Jean Hill saw JFK’s assassination up close. A few hours later, she told a Dallas TV interviewer what she saw. Her account is notable for its errors, illustrating the problem with eyewitness testimony in the JFK assassination story.
At least three problems
1) As John McAdams has pointed out, there was no little white dog between President Kennedy and his wife, only a bunch of white flowers.
2) However many shots were fired at the president, there is no corroborating evidence that they were fired after JFK fell into his wife’s lap, as Hill says.
3) Whether the limousine came to a full stop amid the gunfire debated. Other witnesses made similar statements but the Zapruder and Nix films indicate no such stoppage. Leaving aside claims about the alteration of the Zapruder film, I know of no such claims about the Nix film. So the photographic evidence does not support Hill’s account.
38 thoughts on “Jean Hill and the reliability of eyewitness testimony”
Miss Hill reported the multiple shots. A contemporaneous eyewitness testament that bears attention. Those shots must have been coming from undisclosed locations possibly fired with silencers but heard on impact.
R Andrew: Thanks for you remarks back. I’ll try to go over them here in my response ok?
1. Zapruder Film and Nix Film differences. The obvious answer is “No…They would not show the reaction of Agent Ready”. Agent Ready’s movements are documented on the Nix Film because, when comparing Nix Film to Zapruder Film, only on Nix’s Film can Agent Ready be seen moving off of the right running board (his position) for a couple of steps and then returning to his start position. On the Zapruder Film the zoom feature that Zapruder used only put the Limo into the viewfinder. Agent Ready is not visible and, by the time AND IN THE TIME, he was on the ground running (3 steps maybe??…see Nix) he was out of Zapruder’s viewfinder. It’s that simple. Here is a link to the Nix Film movements of Agent Ready. As you watch this film you can see Agent Ready is actually RUNNING PAST the MOTORCYCLE OFFICERS who are beginning to really decelerate. You’ll see Ready moving forward even with the windshield…and then beginning to return.
Here is a really clear and SLOW MOTION running of Nix Film.
Here is the Muchmore Film. One of the last things you will see is the appearance of Agent Ready’s head after he jumped off of the running board and as he closes in on the 2 motorcycle officers on the JFK side of Elm Street.
Here is a link to Muchmore’s Film. It is very clear.
The how and the why. Agent Ready started to react like Clint Hill did, probably too late anyway. He was recalled by the agent in charge riding in the right front seat, whose name escapes me at the moment. It think this is covered in Vince Palamara’s book on the Secret Service, Survivor’s Guilt.
Paul – the SS Agent in charge of the SS car was Emory Roberts. He was also the agent who ordered Don Lawton off of the car at Love Field where he would have been in Jack Ready’s position – the agent in the best location to protect the president.
Roberts also knew that Clint Hill, Paul Landis, & Jack Ready (all outriders on the SS car) had been out drinking the night before the assassination & declared them all fit for duty & the drinking & being out late did not limit their protection of JFK.
Roberts also ran to JFK’s car when the limo pulled into Parkland & proceeded to tell Roy Kellerman (Roberts superior) that Roberts was switching to LBJ.
Finally – Roberts from 11/22 on became LBJ’s quasi chief of staff. As LBJ said – Roberts was the first man LBJ saw in the morning & the last one before he went to bed.
I find that very, very interesting!
Z-film – Officer Chaney Controversy:
“Neither SA Kellerman nor SA Greer mention a motorcycle passing in front of them in their Warren Comission testimonies, and the statements or testimonies of the lead car occupants are, by my reckoning, also pretty vague as to the timing of this. Only Chief Curry has stated that the officer was Chaney, but his recollection of WHEN this happened, in my opinion, seems questionable. Here’s a couple of examples :
April 15th 1964 WCXII (page 28), Chief Curry : “…and at that time I looked in my rear view mirror and I saw some commotion in the President’s caravan and realized that probably something was wrong, and it seemed to be speeding up, and ABOUT (emphasis mine) this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was officer Chaney rode up beside us….”
He also reiterates this point in testimony, April 22nd 1964 WCIV (page 161) ….
Rep. Ford : ‘Did you get this order over the PA system before the second and third shots’?
