From Shane O’Sullivan, director of the excellent documentary, Killing Oswald,
comes an conversation between Doug Horne and Dino Brugioni of the CIA about the agency’s handling of the Zapruder film.
I’ve always been skeptical about claims that the film was altered. But I have a great deal of respect for Doug Horne for his excellent work for the ARRB. HIs research into the handling of the film is very careful and Dino Brugioni is renowned as the CIA’s top photographic analyst. Worth watching.
Re:R. Andrew Kiel–you are ” Spot On “. I have watched
that documentary, and I firmly believe that Dino Brugioni is a competent, credible, honest and forth-right expert who clearly and cogently presented evidence that proves the Zapruder film was altered; frames missing, showing more visuals of the brain matter shooting higher up in the air, the motorcade stopping, etc. Clearly, the film we saw years ago on ‘ Geraldo’s ‘ program is not the unaltered film Dino Brugioni witnessed! !
I don’t understand why any “film expert” who actually believes the Zapruder film could be undetectably altered in just 12 hours
using 1963 aerial image technology doesn’t just go ahead and alter an 8mm re-enactment film and let us see how undetectable it really is instead of just making claims with no evidence that it can even be done.
You could probably get a book and a documentary movie out of it since it would raise a lot of interesting questions.
But of course none of the “experts” have even attempted it.
I didn’t do film “alteration” but I did work on hundreds of
optical effects shots for movies and television and I often
utilized Oxberry Aerial Image cameras to shoot complex multipass
split exposure effects for companies like Disney, Universal,
Columbia, Paramount and a few others you may have heard of.
Please could somebody tell me what this version of the Zapruder film is/is from?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BidgCVv8e7Y
It seems to be filmed slightly further back and to the right of the extant Z film. It contains about 10 frames and seems to show the turn of the limo.
The crowd at the bottom seems different and you can see the bottom of the freeway sign.
It isn’t from the SS reconstruction, nor is it from ‘The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald’ (I’ve checked and it’s different again). Is it a reconstruction/hoax/alternative shot/original? I’d love to know what it is.
This is clearly a modern digital fake:
The white lead car has been added:
Watch closely as the white car is going by the sign, it’s windshield isn’t quite matched up and puts a notch in the sign as the matte job was sloppy at that point. Move it forward a frame at a time and you will see the top edge of the sign being “trimmed” by the windshield.
The biggest clue is that the sequence is so short.
In this film you see people jumping and waving in excitement
as the motorcade turns to Elm street, However in other (real) versions of the Zapruder film assassination the people are not moving much especially jumping or waving as the president’s limo gets closer.
Compare it to this First Day Copy:
https://youtu.be/kq1PbgeBoQ4?t=41
\\][//
Thanks for the reply, Willy. Yes, the length of the clip is suspicious. Good spot with the wind-shield.
I entirelly agree. I have no argument here.
My point is more towards generating additional discussion around another aspect of the imagery as seen in frames 314-340, which I haven’t read or heard much discussion about. The image I would like to draw attention to is most clear in frame 327 and those adjacent. I propose that it may be evidence of a large exit wound (as per the Parkland description) at the back of JFK’ s head. Please see: [http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z327.jpg]
Namely in 327, the rounded flared hair with dark center, exhibiting a bulging cone-like shape at the back of JFK’s head, suggestive of an explosive rear-exiting head wound, and which renders the entire shape of JFK’s head unusual, especially in comparison to frame 312. [http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg]
This image of a potential rear-exiting wound begins to take form in frame 314, but is not yet as large as in 320 (0.32 seconds later) nor by 327 (0.74 seconds after 313), and is still visible by 340.
IRREFUTABLE ZAPRUDER EVIDENCE OF A HEAD SHOT FROM THE FRONT?
Can anyone comment on why Zapruder frames 315-340 have not been presented and used as confirmatory evidence for a head shot to Kennedy coming from the front? All frames show a large explosive wound at the lower rear half of the head, perhaps best and most clearly seen in frames 326-328.
“All frames show a large explosive wound at the lower rear half of the head, perhaps best and most clearly seen in frames 326-328.”
~George Vasios
No they don’t, the major explosive expulsion of matter blew out of the top of Kennedy’s head as seen in frame 313. The frames of the film after that point show a collapsed skull, due to the brains being ejected through shattered bones of the skull.
See both of these pages:
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/sherry-fiester-on-enemy-of-the-truth/
And:
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-zapruder-film/#comment-12615
\\][//
What is your interpretation of the abnormal image at the back of JFK’s head in Zapruder frame 327?
“..abnormal image”?
The back of JFK’s head is in shadow, no darker than any other shadow at that angle on any other subject.
\\][//
“I would also like to point out, that frames 323-327 seem to clearly show a large, unnatural formation at the back of the president’s head, as if there is a large exit wound, with the hair puffed out, and the head has an abnormal shape. Evidence of a shot from the front?” ~ George Vasios, March 17
“Yes it is evidence of a shot from the front.” ~ Willy Whitten, March 18
Do you still agree with your comment of March 18, and if so, could you please describe what aspects of Zapruder frames 323-327 led you to state that these frames provide evidence of a shot from the front?
George Vasios,
My opinion that the Zapruder film shows proof of a shot from the front does not rely solely on frames 323-327, but on the sequence from Z-313 forward; featuring Kennedy’s imperceptible forward head nod and backspatter into the direction of the oncoming bullet. The explosion of JFK’s cranium, blowing the right side of his brains out, and the collapse of his head to the shape of a football due to the loss of brain volume within the head.
See:
https://i1.wp.com/oi60.tinypic.com/dcc485.jpg
\\][//
I have a comment of 834 words to offer Mr Vasios.
Rather than splitting it into separate comments here, I refer you to:
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-zapruder-film/#comment-12660
\\][//
I would like to amend my interpretation of the walking lady’s movement in Zapruder frames 308-314, where I first thought there was an impossible walking movement: right foot planting in 313, followed by additional movement forward using the right leg in 314-316. After closer examination of Zapruder frames 297-323, and in particular frames 311-316, it appears that frames 314-316 are merely a continuation of the right leg moving forward in a normal walking motion that begins in frame 306 and ends in frame 316.
“I would also like to point out, that frames 323-327 seem to clearly show a large, unnatural formation at the back of the president’s head, as if there is a large exit wound, with the hair puffed out, and the head has an abnormal shape. Evidence of a shot from the front?”~George Vasios
Yes it is evidence of a shot from the front. At least you got one thing right.
\\][//
After watching Doug Horne’s excellent interview with Dino Brugioni, I went back and viewed the Zapruder film hoping to find some evidence of film tampering. As frame 313 approaches, there is a woman to the right of, and behind, Mary Moorman and Jean Hill, who is walking towards the president’s limousine. As she walks, it is fairly easy to see the motion of her legs, with one leg moving forward, planting, then being followed by her other leg moving forward and planting, in a normal walking pattern. That is until you get to frame 313. Starting with frame 308, her next step is initiated with her RIGHT leg, which continues through to her right foot plant at frame 313, which is blurred and looks a little odd compared to the previous images, However, at frame 314, is appears as if her next step is also initiated with her RIGHT leg, which I would presume is an impossibility. This occurs, of course, right after the moment of the head shot 313/314, and thus possibly provides evidence in support of alteration of the Zapruder film at that moment. For example, Dan Rather indicated that Kennedy’s head moved forward after the head shot (after viewing the original Zapruder film).
I would also like to point out, that frames 323-327 seem to clearly show a large, unnatural formation at the back of the president’s head, as if there is a large exit wound, with the hair puffed out, and the head has an abnormal shape. Evidence of a shot from the front?
John McAdams, a question please.
Are you a supporter of Donald Trump?
If your reading of the evidence leads you to conclude that :- The limousine braked, the limousine stopped, Kennedy had a large hole in the back of his head after being shot, there is a strange black mark on the Zapruder film covering the back of Kennedy’s head in the relevant film and the explosion caused debris to ‘jet’ back and shower forwards: Then you are able to confidently state the Zapruder film was altered.
If your reading of the evidence is that the Zapruder film is genuine, then you can fuss about how it was impossible to alter the film and explain in terrific detail the irrefutable evidence to support this, but unfortunately get a bit stuck making a robust argument why the single bullet theory is not credible.
Of course it doesn’t bother Eddy that there is ZERO evidence that the Zapruder film was edited. Because Eddy doesn’t know the slightest thing about film or special effects cinematography.
He considers speaking to technical issues that are over his head as “fussing”. He doesn’t recognize that the film itself proves conclusively that JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets – thus destroying the ‘Single Bullet Theory’. He also seems to miss the fact that the Z-film proves the shot to Kennedy’s head came from the front. All of these aspects prove the assassination was due to a conspiracy.
