As far as Abe's film not being a clock for the assassination .... I guess this would be true for only those who cannot compute film frames into incrememnts of time. It should be pointed out to those who forget - The copy prints made from the camera original on 11/22/63 do not have any frames removed, thus the actual assassination does have a clock!

Bill Miller

Now, that is not to say the original version - the one described by Rather on November 25 - was a true or accurate version of what happened on Elm. I don't believe that for a moment. It's just that Rather was not in the loop, and simply described what he saw. No more, no less.

So in other words, Paul ... are you saying that Dan Rather actually saw the President's head go violently forward on the Zapruder film ???

Bill Miller

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Paul-- good writing. As a middle aged novice Id been looking for a point of entry into the Z-film contraversy, but every time I openened a thread I saw font that resembled no mans land when it wasn't christmastime, WWI.

I would be gratefull if the other side might post a similarly concise reasoning as to why they think the film was not faked. Then I will send both sides a quarter, and watch the font fly.

Only this time, ill have an 11% chance of following.

I know this is primarily a forum for researchers, but part of good research is getting it out there for wider audiences to understand. If Dick Russel had the same access to the public ear that Gerald Posner had, the world would be a different place.

[Michael Hogan]

I would be gratefull if the other side might post a similarly concise reasoning as to why they think the film was not faked.

This is about as concise as it's gonna get:

Why the Zapruder Film is Authentic

Presented in Dallas on Friday, November 20, 1998

by Dr. Josiah Thompson

http://home.comcast.net/~ceoverfield/josiah.html

Maybe Rigby believes that Thompson, like Weisberg is a witting servant of the CIA.

[John Kennedy White]

Lovely thought, and utterly improbable, more's the pity. If any film should appear in such circumstances, I'd work from the assumption it's a further CIA fraud, until proven otherwise.

Whither next the Agency, one wonders, on this subject? Heavy concentration on a long-distance south knoll shooter, perhaps? And how about a flood of film and bits of film, stills and negatives seemingly contradicting the Z film? Makes sense: If you can't hold a strong point, deny it to the enemy - better still, plant a few booby-traps!

Paul

Given the confessions implicating Trafficante, Roselli and Giancana, I firmly believe there exists a filmed trophy of the assassination that will withstand intense scrutiny from the research community. Call me an idealist, but I think it will happen in my lifetime.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

I would be gratefull if the other side might post a similarly concise reasoning as to why they think the film was not faked.

This is about as concise as it's gonna get:

Why the Zapruder Film is Authentic

Presented in Dallas on Friday, November 20, 1998

by Dr. Josiah Thompson

http://home.comcast.net/~ceoverfield/josiah.html

Maybe Rigby believes that Thompson, like Weisberg is a witting servant of the CIA.

I would be gratefull if the other side might post a similarly concise reasoning as to why they think the film was not faked.

This is about as concise as it's gonna get:

Why the Zapruder Film is Authentic

Presented in Dallas on Friday, November 20, 1998

by Dr. Josiah Thompson

http://home.comcast.net/~ceoverfield/josiah.html

Maybe Rigby believes that Thompson, like Weisberg is a witting servant of the CIA.

Tripple thanks for both of your general overviews, Mr. Hogan and Mr. Rigby.