Curry : ” I don’t believe so, I am not sure. I am not positive. Because they (shots) were in rapid succession. But after I noticed some commotion in the President’s car and a motorcycle officer ran up aside of me….I said “Has the President been hit…?” And he said “I am sure they have”, I said “Take us to the hospital immediately.” ‘and I got on the radio and told them to notify Parkland’
At no point does Curry state where the limo is in relation to the motorcycle officer.
WCVII (page 346) ( Forrest V Sorrels, statement Nov 28th 1963)
Sorrels : ‘I noted that the President’s car had accelerated it’s speed and was fast closing the gap between us. A motorcycle officer pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled “Is anybody hurt?” ‘….By that time we’d had gotten (unreadable) the underpass when the President’s car pulled up alongside, and at that time Chief Curry’s car had started to pick up speed…’
Sorrels states that a bike pulls alongside them, but, again, seems pretty vague as to when, in my opinion.
WCVII (page 548) Testimony dated May 7th 1964, Forrest V. Sorrels : ‘Within about 3 seconds, there were two more similar reports. And I said. “Let’s get out of here” and looked back, all the way back, then, to where the President’s car was, and I saw some confusion, movement there, and the car just seemed to lurch forward. And, in the meantime, a motorcycle officer had run up on the right-hand side and the chief yelled to him, “Anybody hurt?”…’And by that time we had gotten almost in under the underpass, and the President’s car had come up and was almost abreast of us. When I saw them get so close, I said, “Let’s get out quick,” or “Get going fast,” or something to that effect. In other words, I didn’t want them to pass us, because I knew we were supposed to be in front.’
Both the McIntyre pic, above, and frames from the Daniel film, however, show that the limo did overtake the lead car.
WCXVII (page 629) statement of Winston G. Lawson, 23rd Nov 1963, Lawson : ….’I believe I heard two more sharp reports and looking back saw people scurrying away from the route, as though they were taking cover. Almost immediately the President’s car leaped ahead. We also rapidly accelerated’.
No mention of any motorcycle, but the first admission that the limo has overtaken the lead car as verified by McIntyre/ Daniels…”~Calli Robertson
Please be sure to read what people actually said vs. what you remember. Also…be sure that people remember the truth…not some story that is ‘remembered’ later.
Mr. BALL. Did you see the President’s motorcade come on to Houston Street from Elm; were you able to see that?
Mr. BROWN. Now they came down Main, didn’t they, to Houston?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mr. BROWN. No. sir; actually, the first I noticed the car was when it stopped.
Mr. BALL. Where?
Mr. BROWN. After it made the turn and when the shots were fired, it stopped.
Mr. BALL. Did It come to a. complete stop?
Mr. BROWN. That, I couldn’t swear to.
Mr. BALL. It appeared to be slowed down some?
Mr. BROWN. Yes; slowed down.
there exists a video showing the limo’s brake lights.
link for viewing the log-jam behind JFK limo at Z 313+.
R Andrew: The Zapruder and the Nix film actually do corroborate a ‘near-stop’. The Nix Film does show Agent Ready running for at least 2 steps (and you can see him hop back onto the Follow-up car if you look carefully enough). You can see his head moving ahead of the Secret Service follow-up car front window frame. You can also see him then return to his running board position as well. In fact, you can see his feet moving UNDER the follow-up car as well. If he were only on the running board NONE of what you can clearly see (or choose not to) would be visible.
Zapruders view of the Limo does not show the slowing down of the car because of how close it was to the camera. The Nix Film, taken from further away, does CLEARLY show the LOG-JAM reaching the back of JFK’s Limo in the second or two after the shot at z 313. If you watch the link I provided you will note that the motorcycles kept pace but…at the moment just before Hill jumped aboard the limo…..you will see them move ahead as the front of the follow-up car closes quickly on both Hill and the Limo.
Also…for Mr. Nix to say his film was altered or has missing frames is baseless. What was missing was his recollection. He saw his film 1 time before it was turned over to the FBI.
Lastly, regarding Jean Hill. Her errors are clearly outlined starting with her forgetting that she did sit down on the lawn after the shots, that she ran through the motorcade, and on and on and on.