So what is Eddy’s interest in promoting the best evidence in the case as altered and unreliable evidence? What do the parties responsible for duping Eddy into this opinion have to gain from eliminating the best evidence?
Fetzer and Horne are con artists. And folks like Eddy bought their BS hook-line-and sinker.
\\][//
Mr Whitten, you are wedded to your view the film was not altered. You make no effort to explain the issues I have raised that lead me to conclude it was altered (other than to abuse some commentators). My conclusion on your evidence that the film has not been altered is that I reject it.
“My conclusion on your evidence that the film has not been altered is that I reject it.”~Eddy
Your conclusion is irrelevant because you are utterly ignorant of film and special effects.
\\][//
To me, that the CIA went and got the Z-Film in Chicago a day or 2 after the assassination and altered the Z-Film in Rochester in NY the next day and then delivered that film to Washington the next day shows that it was the CIA that designed the assassination and cover – up.That the CIA has not released files about the assassination for over 50 years when it was supposed to have been done by a lone nut further confirms that the CIA is hiding something – they designed the assassination and the following cover-up. The evidence is the conspiracy.
There’s no mystery about the Z film. It’s one of the single most important pieces of evidence proving what we all know – that Oswald was set up to take the fall and that there was more than one shooter involved.
All you have to do is watch it – the hands jerking up to the throat, then the body pushed forward from the back shot hitting (2 shots).
Connally reacts to his shot (1 shot).
Then the almost simultaneous shots to the head pushing it down, then slamming the entire body backward and to the left (2 shots).
And though unseen, the piece flying onto the trunk which Mrs. Kennedy tried to retrieve.
It’s why this film was banned for 12 years after the assassination. I mean, think about that for a minute. If the government really and truly wanted to vigorously pursue the truth about the case, would they have kept it from public view until Groden snuck it onto a talk show in 1975? Of course not.
On the other side of the coin, look how the government constantly fed the myth about Oswald, harping on anything and everything, to try to prove their case that he was a deranged, cold-blooded killer.
Ms Davison
I consider myself a ‘neutral observer’ rather than a conspiracy theorist. Being a non-US citizen living in Europe, I really have no ‘axe to grind’ when it comes to the assassination of President Kennedy. The video subject of this blog was something I stumbled across purely by chance and I found it extremely intriguing.
Like you, I tried to come up with a non-suspicious motive for there being two separate NPIC ‘events’ and two different sets of associated briefing boards. The options that you have listed above are amongst the various possible scenarios that I too considered. However, having now watched on numerous occasions the video of Dino Brugioni’s highly detailed & trustworthy testimony, in my humble opinion, a straightforward (non-suspicious) scenario just doesn’t explain these two NPIC ‘events’.
I’m sure that many theories and counter-arguments could be debated forever and a day. To put the issue to bed once and for all will require the US Government to ‘come clean’ and state precisely why a second set of NPIC briefing boards was deemed necessary. Indeed, perhaps the authorities could even reveal to the public the original 2-panel set of briefing boards (i.e. those produced by Dino Brugioni’s team) – that way we would know once and for all the true differences between the two sets of briefing boards.
Respectfully, AGK
AGK,
I’d just like to add that I’m not disagreeing with Brugioni, who I agree is a trustworthy witness. The film he described isn’t different from the Z film we know, despite Horne’s and the narrator’s misleading comments. No one has ever shown that altering this film would even be possible, let alone actually done. So I respectfully disagree with you, AGK.
Dino Brugioni’s team worked with an 8mm (slit) film.
Homer A McMahon’s team worked with a 16mm (unslit) film.
QED: Physically Different Films.
“Dino Brugioni’s team worked with an 8mm (slit) film.
Homer A McMahon’s team worked with a 16mm (unslit) film.
QED: Physically Different Films.”~AGK
Zapruder played back his original film on an 8mm projector in his office while he had it, during negotiatons with LIFE Magazine.
The original Z-film was obviously split.
During Homer A McMahon’s testimony to Horne amd Gunn, McMahon explained that he had dementia…
McMahon: “Ah, I have senile dementia; I, I can’t remember, really—anything.”
His testimony is worthless. His “memory” of working with a 16mm unsplit film is worthless. Non-admissible testimony. PERIOD.
\\][//
And Ben Hunter?
Is his testimony also “worthless”?
“And Ben Hunter?
Is his testimony also “worthless”?”~AKG
All testimony is worthless that does not state explicitly that a film was made.
ALL these people did was make prints from frames of a copy of the Z-film. No one claims to have been involved in making a motion picture. That is a tale made out of whole cloth by Douglas Horne.
\\][//
Aren’t you begging the question here?
For the time being, let us put to one side all arguments for & against the Zapruder film being ‘altered’ in some way.
The key question for me is: Over the weekend of 23-24 November 1963, why did CIA’s National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) create two completely different sets of briefing boards using frame enlargements of the Zapruder film?
Dino Brugioni was a legend within the Intelligence Community and came across as an incredibly reliable/honest ‘witness’ during his filmed 2009 interview with Douglas Horne. Furthermore, Dino consistently and emphatically denied that the 4-panel set of briefing boards (i.e. those that currently reside in the National Archives) was what he made in 1963.
The fact that there were two separate NPIC ‘events’, the first one presided over on Sat 23rd November 1963 by Dino Brugioni, Bill Banfield & Co, and a second one on Sun 24th November 1963 conducted by a completely different ‘work crew’ (i.e. Homer McMahon, Ben Hunter & Capt Sands) is extremely suspicious in my humble opinion!
Yes AGK,
And the rush to illegitimate the prime visual record of the JFK assassination is extremely suspicious in my professional opinion as a special effects artist, who understands the impossibility of forging an undetectable Kodachrome II “original” by any means whatsoever.
As I have stated before, to someone who actually understands film and special effects, the arguments of Horne, Healy, Fetzer, and Lifton are totally absurd, and dead giveaways that they know absolutely nothing about the subject.
I am convinced that the Alterationist camp is a professional propaganda operation.
I am not saying that AGK is part of that operation, but only that he has been duped by such.
\\][//
Mr Whitten,
AGK “has been duped by such”?!? I can assure you that I have not been duped, and I think you have completely missed my salient point.
It’s an incontrovertible Fact that there were two completely different sets of briefing boards put together by two separate NPIC work teams! Why? And what has become of the 2-panel briefing board set produced by Dino Brugioni’s team?
“And what has become of the 2-panel briefing board set produced by Dino Brugioni’s team?”~AGK
If you are actually following the issue, you should know the answer to that question: Brugioni’s boards got back into his personal possession at some point. When Cartha DeLoach found out about Brugioni having the boards, he demanded that they be delivered to him immediately, and the have never been seen since.
Please remember that throughout this entire controversy, neither McMahon nor Brugioni claimed to have been part of, nor had any knowledge of a moving picture being produced from the copies of the z-film they were working with.
That entire story is made up in whole cloth by Douglas Horne.
\\][//
That still doesn’t explain why two completely different sets of briefing boards were put together by two separate NPIC work teams!
“That still doesn’t explain why two completely different sets of briefing boards were put together by two separate NPIC work teams!”
It seems to me that conspiracy theorists often tend to think that when something is unexplained there can be only ONE explanation….conspiracy!
And yet if you put suspicion on mute for a while and think about it, there are other possibilities.
For instance, maybe the second briefing boards were for a different group of officials at a different agency or location. OR, maybe they weren’t satisfied with the first briefing boards for some reason and wanted them redone by a different team. OR, maybe they wanted MORE frames enlarged, or DIFFERENT frames enlarged….
Why does the first and only answer that springs to mind always seem to be CONSPIRACY?
Why have expert cinematographers said that the back of his head his head was altered in the Z film and actually explained how it could have been done in 1963? Who are the real experts here? Lifton and Horne have sure done a lot more investigative work on this than you have Willy.
“Why have expert cinematographers said that the back of his head his head was altered in the Z film and actually explained how it could have been done in 1963?”~Archie
Just WHO are these “expert cinematographers” you are talking about here Archie? Name them. Doug Horne? Lifton? Neither one of them know a single thing about photography. let alone cinematography or special effects.
I have been a special effects artist my entire adult life, and worked professionally in the industry for more than 20 years.
See: https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-zapruder-film/
\\][//
My point is Brugioni was an expert in this area.
He is a lucid and credible witness to history. These are the type of people who have given answers to questions that are helping people put the pieces of this puzzle together.
The Z Film was altered. It couldnt be done. It was done!
It remains largely a record of the Single Bullet Theory just like they wanted it to be. It remains sancrosanct for many but it has been altered in my opinion.