It is exactly the insistence of ‘researchers’ who base their work/beliefs on ‘evidence’ like hers that the entire mess has devolved from.
Oh…I forgot..she sold a book too. Right.
Willy – I apologize for the Wonka attempt at humor – you actually post a lot of good information and I do agree with most of your conclusions – we disagree on the Zapruder film and I’ll leave it at that. You asked me about a source for Zapruder saying he didn’t stop filming – I already posted that in my July 14 post. Zapruder’s statement on Dec. 4, 1963 to the FBI states nothing about stopping filming but he does state that he never stopped filming once the motorcade turned from Houston onto Elm. Read the complete statement and tell me what you think.
Willy as to Jeffery Sundberg – he is preparing to publish a defense of his research later this year – your comment merits his response.
Bill – you mention that the Nix film shows Agent Ready jump off the car – shouldn’t the Zapruder film also show this? You have not responded as to why Patrolman James Chaney is not shown on the Zapruder film riding up to the lead car to speak with Chief Curry, Winston Lawson, Sheriff Decker, and Forrest Sorrels BEFORE the limo takes off and passes Curry’s car – an explanation why this is not seen in either the Nix or Zapruder films please.
Bill – Orville Nix is interviewed by Mark Lane as part of his “Rush to Judgement” interviews. Nix clearly stated that when his film was returned to him from the FBI the camera was damaged and that “frames were missing”. Nix was in Dealy Plaza, he shot the film, he viewed his film, and he used his camera. He had only two interviews regarding the assassination, never wrote a book, was never interviewed by the Warren Commission, and never sought attention – are you saying that he was lying about his film and camera?
Nix’s grand daughter – Gayle Nix Jackson published a book last year entitled “Orville Nix: The Missing JFK Assassination Film”. She argues that the camera original has been missing since at least 1978 – she supports her grandfather statements about the film and camera – what does this say about the film’s authenticity or is she just trying to make money?
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman’s interviews on 11/22/63 are primary sources as is her Warren Commission testimony – if the case had gone to court – all the witness statements(including Hill’s) and the authenticity of the films would need to be supported. She might have been mistaken or exaggerated some of her claims later but she was there – whatsoever of her statements that can be supported by other evidence should be accepted as true.
Mr. ZAPRUDER – “That’s correct. I started shooting–when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street.”
–Testimony Of Abraham Zapruder, taken at 1 p.m., on July 22, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President’s Commission.
This is the only official testimony I can find of Zapruder. Therein he states clearly that he started shooting “when the motorcade started coming in..”
As we see on the Z-film today, first there are motorcycles that come around the corner and pass by without the motorcade following.If we put Zapruder’s words into context he is stating he actually started filming when he saw the motorcade come into view. Taking his words in context would mean that he had to have stopped filming when the motorcycles passed by with no cars following, and he began filming again.
As Zavada explains, there is technical evidence to back up this assertion. It is the brighter ‘first frame’ that camera would make when the film was started:
“First Frame Overexposure – Occurs in the Zapruder original with his first exposure of the motorcade and at least twice in his filming of the first half of the roll. The possible causes of the fogged or lesser density first frame are reviewed…”~ ~Roland J. Zavada, 10/24/98
Mr Kiel, You still have not told the forum what frames are supposed to be missing from the Nix film. It is a useless assertion unless you can explain what the context is and specifically that which you are proposing is missing from the film as it exists today.
I have studied the Nix, the Muchmore, and the Zapruder films side by side. It is my determination that aside from the POV’s of each film the same actions and timing of, are identical for each film; as far as each one goes.
Although Bill and I disagree as to who the perps were in the assassination, I must agree with the comments he has made here as per the Z-film.
Your quote from Zapruder’s July 22, 1964(Warren Commission) and the one I cited from the FBI December 4, 1963 (Commission Exhibit) both support that he started filming when the motorcade turned from Houston onto Elm. The difference is you believe that he stopped filming because the extant Zapruder film appears to show he stopped filming. We do have Zapruder’s statements that appear to support he never stopped filming and NO statements by HIM to support that he said he stopped.
In the Dec. 4 FBI report Zapruder stated that “he first picked up the motorcade as it turned on to Elm from Houston Street and continued taking pictures until the motorcade disappeared to his right…the control buttons for the maximum zoom lens were never touched until he stopped filming.” Why didn’t he mention that he stopped filming in either statement – wouldn’t that be important information?
You and Ron Zavada have speculated about when and why he stopped filming – the motorcycles are part of the motorcade – they are going to be in his film regardless. JFK’s limo had a 7 taped to it & it was supposed to be further back in the motorcade – instead it was the first car after Curry’s lead car. Zapruder did not know about the numbering of the cars – it would have made sense for him to film as much as possible or he might have missed something. Apparently that is what happened to almost everyone filming in Dealy Plaza – they only had bits and pieces – not a continuous film sequence.
I do not know how many frames are missing from the Nix film and Nix was not sure either. Watch the Youtube interview with Mark Lane and Nix from 1966. Do you think he is making it up that his camera and film were damaged and frames were missing after returned from the FBI?
Why is Motorcycle Officer James Chaney not seen riding up to the lead car in front of the limo in the Nix and Zapruder films as is corroborated by Winston Lawson, Chief Curry, Forrest Sorrels and Chaney?
Neither the Nix, Bell, Daniel or Paschall films show a motorcycle anywhere near Curry’s car, or the limo, as it reaches the underpass. In fact the Nix film clearly shows the motorcycles hanging back in front of the pavilion as the Limo moves ahead.
As I have said before all of these films match each other in actions and timing in other than POV.
Visual evidence of this definitive quality trumps any testimony, especially testimonies that conflict with each other.
The proven characteristics of the Bell and Howell camera’s also trump any questions as per testimony as well:
“First Frame Over-Exposure:
The first frame of advance motorcade scene shows an over exposure condition, known as “first-frame-overexposure.” In my discussions with M.E. Brown, former Manager of the 16mm and 8mm Department at Eastman Kodak, the condition was undesirable and a development/design problem to be avoided, but a not uncommon occurrence.
Mr. Zapruder’s camera appears to have been prone to the problem. The Secret Service copies of his family pictures show two other occurrences of first frame over exposure.” ~Roland J. Zavada, 10/24/98
As far as I am concerned there is a contrived controversy made in these arguments for the alteration of the visual evidence. I consider those who promote this Alterationist hypothesis disinformants.
I have named names and presented evidence as per their glaringly duplicitous rhetoric in my blog entry: https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-zapruder-film/
Every question you persist with here is answered in full on that thread. It is redundant to re-argue all of this over again.
Arlen Specter threatened Jean Hill numerous times during her testimony he took. Why? Because he was nervous. He was afraid Hil knew exactly what she was saying. Why didn’t Specter just end the testimony before making all those threats against her? Specter also failed to get witness Arnold Rowland to change HIS story. It seemed Specter didn’t like the fact that Rowland and Hill were “telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. That’s your problem, Arlen…they swore under oath to do just that.
I don’t see any threats by Specter in Jean Hill’s testimony, though maybe I overlooked something. Could you please quote?
Jean, they aren’t actually IN the testimony, but the threats were made while she was with Specter FOR it.
Re: “Arlen Specter threatened Jean Hill numerous times during her testimony he took.”
Jean Hill may have claimed that, but not all claims are true. She’s also quoted as saying that Spector altered her deposition, and yet her published WC testimony has her saying she heard four to six shots from the knoll and saw a man she thought was Jack Ruby running in that direction. So what was altered?
Hill is one of several witnesses whose story changed dramatically over the years.
Regarding Jean Hill: Her story is so full of non-factual information. 1st. She was NOT only 4 feet from the President when he was shot (as she stated in her interview with Mr. Maury Povich). Next, she did NOT run across the Motorcade Route to try to nab a man she thought was escaping. She is clearly shown in the Darnell Film crossing the street AFTER the last part of the motorcade crossed (by this I mean the last Police Car which was trailing the Press Bus). This is clearly shown on the Darnell film as well. Incidentially, there are literally DOZENS of people running across the knoll before she can be seen crossing the street. The point: She just was a shocked observer and then, only after learning more details, put together her version of the events as best she could. The main issue with her is inserting events that are not probable, possible, or visibly obvious through other films depicting her actions as compared to her words.