Agree agree agree???? MDG
“Whereas Syd Wilkinson’s dupe 35 mm negative was a fifth generation copy…”~Doug Horne
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18680&page=2#entry244629
Greg,
Do you have any idea what the compound effects of five generations would do to the contrast build up of a photograph?
\\][//
I stand corrected Willy in regards to the fifth generation. Yes I have an idea of what some of the possible effects of the contrast build up could be. The scans that I have seen were quite clear. The Scans were much more clear than the 1998 35mm duplication film (McCrone). I believe you can see the back of head black area is not a shadow in the 1998 dupe, it’s just easier to detect in the 4K scans. Maybe we should buy our own set and have them blown up to 4K Willy? We can split the cost to get the film and figure out later how much the 4K scans cost. ..??
Brugioni was there in Washington with the Original Zapruder Film
the weekend of 22/11/63. I believe him.
He was a professional doing his job.
Brugioni tells Horne he saw things that were not seen on what has purported to be the Zapruder Film the so called Altered Zapruder Film.
1. He says the turn on Elm Street was removed.
2. He saw part of Kennedy’s skull fly off at Z313 over more just
that one frame with a higher spray.
3. He saw the limousine stop.
You or I do not have to be film experts to believe a very important witness. Brugioni was one of very few who have seen the Original Zapruder Film.
It makes sense that everything had to be consistent with the Single Bullet Theory when Oswald was chosen as a patsy.
It is facinating to me to see a person such as Brugioni caught in a hell of his own, and having to keep this secret so long.
It was noticeable to the naked eye that some things were just not right with the Z Film from the first time we saw it.
Z313 always looked doctored to me. Be honest with yourself.
The stop before Elm always looked just not right & contrived.
The limousine stop is so chilling. This was MURDER!
MDG,
Believe whatever you want. But don’t give me this crap of, “Be honest with yourself.” Because that reminds me to remind you that you don’t know a bloody thing about film and special effects.
Your “belief” is just like other’s here who buy this nonsense, it is based on things you know nothing about.
If you want to continue buying this garbage, go right ahead, but do not expect any agreement from me. So make your case to the forum in general and leave me out of it.
\\][//
TESTIMONY OF HOMER MCMAHAN [ARRB]
Gunn (20:22): That was—that was my next question—I had assumed that when
you made the, the negatives, you were focusing just on the, on the
single frames that would be in the assassination sequence. Do you
have any recollection now as to anything that was in the other part
of the, the double 8 picture, the part that is not in the assassination
sequence?
McMahon: Ah, I have senile dementia; I, I can’t remember, really—anything.
Most of, of my reflections are, are, are what I have recalled and
remembered after the fact. In other words, I did it once, and then I
recalled it, and remembered it. I don’t know how the mind works,
but I do know that I—that I’m not—OK, I’m a recovering drug
addict and alcoholic. Do you know what a “wet brain” is? You’re
looking at one. I damn near died, and I’m not a competent witness,
because I don’t have good recall—absolutely not—absolute recall.
Gunn (21:41): With, with regard to the other events that you talked about, ah,
what, what is your sense of how accurate your memory is of that?
McMahon: I just told you, I don’t, I don’t have a full deck. Ah [chuckling], I
don’t know how, how accurate I am, I am presenting anything
here. So, this is not—at the time I did it, I was not—I was not
impaired, but I later became impaired. So, whether you’re talking
to a reliable witness or not is up to you to decide [chuckling].
— P. 29/30
http://www.manuscriptservice.com/NPIC-DougHorne/HomerMcMahonTranscript.pdf
\\][//
We can never forget this was a Coup d’etat on top of a heinous murder.
Those first set of briefing boards along with the dissected & then altered wounds of JFK told those in charge what really happened and it had to be covered up. Everything that needed to be done was done.
It also seems to be a situation where it was known what really happened in the first 30 minutes after the Assasination which raised so many uncomfortable questions.
Oswald became the patsy. You know the story.
And destroy and call into question everything about the victim President John F. Kennedy! Do you not wonder about the unsustained attacks on his character over 52+ years.
We have come so far in the Mystery of the Assasination.
And as you know the preponderance of the new evidence is pointing to the why in this case.
CIA, or rogue CIA. Perhaps Russian double agents working within the American CIA.
In Re: MDG December 23, 2015 “… And as you know the preponderance of the new evidence is pointing to the why in this case. CIA, or rogue CIA. Perhaps Russian double agents working within the American CIA.”
You had me all the way until you got to “Russian double agents”; huh? Wouldn’t that direct the blame toward the USSR? Isn’t that what lbj, frank sturgis, etal were saying in 1963?
This is credibe unempeacheable evidence of alteration of the Zapruder Film.
Brugioni knows he worked on preparation of the briefing boards from the Original Zapruder Film at the NPIC.
Are you surprised the CIA stopped a nothing to advance the 3 shot Oswald did it theory?
Brugioni is an expert that deduced he had been working with the original Z Film because the copies he saw later had frames excised showing less of what he saw.
We want to know what happened in this case no matter how horrible, shocking or extraordinary.
This was a Coup d’Etat where others stopped at nothing to get away with it.
We cant be naive about the alteration of the Zapruder Film or alteration of Kennedy’s wounds. It all happened as far as I am concerned.
This is part of the heinous act of not only murdering the President but also getting away with it.
One must be open to where the evidence leads in this case.
You and I were not there in 63 when all this happened. The perpretrators of the Crime of the Century are never going to own up to what they did if they are still alive.
Brugioni worked on the briefing boards that established the truth of what happened. A second of briefing boards were prepared elsewhere after the Z Film was altered.
Copies were then made of the Altered Film.
Shocking but true! We have got to the part of this case where we can see from the preponderance of evidence what really happened in all its sordid detail.
We can never forget th
“Brugioni knows he worked on preparation of the briefing boards from the Original Zapruder Film at the NPIC.”~MDG
You can only surmise that, both McMahon and Brugioni were experts in analysis of photography, Doug Horne himself says that they both could not have had the original film. Both you and Horne posit the OPINION that one of the films was the original, despite the fact that neither one could have been in the situation as posited by Horne.
I don’t know why you people are so desperate to grasp at this alteration angle when it makes no stronger case for the Coup d’etat than the authentic Zapruder film does.
I submit that the aggregate of evidence is against alteration of the Z-film, and that you have been duped by a slick confidence man, Douglas Horne.
\\][//
“I don’t know why you people are so desperate to grasp at this alteration angle when it makes no stronger case for the Coup d’etat than the authentic Zapruder film does.”
I totally disagree with your view on Doug Horne as a slick confidence man. Have you been to one of his presentations? or have you watched it online?
Additionally, it DOES make a stronger case as far as the cover-up. Bottom line, if the film is altered (back of head darkened) then shots from front and two shooters minimum. This is not the only area that Doug Horne has covered and if you would read any of his 5 volumes you might change your view. He stated in volume 4 that the next level of research in this regard would be the Z film. You submit the aggregate of the evidence but you should say “the aggregate of the evidence that you have seen”. The aggregate of the evidence that I have seen points toward the film alteration. You actually have to go to one of his presentations to see the 4k scans (they are not his property so there is not reproduction online). These scans are what convinced me.
“Have you been to one of his presentations? or have you watched it online?”~Greg
Yes, of course I watched his online presentations. I have also read his textual offerings and essays.
“These scans are what convinced me.”~Greg
“These scans” turned out to be made of transparencies 3 to 5 generations from the originals. Do you have any idea of what the contrast build-up would be by three, let alone five generations? Do you even know what contrast build-up is?
Do you have any idea at all about film and how it is produced and reproduced?
I have asked you before, do you know what a “process printer is, or how it works?
Do you know what an aerial printer is and how it works?
Do you know what a travelling matte is? Do you know what it takes to produce them?
I can tell you that Doug Horne is as clueless as you are about film and special effects. It is a matter of the blind leading the blind, your following his BS.
\\][//
This is a remarkable story Brugioni tells in this interview!
Brugioni was involved in 63 in making briefing boards at Hawkeye Works in Rochester from the Original Zapruder Film.
Brugioni says what is purported to be the Z Film is an altered version.
There are those who question that the technology did not exist in 63 but obviously it did exist.
Horne says based on his interview with Brugioni that the turn on Elm Street was removed from the film. We have all wondered about that turn. Something doesnt look right.
Horne says Brugioni feels frames were removed around Z313 as he saw part of Kennedy’s head fly off.
Brugioni also saw a high spray of blood after the terrible shot to the right front of Kennedy`s head.
Horne says the film was excised when the limousine stopped based on the Brugioni interview.
There also was a second set of briefing boards prepared with the altered Z Film. Brugioni doesnt know what happened to the boards he prepared.
I think it is quite likely the Zapruder Film was altered.
This was the Kennedy Assasination! It was a cruel and shocking act. A brutal ambush. Anything is possible.
I have seen this interview before but was struck recently in viewing it again that there were people the weekend after the Assasination who knew how many shots, and from what directions the bullets hit President Kennedy.
There was as we know a stampede to hide the truth however before the smoke cleared on the fence on the grassy knoll.
“Brugioni was involved in 63 in making briefing boards at Hawkeye Works in Rochester from the Original Zapruder Film.”~MDG
No you are mistaken MDG, the briefing boards were being put together aT the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC), not Hawkeyeworks.
Brugioni was describing something he had done 30 plus years prior to that interview. He describes Kennedy’s head exploding just in the way it is seen in the Zapruder film as it is today: matter flying straight up some 3 to 4 feet above Kennedy’s head.
Like many people in the intervening years, he seems to recall the car turn that is seen in other films from that day. Several people on this very thread have the same faulty memory.
But if you want to hear a faulty memory just wait until you read the testimony of Homer A. McMahon, who led the other team at NPIC. He spoke to both Horne and Gunn. Horne characterizes McMahon as a sharp as the day he did the work on the those briefing boards.
Yet throughout the interview McMahon keep saying, “you understand that I’m not right in the head don’t you? I can’t really remember anything for sure.”
The there is this from Horne himself:
“At the time, back in 1963, both McMahon and Brugioni were each led to believe they were working with the “original film,” but clearly, only one of them could have been. Fantastic, you say? Certainly. But all true. The evidence will be clearly laid out before you, below, along with an analysis of what the evidence likely means, and why.”~Horne
So these experts supposedly could tell an original Kodachrome II film from a copy…? Nope sorry Horne just blew his own game. As others have pointed out the greatest likelihood is that the film they were making the prints from was one of the first day copies that we know the SS and FBI had in their possession.
And everyone must see that no one at the NPIC, from either team claimed to make a moving picture. All they did was make prints from the film they had. So you have two days and no movie making done in that time. Are you now going to buy that the movie was remade at Hawkeyworks in the couple of hours before it was delivered to the NPIC for making the briefing boards? Spectacularly absurd!
Come on people THINK! Think for yourselves, Horne’s whole story is utter BS.
\\][//
“come on…think people! the only reason for McMahon to keep saying,”..you know i’m not right in the head,” as he tells us what may have occurred with exacting detail, and so on! No, doubt, Mr. McMahon still “fears for” what little life he has left. As for Dino…I personally feel that Dino Brugioni “is the key,” in that: he was DO, and that he did the enlargements of key frames! I also suspect that Mr. Brugioni “may know” more than he is letting on, in; he refers to it(as if “speaking out” to others;perhaps as a sign or warning)as,”the big event!!” Could it be possible that Mr. Horne may have deposed Mr. Brugioni, and perhaps that portion of the interview has been edited out…to be presented at some later date? I believe that some day the truth will be known, but perhaps nothing may be admissible as evidence. No doubt, the Z film has now been reduced to just a study aid, and is not admissible in court…at least not for what it is now(unless some other copy/or copies are produced), or other type testimony is introduced!”-DM
“I also suspect that Mr. Brugioni “may know” more than he is letting on, in; he refers to it(as if “speaking out” to others;perhaps as a sign or warning)”~D. E. Mitchell
You suppose, you feel, you suspect, you presume…
However you obviously don’t know squat about film and special effects. Your position is preposterous and essentially the result of a superstitious mind: Belief in things that you don’t understand.
\\][//
In Re: D.E. Mitchell December 26, 2015 “Could it be possible that Mr. Horne may have deposed Mr. Brugioni, and perhaps that portion of the interview has been edited out…to be presented at some later date?”
Seems entirely possible … if memory serves Doug Horne mentioned somewhere that they had deposed Mr. McMahon while he was with the ARRB.
Personally i don’t understand how anyone can doubt Doug Horne’s creditability. Seems to me when one casts doubt on someone who’s bona fides are widely perceived to be beyond dispute, it does more damage to the accuser. What would be his motivation for this claimed, “fabrication out of whole cloth?” It can’t be to sell books, as it’s obvious all over the internet, he’s donated multiple hours to videos/interviews where he’s willing to share and educate others on the various aspects of the case that he’s learned and/or wondered about.
David, Willy and I both do, and for different reasons entirely. Brugioni was too old to have much impact in a formal setting, such as in a court, and you fail to even account for Peter Janney’s close involvement in bringing out what is claimed from source Brugioni. My personal experience with both these researchers is they have a priority above following the information wherever it leads them, and that is defending their team reputation. Presented with facts they were unaware of, they both bared their teeth instead of carefully considering what was new and irrefutable.
Shane,
Don’t cow tow to the Sixth Floor Museaum because they threaten to sue you. You can use the film for study and research – as long as you don’t benefit financially – and if you go to court we will support you – CAPA has a team of lawyers that are trying to get a case in court and if the Sixth Floor bites we can stage a great court case that will generate tons of publicity and free the Z film from the Sixth Floor lock up.
Bill Kelly
Free the films!!!
The Z and the Darnell film and whatever else they have locked away ought to come out in the open and not locked away by the 6th fl museum which plays a nifty control game when it comes to the media from Nov 22nd 1963.
Where are the 4K scans of Towner, free them Megan Bryant!!!
The Zapruder film is a priceless historical artifact.
There is in fact a practical necessity for keeping the original film in a proper cool, dust free environment. And especially very good reasons for not wearing it out by continuous runs in a projector.
However, I agree that the film should be available to researchers on occasion to verify it’s existence and authenticity.
\\][//
Willy,
all I want is enhanced digital copies and they can lock all them films away in the Antarctic for all I care.
And with regards dust free environment, have a look at the video I posted a few months back to see Gary Mack trawling through NBC5’s films in 2013. Check out how they have been preserved.
http://www.prayer-man.com/the-search-for-the-weigman-darnell-films/
The HD versions of documentaries from the last ten years or so have produced some real gems.
The 6th floor ought to make digital scans (4K or higher) available to whoever wants to research them.
#FreeTheFilms6thFloorMuseum
Tom S
Funny thing about your news paper article written on Dec 15 1977 Robert Jones testified on April 20 1978 DO you understand my Skepticism. lead that should settle this :
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=266&dat=19771215&id=PJAzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HeEFAAAAIBAJ&pg=989,5550698&hl=en
Kentucky New Era – Dec 15, 1977
City Man Linked With JFK Probe
EXECUTIVE SESSION
THURSDAY, APRIL 20, 1978
US House of Representatives
Subcommitee on the Assassination of John F. Kennedy of the Select Committee on Assassinations. Washington D.C. Room 1310, Longworth House Office Building.
Counsel for HSCA: B. Genzmen, H. Goldsmith;
Representatives Dodd, Fithian and Sawyer.
Highlights of the Executive (Closed) HSCA Testimony of
COLONEL ROBERT JONES: http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2011/02/112-mi-fourth-army-fort-sam-houston_05.html
Upon my assignment to 112, I was appointed the operations officer for the entire group. The 112 MI group had seven regions under its operational control which encompassed a five-state area: Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, New Mexico and Oklahoma.
No, gerry, I do not understand your skepticism, but as I said, I was expecting it.
In the article dated December, 15, 1977, there is a reference to the reason for the article, details reported
in a recent column by Jack Anderson.:
This Jack Anderson column, for example, published in the Washington Post, is dated one week earlier, on December 10.:
It is an entirely bogus argument to make that ‘the Zapruder film couldn’t possibly be altered’ Its bogus because like all the physical evidence, its provenance cannot be reliably established. It is doubly bogus because it isn’t common knowledge what techniques intelligence agencies had at their disposal in the 60’s.
The argument for alteration can be viewed from an entirely different and plausible direction: The majority of Deeley Plaza witness testimony doesn’t match Zapruder film, virtualy all Parkland testimony doesn’t match the Zapruder film, some Bethesda testimony doesn’t match the Zapruder film.
On the physical evidence: The extant Zapruder film has an odd black blob at the location matching the witness testimony of a rear headwound. The Xrays are challenged by some people who have done scientific analysis of them.
You may not be persuaded by the weight of the evidence pointing to alteration, but you’re an idiot of you don’t at least consider it a possibility.
Doug Horne appears to be playing a game with his failure to release information on his investigations into alteration. There may be reasons for secrecy, but failure to provide any update or timescale is lessening the credibility of the research.