Regarding Mr. Nix: He is/was in no position to discuss his film. He didn’t even take it to the developer until mid-day on Saturday, AFTER he attended a football game with his son, to shoot some film of a buddy doing a half-time event/show. He saw the film for the first time on Sunday, November 24th. Called the FBI, and gave it to them. He had no other film to compare anything to.
The Limo never stopped and, even more obviously shown in the Nix Film on video/youtube, you can clearly see that the Limo slowed dramatically as Agent Hill bolted toward the back of the Limo while the SS Follow-up Car braked to avoid hitting Hill and the Limo. In fact, if you look at the SS Agent on the right running board of the Follow-up Car you can see that Agent Ready had jumped off his position, taken step or two toward the Limo, and then returned to the Follow-up Car as all the cars sped off.
The entire mess is simply in people’s interpretations of what they were doing and experiencing. The dog, the closeness of the car, the speed of the limo (even ready thought the car was doing 20-25 mph and that there were NO people on the right side of the hill).
Heck, even Clint Hill has moved his position to actually reaching for the read handle on the limo as the head shot struck…even though he is clearly seen only at the wheel well/fender of the follow up car.
Just the fog of war…and yet…books keep getting sold. peace.
Thank you for bringing up my grandfather but your facts are wrong. You stated:
“Regarding Mr. Nix: He is/was in no position to discuss his film. He didn’t even take it to the developer until mid-day on Saturday, AFTER he attended a football game with his son, to shoot some film of a buddy doing a half-time event/show. He saw the film for the first time on Sunday, November 24th. Called the FBI, and gave it to them. He had no other film to compare anything to.”
He most DEFINITELY was in a position to discuss his film as he watched in the wee morning hours of Sunday December 1st with my father and the employees of Dynacolor lab. In fact, they watched it over 40 times and finally one of the men told him they should stop so the bulb in the projector didn’t burn his film. As the creator, much like a book writer, musician or artist, something you make sears your memory (much like having a child). He definitely remembered what he saw. And, my father did not go to the game with him on Saturday evening and it wasn’t a buddy he was filming…it was my future aunt.
Also, below, you speak as if you knew my grandfather. If you did, you didn’t speak to him often or you wouldn’t be making statements about his “baselessness” and seeing the film “1 time” before he turned it over. You’re wrong. If you would like to know more about my grandfather’s experiences, please do not hesitate to contact me. It is exactly the insistence of “experts” who base their work/beliefs on ‘evidence’ as yours that the entire mess has devolved from. Oh, and before you reply, I sold a book too, of which I have yet to see a profit.
Gayle Nix Jackson
Gayle. You’re welcome. But I beg to differ on what you grandfather saw or did not see. First, I am FACTUALLY CORRECT that he did bring the film to the developer on the day I cited. So I’m not particularly sure what you beef is but that’s not really the issue.
Regarding what Mr. Nix did with the film after the shooting: He ‘reportedly’ (ok..or if it makes you feel better) took the film back to the Plaza later and shot a few scenes including one of the Hertz Rental Sign atop the TSBD. Whether or not he actually gave the camera to his ‘son’ to shoot his sister as she performed at Half-time is not the issue. Sorry if you feel it is. It is of little consequence to me of what his did or did not do with the camera. Right? I mean, does it matter at all that he kept it for more than a day? I hardly think so.
The ONLY thing that matters is his taped conversation with Mr. Lane in which he describes his view that there are frames missing ‘here and there’. NOT the alteration of anything (which one frame ‘here and there’ does not comport with.
Also, his viewing of the film he took, I find it interesting that it can be compared anything, much less the Zapruder Film by amateurs.
As for your view about your grandfather please keep them for yourself to cherish.
I would like to point out that, in your comments on what I wrote you QUOTED the words ‘baselessness’. I did not write that word. YOU DID. I wrote that his evaluation is ‘BASELESS’.
I read your comment about people making a buck on this issue. Congratulations.