Eddy, when you wrote ‘It is an entirely bogus argument to make that ‘the Zapruder film couldn’t possibly be altered’, I believe you are correct. The hardest hurdle that researchers and non researchers alike have is a difficult time with Post Mortem surgery and the alteration of the z film. people do not want to go here, they don’t think our country could stoop to those levels and some don’t think it is possible. but all seems to fit well once these fact are believed. As far as Mr Horne ‘playing games’ with the release of information, he is not IMO, he does not control the information in regards to the z film alteration. if you read volume 4 of his AARB works, you will get the picture.
“It is an entirely bogus argument to make that ‘the Zapruder film couldn’t possibly be altered’ Its bogus because like all the physical evidence, its provenance cannot be reliably established. It is doubly bogus because it isn’t common knowledge what techniques intelligence agencies had at their disposal in the 60’s.”~Eddy
I’m sorry Eddy but you are wrong. It is a straw man first of all, to leave out the essential point about the argument for the authenticity of the Zapruder film: It is not that it impossible the film could be altered – It is that it could not be done so in an undetectable manner.
Whether you want to believe it or not some things ARE impossible, there are limits to almost anything. The limits on what one can do with 8 mm Kodachrome II are well stated, and well known to anyone who actually understands film chemistry, dye stuff reactions to light and the particular dyes composing the emulsion of K-II.
The provenance of the Z-film is indeed reliably established. The story told by Horne is all supposition and rhetorical nonsense.
Horne’s discussion on how he thinks the film was altered proves beyond the slightest doubt that he is utterly ignorant of film and special effects. The only people he can fool with this nonsense are others who are equally is ignorant.
As far as a 4K scan of what is originally an 8 mm image of colored dyes on celluloid, it seems that no one is taking into account the fact that we are not talking about a magnification of the actual head of Kennedy. We are speaking to a magnification of film grain not real life.
You are not peering at Kennedy’s actual head as if you are there in the plaza at the time moving closer in to look directly at the area of Kennedy’s head.
While I do not trust Douglas Horne for a moment, and wouldn’t put anything past him, such as possibly being involve in doctoring the photo’s in his care. More to the point is that I don’t trust his grasp on the medium; what film actually is, the chemical structure of both the film dyes and the celluloid it is adhered to, and how light effects this combination.
As far as the dyes and grain being magnified to that degree, I think the concept itself is faulty. Any medium magnified to that level is only going to show the medium itself, far out of context of the subject it had once portrayed.
\\][//
Willy, can you top-line your reasons for being critical of Doug Horne’s suppositions re: (1)Z film alteration (2) pre-autopsy alteration of JFK wounds and (3) exchange of brains post-autopsy.
The Core Issue on the Zapruder Film Authenticity
The central point of this whole argument is that it would be impossible to recreate a “Kodachrome original” by any means whatsoever.
Quoting Zavada again:
“The print films dye transmission had reasonable visual response with arc (or if printed properly) with tungsten projection.
In the case of the Zapruder film, the spectral sensitivity of a daylight camera original Kodachrome reversal film was balanced for about 5900 deg. Kelvin with nominally parallel curves having gammas of about 1.8. Because it was a reversal (i.e. it yielded a positive image) the spectral transmission characteristics of the dyes were designed for visual response when projected with 32-3400 deg Kelvin illumination.”
* * * * * * *
What this means is, if the same film type used by Zapruder was to be re-filmed, the light source would not be “daylight” the light source would of practical necessity be artificial; carbon arc lamps or tungsten projection.
As this is not ‘daylight’ the film would react distinctly differently chemically, and the color and contrast of the “faked film” would be different than that of an original shot in daylight. If any other film type were to be used, this would also be easily identified by chemical examination.~Willy Whitten — 12/2014
\\][//
2> The pre-autopsy alteration of JFK wounds:
Admiral Burkley accompanied the body of JFK from Parkland to Bethesda never leaving sight of the casket the entire time.
* * * * * * *
3> Exchange of brains post-autopsy:
I agree with Horne on this matter.
Clearly there is a problem with the brain claimed to be Kennedy’s that is practically a complete brain.
This is not exclusive to Horne’s revelation.
\\][//
Commenting about the likelihood of pre-autopsy alteration of JFK wounds, Willy Whitten writes:
“Admiral Burkley accompanied the body of JFK from Parkland to Bethesda never leaving sight of the casket the entire time.”
Burkley can’t be trusted.
Here’s a quote from his lawyer’s letter (March, 1977) to the HSCA’s Richard A. Sprague:
http://www.jfklancer.com/Dr_Burkley.html
“he (Burkley)had never been interviewed and that he has information in the Kennedy assassination indicating that others besides Oswald must have participated.”
My interpretation: Burkley wanted to be interviewed. He had information about a conspiracy. What’s your interpretation, Willy?
Unfortunately, Burkley changed his mind and decided to continue the cover-up. Here’s his affidavit to the HSCA: http://www.jfklancer.com/burkleyhsca.html
Rather than stating anything of value, the affidavit (Nov 28, 1978) seems to suggest that Burkley was trying to preempt Lifton’s theory (Best Evidence: Jan, 1980). Although I don’t agree with Lifton’s entire thesis, I suspect he raised some reasonable issues that worried the official gatekeepers, and those gatekeepers persuaded Burkley to toe the line. So instead of opening the door to the abyss, Burkley chose to serve his masters.
Disclosure:
(1) I’m of the opinion that most of those who covered up the crime were NOT “sinister” in the usual sense of the word. This includes MSM, most Warren Commissioners, even FBI. They closed their eyes, manipulated evidence, lied, misdirected and so on. All for the *right* reasons.
Some of the cover-up was CYA. Most of it was to protect the excessively powerful and revered MIC and America’s image.
(2) I believe that RFK and Burkley initiated the cover-up beginning with the autopsy.
“My interpretation: Burkley wanted to be interviewed. He had information about a conspiracy. What’s your interpretation, Willy?”~Bill Pierce
My interpretation is that Burkley wanted to be interviewed about that information he had about a conspiracy – but it was the HSCA that just wanted the information about him attending the casket; for the reasons you surmise; to blunt the Lifton book.
I submit that Burkley did not write that final draft of the affidavit, but that it was composed from the points made during the phone interview with Burkley by the HSCA, and sent for him to sign.
I submit that it was the HSCA that was not interested in Burkley’s revelations mentioned in Illig’s memo, not the other way around.
I simply disagree with your opinions about the family and Burkley being at the bottom of the cover-up and the travesty of the autopsy. I think other evidence proves a larger and more sinister center to the cover-up which goes far beyond anything Burkley or the Kennedy family were involved in.
\\][//
The Entire time?
Doctoring photos really. These are not Doug Horne’s photos. That is the most ridiculous thing that you have ever posted here doctoring photos by Douglas Horne. Maybe you should read volume four of his five-part series and you can figure it out. Evidently you have not.
“These are not Doug Horne’s photos.”~Greg
I do not claim that Horne would have done the doctoring himself, but that he might be involved with those that did: ie, Wilkerson.
One more thing. As a rule of thumb, ANYTHING that Jim Fetzer is involved in is a scam. Yes, you can take that to the bank.
\\][//
In Re: Willy Whitten December 22, 2015 “ANYTHING that Jim Fetzer is involved in is a scam. Yes, you can take that to the bank.”
I wouldn’t go quite that far, almost, but it is interesting how far off the res he has gone w/his ‘gun control’ thesis (sandy hook, boston, san bernardino all faked); maybe some of or part of them were fake/d, but to believe it was b/c the gov’t favors gun control, is jumping the shark imo. He’s also believing climate change is a hoax, and most recently campaigning for ‘the donald’.
The mystery to me is credibility of Doug Horne who served as Chief Analyst for Military Records on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board during the 1990s; the ARRB was responsible for the declassification of a great many of the files
My problem is of 5 commissioners on ARRB 2 where former Army Intelligence and as far as ARRB search engine goes there is no record of Colonels Boris Pash and Robert Ellis Jones. Also there is no Military record on Michael Paine and David Ferrie.
Doug is now a expert on Medical and Film but his true expertise leaves a lot of unasked questions never mind the omissions.
Gerry,
I hate to run a cannon ball through an opinion you have voiced in several comments here, and from experience I’ve learned it is rare that anyone appreciates this sort of news. I can support well that this is the grave of the I-112th Lt. Col. Robert E. Jones. : http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=69577226
This Jones is a different military officer than the Jones you suspected him to be. I spent about 30 minutes tracking this
down, and I can see why you were suspicious. There is almost nothing on the I-112th Lt. Col. Robert E. Jones. I make my own
“luck” because I like a challenge. The way this usually works is I get resistance from the person who seemed interested in
related facts, and then with more info, will come more skepticism, even to the point that my facts are dismissed as contrivances. This is
not directed at you, particularly, it is a description of what I have come to expect.
Tom S.
I would need more proof then grave marker that said Colonel WW2 If there where two Robert E Jones serving at same time in Army and where ask there full name and where they lived surely they would respond correctly to save any confusion I can only find Robert Ellis Jones received any Metals. If you have any more info I would appreciate it.
http://www.westernkyhistory.org/christian/obit/j/jones.html#COL.%20ROBERT%20JONES
http://www.kentuckynewera.com/article_2494e558-bf79-5042-b463-61a264f2e7d2.html
The lead that should settle this :
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=266&dat=19771215&id=PJAzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HeEFAAAAIBAJ&pg=989,5550698&hl=en
Kentucky New Era – Dec 15, 1977
City Man Linked With JFK Probe
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=69577226
Gravestone displays “Robert Edward Jones”
In reply to your more recent comment, if it is still a concern, the May 9, 2011 dates
is likely the date photos of the gravestones were addded to that findagravecom record.
If you click on the link to Robert Edward Jones’s father’s record, the date is one day later.:
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=69606086
I am curious to learn your reaction. I see you are initially skeptical.
Would you prefer not to learn these newly discovered details? I think I find “things” because I
discipline myself not to invest in anything thinly sourced or if there is generally very little available information.
I started as a genealogy researcher and was mentored by a very exacting veteran genealogist who insisted
on multiple sources and repeated comparison of details that initially seemed a likely fit.
Tom S
Thank you for your quick response and you did great job as I google that name many times and only came up with Ellis and one Robert e in air force it nice to get feed back regardless, my only interest is truth.
gerry,
Thank you for your gracious acceptance of this new information on the background of Lt. Col. Robert E. Jones, I-112th
Fort Sam Houston and your commitment to pursuing the truth. I apologize for my cynical tone, as I am smarting from this
upside down reaction to new and more accurate information.:
This is a faith based movement involving two Oswalds and two Marguerite Oswalds.
I authored these pages http://jfk.education/node/11 and http://jfk.education/node/13 and pushed
back against these follower’s defenses and they are quite unhappy.:
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?15350-FBI-s-Pants-on-Fire!&p=105716#post105716
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?15350-FBI-s-Pants-on-Fire!&p=105729#post105729
Despite my briefing him privately via email several times in advance, apparently Jim DiEugenio decided he
had too much invested in the money order claims to react thoughtfully or at all similar to a researcher.:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22439&p=319013 -Posted 19 November 2015 – 04:04 AM
Tom S
It’s quit oveous that your news paper story on Col Robert E Jones is cover story to cover up Truth about Col Jones its a charade to think there is more then one Col Robert E Jones at Fort Campbell KY
http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2011/10/26/fort-campbell-held-dedication-for-the-new-col-robert-e-jones-training-support-center/
According to Larry Hancock’s research on the 112th, Jones was lying. He was never the 112th’s operations officer. And the committee didn’t know this? How did Jones know it would be safe to lie about it? And if he lied under oath about something as basic as his own position with the 112th, why should we believe anything else that he said?
http://www.maryferre…bsPageId=223377
Gerry,
I was surprised that you initially did not react like this when I presented my research that dismantled your belief system.
Your current response is what I expected your initial reaction to be very similar to. You only get one reputation, Gerry. Is everything you disagree with, “faked,” Gerry? Is that how you’re gonna predictably deal with contradicting facts? Here is your Colonel Jones, is this description reliable?
Can you concede that Col. Jones had to be commander of the I-112th on Dec. 11, 1969 when Flower was arrested, to offer relevant trial
testimony. or that ACLU lawyer Maury Maverick was smarter than you or I….no fake Lt. Col. in a SCOTUS case?
I have seen the 4K digital scans of several of the frames Mr Horne speaks about. Z313-Z325 or so. When seen one after another like you would in a film, the black blob moves around from frame to frame and looks quite obviously like it has been blackened in. It’s not a shawdow, no way. We need to be patient and this info will come to light in a format that will be very persuasive. It’s hard to believe this could be done at all, much less from our own government. But with an optical printer, yes it could. It was my biggest “ah hah” moment I have had while studying the assassination. Hope you can have that too soon.
Greg,
This is an instance when I have to insist on knowing who you are.
Greg who? You are claiming privy to viewing something no one else has seen. Just you and Horne and his mystical “Hollywood film experts”
You cit: “But with an optical printer, yes it could.” What is an “optical printer Greg? How does one work? What experience have you had with one? What experience have you had with special effects cinematography?
You realize that no one who has such experience with such is going to buy this by watching a film or video presentation. Personally I am going to have to see these 4K slides up close and personal before I will believe any of this.
How do you know, that with all the time these items have been in the hands of Horne and his cronies that they did not produce these blobs themselves on the original transparencies before doing the high digital scans?
As I know how an optical printer works, I can guarantee you that they could not have used this process on Kodachrome II film to reproduce the original Kodachrome II Zapruder original.
I have read accounts of people claiming to have seen “another version” of the Z-film for years now. Yet no one has ever come up with an actual film as proof.
Now we have people claiming to have seen these 4K digital scans. Well, you are going to have to prove your bona fides to me before I buy any of this.
\\][//
Willy, I am just an avid reader and also I have been to multiple presentations at seminars and conferences. When you say “You realize that no one who has such experience with such is going to buy this by watching a film or video presentation.”, There are veteran film people who have seen these and believe it is altered. you can see the black blobs in many of the z pics. (http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/) just look at z335 for instance. that is not a shadow. As far as proving bona fides, there is nothing to prove. I saw the 4k scans, I saw them one after the other, thus creating a ‘preview’ of the film, and the black blobs move around in non shadow like fashion. plus they are as black as black can get, which is not a shadow. check out the other frames and you can see similar blobs that are not shadows. as far as aerial image optical printing, check out this link http://cinefex.com/blog/optical-printer/.
I am not saying anything that Mr Horne has not already said, and you can read it all too, but I have seen the 4k scans and I do not have one to show you. you will just have to wait for the documentary.
In the hope of shortening this challenge to vague, “you’ll just have to take my word for it,” claims,
would you kindly identify who told you that you were looking at 4k scans and what specifically satisfied
you of the provenance of the scanned source material?
Josiah Thompson better describes the issue I am asking you about.:
I’d like to avoid a fruitless. lengthy exchange I anticipate because your replies have amounted to,
“You’ll just have to take me on my word.” Isn’t there enough of that, already?
I have never written ‘ you will just have to take my word for it’. bottom line, I have seen the images and I have stated where above. Many other people have seen it too. I have been patiently waiting for the documentary for 2 + years, and will have to wait a little longer, but that does not take away from what I have seen.
“There are veteran film people who have seen these and believe it is altered..”~Greg
Yea, so I keep hearing – for YEARS now!! Well how about naming some names? What’s the mystery here? Who are these supposed “veteran film people”?
\\][//
In Re: Willy Whitten April 16, 2016 “I wouldn’t but in here, but you have made several comments here on the Z-film recently promoting the alterationist theory.”
Your post referenced an article by Zavada whom i understand believes the z-film is 100% authentic. I am of the Doug Horne take on the z film. I also find John Costella’s (phd in physics) work on the film interesting, maybe not his entire thesis, but his work – clips/versions of film showing various problems w/explanations are IMHO, worth a look see.
http://johncostella.com/jfk/
To me, when I saw Jackie Kennedy going on the trunk of the limo to retrieve JFK’s brains, I knew the lethal shot that blew JFK’s brains out was a frontal shot from the right (behind the fence on the top of the grassy knoll) and the exit wound was in the back of JFK’s head. If the exit wound was in the front of JFK’s head, Jackie Kennedy would have gone forward towards the front of the limo, but she didn’t go forward – she went to the rear- a clear sign that the entry wound was in the front of JFK’s head and the exit wound was in the back of JFK’s head.
In the first place, nobody really knows she was picking up a piece of JFK’s brain. The best quality copies of the Z-film don’t show any brains on the trunk, and her hand is flat on the trunk, and not grasping anything.
Clint Hill seems to have inferred this is what she was doing.
But then you have the autopsy photos, that show the back of the head intact. Also, the Z-film shows the main axis of ejected matter upward and forward, and not backward.
But you may want to claim fakery for both the Z-film and the autopsy photos.
There were some autopsy photos that were real and some that were faked. That is a separate issue from Jackie Kennedy going on the trunk (back of the car)to reclaim the inside of her husband’s head. The Z film I saw was real and it show Jackie Kennedy going to the back of the car to get her husband’s brain (at least some of it). That is what I know.
YES, YES!
In Re: McAdams post of December 22, 2015 “But you may want to claim fakery for both the Z-film and the autopsy photos.”