PS. The version you supply is slightly revisionist by nature. I understand that you are very proud of Mr. Orville Nix. He certainly did very well in his own right. However….your summation is not quite ‘unbiased’ and, very possibly, not very accurate.
JMHO. I think Jean Hill is an American Hero for sticking with her story in spite of ridicule, harassment and an attempt on her, her daughter and sons life by her own government. For finally having the courage to tell it (with encouragement) after years of succumbing to the intimidation. Even if you believe she was mistaken at some point her overall story hold’s water. Read her book and tell me different.
I agree that these are not major errors, especially a dog vs flowers, which isn’t even relevant to the shooting.
That the limo came to a near stop can easily be confused for a total stop.
What intrigues me is her saying someone ran from TSBD to the picket fence after the shooting. Whether it was Jack Ruby or not is not entirely relevant, but that someone did.
There’s a lot in her story that took guts to stick with and we can only imagine the number of witnesses and others that took the safe route and toted the party line to avoid aggravation…or worse.
I thought we had agreed on another thread that the toy dog was a small bunch of white flowers that Jackie was given through the fence at Love Field. It certainly looks like a lambchop toy in some of the blurry news footage but is definitely flowers in the clear news footage.
I still wonder why the WC even used Jean Hill as a witness at all given that standing next to her was Mary Moorman (who took the Moorman photo). Mary was crystal clear in her evidence about the first shot hitting the President in the throat, the second in the head and that shot coming from the front.
No weird dogs on seats, no limo stops, no ‘6 shots’, no changing testimony. Plus Jean Hill’s WC testimony is a lambchop dog’s breakfast of confusion.
Whereas the WC could have had crystal clear, solid as a rock, Mary Moorman….whose evidence completely destroyed the single bullet theory.
Indeed bravo finally some sense. Some commenters on here a clueless who claim to otherwise have some knowledge on the subject. You’ll shoot me down (no pun intended), but I don’t care. You go for very small none relevant inaccurate details but you don’t man up and answer the big questions you skirt round them like weasels. There is no evidence against LHO yet you dare to convict him and attack those of us who know this was CIA all day long with the evil LBJ and twisted Hoover claiming WE have no evidence!! Jokers.
The Last Dissenting Witness by Jean Hill is an old but fascinating read. It is actually a very scary read about her being terrorized for years for what she knew.
Fascinating, indeed. It was hard for me to put down.
Web link on the toy dog vs. white flowers debate. Well, at least Jean Hill saw *something* that other folks seemed to miss. All others saw were red roses, but Jackie carried extra, most likely flowers.
Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Several men on death row have been exonerated recently through the work of the Innocence Project, despite positive identification by eyewitnesses.
Jurors place more value in eyewitness testimony than anything else, though it is far less reliable than forensic evidence.
The mistaken witnesses, like Ms. Hill, think they are being accurate, but often they are just wrong on the facts.
In response to the 3 Problems of Jean Hill – they are really not problems at all – the problem is a lack of research by others.
Point 1: Tapes of JFK & Jackie at Love Field clearly show a woman giving a white stuffed dog (“Lambchops”) to Jackie through the fence as they greeted the crowd. It would certainly be a strong possibility Jackie placed the stuffed animal in the limo.
Point 2: Mary Moorman who was standing beside Jean Hill stated very clearly in a live interview on 11/22/63 “the shots were still being fired after I took the picture” (which showed the impact of the fatal head shot).
Point 3: Eyewitness Orrville Nix in an interview with Mark Lane makes it quite clear that the film returned to him from the FBI had “frames missing” and was not his complete film.
Over 50 witnesses stated that the limo came to a near or complete stop. Some brief examples: Roy Truly (manager of the Book Depository) stated that “I saw the president’s car swerve to the left and stop”.Dallas policeman Earle Brown “it (limo) made the turn and when the shots were fired it stopped”. Dallas reporter Mary Woodward “Instead of speeding up the car came to a halt”. James Simmons (on the overpass) “The car stopped or almost stopped”.
“Over 50 witnesses stated that the limo came to a near or complete stop.”~Andrew Kiel
So, which was it Andrew? Was it a “near stop” or a “complete stop”?