I find it astonishing that this conversation is being framed as one between the WC Cult and there opponents. As DG Michael notes, those of us with experience in the field of film and special effects are also totally unconvinced by Doug Horne’s propaganda. Any one with experience in film and special effects can see right away that Horne hasn’t the slightest idea of what he is talking about.
What could be the motive for throwing the Zapruder film’s authenticity into doubt? As Horne admits himself it is the best visual evidence in the JFK case. So why is he, and anyone else here so anxious to agree with him, so adamant in claiming it the film has been altered and is no longer a reliable record of the assassination?
I am convinced that many here, who are ignorant of the technical issues involved have been seduced and duped by a charlatan.
There is in fact no possibility of forging an undetectable reproduction of the Zapruder film. Period.
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-zapruder-film/#comment-11005
\\][//
There are multiple more experienced film people who believe it has been altered. Zavada is not the God of film study and I don’t believe you are either. I certainly am not, but I have viewed the 4K scans and they are very convincing. And when I say altered I mean the image content on the film. You may want to view these 4K scans before making further comments.
As Willy pointed out, Rollie Zavada scientifically proved that it would’ve been absolutely impossible for anyone to recreate a “Kodachrome original” of the Z-film.
Last November in Dallas, I asked former HSCA photo analyst Robert Groden what he thought of Doug Horne’s alterationist views. Bob didn’t hesitate.
“The Zapruder film is 100 percent authentic,” he said. “I agree with Zavada.”
I’m being respectful here of the people interviewed in this video. I’ve been working in multimedia development for 28 years now. Not bragging but just mentioning it. I just don’t see anything excised, altered, or changed in the Z film. 8mm film is as big as a thumbnail and back in 1963, it’d be next to impossible to alter 8mm film.
One reason why I say this, too, is because if you watch the close-to-the-original version of the Z film – not the cleaned up versions – with all of the scratches and blemishes, nothing stands out even more so than the cleaned up versions. The first public version of the movie came out in 1975 thanks to Robert Groden. Even then, the technology was not there to do any altering.
The only evidence of any kind of film and/or photo alteration I’m aware of are the backyard photos, especially when that photo of the backyard with a matted out human figure came to light.
If memory serves, that was a test done by the FBI to determine whether the shadows were consistent. It seems they were.
That was done long after the authentic Backyard Photos were discovered.
Anyone can see that Oswald was correct when he said it was his face that had been pasted on someone else’s body, simply by comparing the chin in the photos to the cleft chin of Oswald while in custody. Who knows what Marina said, as her translator was arranged by Jack Crichton with military intel background.
In Re:McAdams post of December 22, 2015 “If memory serves, that was a test done by the FBI to determine whether the shadows were consistent. It seems they were.
That was done long after the authentic Backyard Photos were discovered.”
Dr. Photon claims I said “every bullet that penetrates [sic] the skull will cause the top of the head to explode, no matter where the entrance wound is.” First of all, the word you want is “perforate.” A bullet that merely penetrates does not necessarily create such dramatic cavitation.
Second, I did not say “no matter where the entrance is,” although it was implied. A bullet into the top of the head, for instance would have a different effect. But I did say, with respect to high velocity FMJ’s, this happens whether the bullet travels back-to-front, front-to-back, or side-to-side.
Watch an execution involving a high velocity FMJ bullet from the front, and you will see this horrid phenomenon.
Watch the Discovery Channel’s video “JFK: Inside the Target Car” when the marksman fires the bullet from side-to-side in the dummy head. The top front of the skull opened up wide like the hood of a car–then snapped shut.
Of course you neglect to mention the exit wound from the same shot- which would have hit Jackie Kennedy in the face.Did you even watch the Discovery program? It is at complete odds with your claims.
Pay attention Photon.
I believe Mr. Cranor was giving examples of cavitation, whether back to front, front to back or side to side.
One of them was an execution (front to back).
The other was side to side per “Inside The Target Car”.
So I doubt he was suggesting side to side for JFK as you are insinuating.
No one claims a bullet perforated JFK’s head from temple to temple! Straw man argument.
Several diagonal trajectories originating from the northwest and the northeast are possible that do not include Jackie, or other unintended targets.
The map of Dealey Plaza that William Harper submitted to you indicates that the bone fragment he found in the grass on Saturday afternoon was about 120 feet in front and about 35 feet to the left of the limousine’s position at Z313. Do you concur with his statement. How could such a bone fragment come out the back of JFK’s head?
It didn’t. That’s the point. The Harper Fragment was parietal bone.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper.htm
Re: Milicent Cranor
August 26, 2014 @ 10:42am
This may have been mentioned previously, if so I apologize. I understand Ms. Cranor claims to have seen a Z-film unlike the extant version. Would she be willing to compare her observations with Mr. Brugioni’s remarks in the video presented her?
I would also be interested in how she was able to view this film.
I erroneously referred to Milicent Cranor as a ‘he’. My apologies to Ms. Cranor.
Gerry Simone
Milicent, what is the most serious complication of increased intracranial pressure?
Thanks Milicent.
This is why I think she is one of the very best we have on medical-ballistics.
Re what I told Jim DiEugenio (friends told me I was being quoted, so I thought I should elaborate): Kennedy was leaning forward, the top right side of his head was open, so of course a lot of material went forward. (And some went backward) But the large opening was not the actual exit wound, even if the bullet exited from the same location. It is exploding brain that sends large fragments of bone flying.
High speed photography of experiments on high velocity perforating wounds: the bullet exits, leaves a hole appropriate to its size and orientation. Immediately after, the effects of cavitation (named after the large temporary cavity) can be seen. There is a sharp sudden increase in intracranial pressure–greatest midway in the path–and rapidly displaced brain tissue explodes along the bullet path radially, thrusting open the skull, often along suture lines, or wherever it meets the least resistance. You can find a description on this phenomenon in almost any textbook on medical ballistics. (Experiments prove the effects of cavitation are non-existent when a bullet perforates an empty skull: the exit wound is not much larger than the entrance wound.)
This happens whether the bullet travels back-to-front, front-to-back, or side-to-side. Watch films of executions, with bullets coming from the front, and you will see this horrible effect.
According to Parkland’s chief neurosurgeon, the late Kemp Clark, part of defect in the back consisted of occipital bone–and he thought JFK was hit tangentially, that is, by a bullet from the side, with an entrance and exit not far from each other.
Would thick occipital bone have been blown outward by cavitation, or was it carried away by a bullet?
No occipital bone was blown out.
Occipital bone was missing according to (1) the neurosurgeon who closely examined the back of the head, and (2) the autopsy doctors. Why doesn’t John McAdams inform the reader of what these experts said?
Readers can either believe those experts who actually saw JFK–or they can believe x-rays that mysteriously appeared later which has no large defect in the back at all, and, instead, has a never before mentioned fragment that just happens to match the diameter of a Carcano bullet.
OK, so you think the x-rays were faked.
And they “mysteriously appeared?” No, Bobby resisted letting the Warren Commission see them, and only when the Clark Panel got to see them were they examined by top-notch experts.
You need to address the authentication by the HSCA. You know: the one done by people with real credentials.
The Clark Panel and the FPP of the HSCA did not intend to ask hard questions or challenge authority like Wecht did.
How did they reconcile a four inch change in the BOH entrance wound? Sheer incompetence on the part of the Bethesda autopsists?
Did any of those people with credentials proffer a real life example of a bullet similar to CE399?
Milicent ,why make up stuff that can be dismissed with little effort? “The neurosurgeon who closely examined the back of the head” admitted that he never “closely examined the back of the head” nor did anything but a brief inspection and stated that a full examination of the wound would have been done at necropsy, obviating any need for a “close examination”. The autopsy report makes no mention of missing occipital bone and does mention only the occipital entrance wound with characteristic beveling. Your level of expertise in this matter seems low, with obviously no training in medicine, pathology or wound ballistics. You claim to have knowledge of what happens with increased intercranial pressure but apparently are unaware of the most common complication of increased ICP.
So Milicent, what are your medical/forensic qualifications? Have you ever seen an autopsy? Ever seen a bullet wound? Ever attended medical school? Ever done a gross examination of the brain?
It didn’t require an autopsy for nurses and doctors to notice a BOH wound.
We’re not talking about a lower back wound that’s hidden for Pete’s sake.
This excellent article includes photos and testimony to support what Cranor said.
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
I also post one of my archived & annoted pics showing a BOH avulsion (@ Z-Frame 335), consistent with the testimony, illustrations and point locations, described in the linked article above.
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=95n1gk&s=8#.U_wU7vldV8E
Readers, please see for yourselves the detailed testimonies of William Kemp Clark and James Humes.