When one mode of investigation brings you to insurmountable controversy what is the most intelligent tactic to take from there? To put it directly, if the eyewitness testimonies are so variant, what does other evidence show?
The actual visual evidence should hold precedent. The very best of this evidence is the Zapruder Film. Here is the case for it’s authenticity:
The fact of the matter is that neither the Nix or Zapruder films show a “near” or “complete stop” that numerous witnesses have corroborated. It is also a fact that Nix stated that the film he took was returned to him from the FBI with frames missing.
It is also a fact that the FBI reported on 12/4/63 that “Zapruder stated that “he first picked up the motorcade as it made the turn on to Elm Street from Houston Street… He stated that he started taking pictures prior to the first shot being fired and continued taking pictures until the motorcade disappeared to his right.”
To my knowledge – Zapruder before his death in 1970 – was never asked to document if he stopped filming or if there were frames missing from his film. He certainly does not mention that he stopped filming in this FBI statement – that should lead to an “intelligent” question. Why do the only two films (available) that show the assassination appear to have frames missing and yet they are “reliable evidence”?
The Nix and Zapruder films do not show Jack Ready jumping off the SS car before being recalled by Emory Roberts or motorcycle officer James Chaney riding up to the lead car to confer with Chief Curry before the limo zoomed off to Parkland Hospital. Both of these actions were documented in their Warren Commission statements.
I might add that Dino Brugioni – CIA photo analyst stated that he made blowups of the Zapruder film on the night of the assassination and the current film is not the original he saw that night. I don’t believe that he has commented on or was asked about the stoppage of the filming by Zapruder.
One should not cling too tightly to the authenticity of the Zapruder film when all of these facts are considered.
“One should not cling too tightly to the authenticity of the Zapruder film when all of these facts are considered.”~R. Andrew Kiel
Those with little to no expertise in film and special effects should not cling too tightly to the charlatans claiming that the Zapruder film has been altered.
It is obvious that you haven’t thoroughly read the material at the link I put in my last response to you Kiel. The controversy is dealt with from every angle there.
Calm down Willy Wonka – you are correct – I did not read every word of the hybridrogue1 site but I read enough to realize my confidence in the conclusions of Doug Horne, John Costella, James Fetzer, David Lifton, & Dino Brugioni makes more sense to me.
Jeffery Sundberg, MSEE, MS made a convincing presentation at Duquesene U. in 2013 that challenges Zavada. Sundberg’s research argues that the Zapruder film could not have been filmed to a point outside the sprockets using that particular camera.
Until someone can explain why Officer Chaney & SS agent Jack Ready are not seen in the Zapruder film doing what corroborating witnesses say they did – there should be some doubt.
Do you have any comment about why Zapruder would have stopped filming as the limo was turning the corner & approaching Zapruder (when he told the FBI he never stopped filming) or why the Nix film has frames missing?
“(Zapruder) told the FBI he never stopped filming”~R. Andrew Kiel
Let’s have a source for this assertion Kiel.
According to what I know these are facts:
“Realizing the Presidential party was not immediately behind, Zapruder stopped filming to conserve film. His next sequence would begin with the Presidential Lincoln already on Elm and run uninterrupted for 354 frames. Its 19-seconds would capture the most dramatic and horrific single event of the century.”
Where are the frames supposed to be missing from the Nix film?
I also consider it insulting, you referring to me as Willy Wonka, or insinuating that I am not calm.
You stating that you “read enough to realize..” is quite telling.
What does Jeffery Sundberg’s degree in electrical engineering have to do with film or special effects cinematography?
Zavada was an expert, not only in film chemistry, but in all movie making machinery, which obviously includes cameras, projectors, and lenses.
If the lens on the Bell & Howell didn’t create the ghost images as proven by Zavada, what is Sundberg’s alternative explanation?
Do you as simply an author have the technical expertise to determine who is correct in this dispute? If you think so, do please explain.
I support Jean Hill on this. She saw how JFK looked as he was being shot-that is what we are mourning, not the issue of a little white dog between JFK and Jackie. The former trumps the latter by a huge margin here.
The little white dog was a Shari Lewis doll of Lambchop the puppet, that a fan had given Jackie.