You need to see with your own eyes what Photon is hiding.
Photon, why don’t you ever present your own qualifications? How many autopsies have you been involved with; were you in charge, did you assist, or were you a passive observer? did you graduate medical school? Did you graduate high school? if so, please provide proof. if not, please define the training you have received related to treatment of wounds. How many gross examinations have you been directly involved with? Were you in charge, did you assist, or were you a passive observer? Also, while we’re here, would you define your career in the military?
Readers, please see for yourself the HSCA authentication of the autopsy photos and x-rays, and see what sort of evidence Milicent Cranor is avoiding.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy2.txt
I would also agree that the fatal head shot was a tangential strike. It also reconciles a side impact (parietal/temporal) with an occipital avulsion (Z-335 to 337, I would show an annotated enhanced photo but my Chrome browser keeps crashing when I attempt to upload to TinyPic).
Here is that TinyPic link to that Z-Frame 335 showing an avulsion:
http://tinypic.com/r/95n1gk/8
Here’s another link to an annotated set of autopsy photos. Would you agree that the semi-circular notch could be an entrance wound?
(Warning: Graphic)
http://tinypic.com/r/33onswp/8
McAdams i understand perfectly that brain tissue fell on B j Martin more then 12 ft. from JFK. Driver Greer less then 6 ft. from JFK recieved no brain tissue!
I agree Gerald. In fact the only report I’ve seen of anyone else in the car with blood/tissue on them from JFK was Jackie. A small part of which was on her jacket and the rest on her skirt/legs. None on her face or hair at all. I also haven’t seen any reports that John Connolly or Mrs Connolly had tissue on them. One would think that Gov. Connolly would have been the one to receive brain tissue etc if JFK had been shot from behind. Even the photos of the limo show in the White House garage show stains on the back seat but nothing on the back of the seats in front or anywhere else in the car.
Again. The during his interview he clearly says that the laboratory had NO 8 Millimeter Projector and one had to be procured. How darn hard would it be to actually determine if the freaking United States Govt. ordered or received an 8 Millimeter Projector, for that LAB, on the date in question. Either there was a Projector or their wasn’t. Right?
What some researchers are ignoring too, is for the right lower rear portion of the head to explode, as per the position of the president’s head, clearly rules out a GK shot.
Re: Steve R
August 14, 2014 @ 1:25pm
The position of Kennedy’s head was irrelevent in determining which part of the skull blew out. The particular anatomy of his skull was the factor that determined what part blew out, that and the internal pressure created by the bullet.
I am not convinced there was a GK shot either, but probably not for the reasons you think. I do believe witnesses heard what they thought was a gunshot from the GK that day. Do you trust that the extant Z-film is unaltered? Do you believe the doctors at Parkland saw a gaping wound in the back of Kennedy’s head? Do you believe Oswald fired the fatal shot?
It was a horrible mess, and blood and brain tissue went everywhere in and around the limo.
As Sherry Fiester explains, as I have noted in another thread, based on her citations of DiMaio, Karger, Smith, Leestma, and Coupland, gunshot wounds in the head create internal pressure within the cranial vault sufficient to blow out the weakest points in the structure of the skull. “If the only openings on the skull are the entry and exit points, the blood is projected from those wounds. If the skull fractures and the bones separate because of interior pressure…blood is forcefully expressed from those openings.”…”Blood is expelled in a conical fashion from any available opening in the skull…(Fiester, EOTT, p.251) This conical pattern of forward spatter, where blood and brain matter are ejected, is ejected in any direction, and could include bony fragments such as we see spinning off toward the front of the limo in the Z film. Fiester places this gunshot to the front of Kennedy’s head originating from the south end of the triple underpass or on the south knoll. Given the angle of Zapruder relative to JFK, these bony fragments have the appearance of resulting from a rear entrance shot, when, in reality, what we are witnessing is conical forward spatter seen on its divergent end, ejecting blood and tissue in all directions.
And if I may quote from a previous McAdams post:
“From the Itek Report:
‘There is no question that the explosion from the bullet impact radiates matter in all directions. The fine matter can be seen surrounding the President’s head. However, the major direction of this matter is just forward of the President’s head.’
Then, an underlined passage:
‘The major, or large particles which are actually measurable on the film, and have contiguous boundaries which hold together during flight, all radiate in a forward direction.”
Itek seems to confirm Feister’s assessment here.
Are you arguing that the direction of ejected brain matter has no relationship to the direction of the shot?
If so, the standard buff argument that Hargis was hit and therefore the shot must have come from the front is bogus.
That’s essentially accurate, and the skull was blown out in parietal bone from the cowlick area to the coronal suture.
Re: John McAdams
August 13, 2014 @ 10:46pm
Feister’s argument is valid. Hargis rode through the debris and blood ejected from Kennedy’s head. Read your own Itek statement again. The following statement makes no sense:
“If so, the standard buff argument that Hargis was hit and therefore the shot must have come from the front is bogus.”
The blood and brain matter ejected from Kennedy’s head was blown out of a defect on the right top of the head.
If you disagree, you need to explain what your supposed evidence is.
This is another McAdams factoid.
As Milicent Cranor has stated after reading the works of Dr. VInce Di Maio, a wound expert, the direction of the blood and tissue exiting from a head shot has little to do with the entrance wound location. It has a lot to do with the phenomenon of cavitation.
This means that the dislocation and pressure built up in the skull seeks an outlet at the nearest and weakest point. In this case, its the front, top of the skull.
Or to quote my book Reclaiming Parkland, “whether a perforating bullet goes back-to-front–or front-to-back–it is the top of the head that opens widest. This is due to exploding brain or cavitation. The rapid displacement of brain along the bullet path thrusts open the skull wherever it meets the least resistance, often along suture lines. (Reclaiming Parkland, p. 37)
This piece of WC mythology began with Cecil Kirk a photoanalyst for both the WC and HSCA. Kirk was not a wound expert.
Why McAdams would use him here for that is part of his eclectic ideology: anything that backs the WC is OK, even if the guy does not know what he is talking about.
Oh, you mean that the hoary conspiracy argument, “Hargis was hit by brain matter which proves the back of Kennedy’s head was blown out therefore Kennedy was hit from the Knoll” has always been complete nonsense?
Good for you!
I know all about cavitation, Jim.
Note that video clips of bullets hitting ballistic gelatin what have been on my site forever.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/gel1.rm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/gel2.rm
Also on my site forever, a past of evidence showing that brain matter landed all over.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/exploded.htm
But it’s nice to see you jettisoning an old silly conspiracy argument.
And you are also throwing a bunch of your fellow conspiracists here under the bus, since they have been citing the “Hargis was hit” and “Jackie picked up a piece of Kennedy’s head” as evidence of a Knoll shot.
Splendid! You are junking this ancient conspiracy argument. You are admitting that the “great defect” of the skull was on the posterior top, which is what the autopsy photos and x-rays show, and what all the medical panels who examined the evidence concluded.
P.S. How is what I posted a “factoid” when you just agreed with me on the nature of the head wound?
The answer to paraphrase a poet of the time could be “blowing in the wind”. It was NW. Not uncommon for Texas in November based on 50 years experience. That’s coming off the knoll, towards the Presidents Limo. It’s why a Presidential aide among others smelled gun smoke from that direction and railroad workers on the triple overpass saw smoke drifting out from the trees there.
It’s also part of why there was HEAVY splatter to the left rear but not the left front, the right front, or right rear.
So Dr. Dieugenio, every bullet that penetrates the skull will cause the top of the head to explode, no matter where the entrance wound is?
And you believe that Miicent Cranor is an expert in Medicine or Forensic Pathology?
Actually, the path of the bullet does determine in part where the calvaria will open up. In addition to the force of rapidly compressed tissue, the momentum and direction of the projectile directly affect the exit site. Therefore, in general when high-velocity missiles strike the anterior portion of the skull you get a posterior exit wound, not necessarily resulting in a wound at the top of the head, although the wound could be massive. Why don’t you post the opinions of real experts like forensic pathologists, who actually know something about the subject? Or perhaps attend a medical school and learn for yourself.
The heavy splatter was to the front. Read the Itek Report (which I quoted above). Watch Nix and Muchmore.
Read the testimony of John and Nellie Connally.
@ John McAdams, August 25th, 2014 at 11:16 am
Do you have a link for the Itek Report please?
John Connally said he was hit be a second shot, not an earlier one that hit JFK. How about THAT testimony?
If the heavy splatter was to the front, why does the back, left area of JFK’s shirt the most bloodied (see link)?
http://tinypic.com/r/157f96s/8
He was hit by the second shot, the one that also hit Kennedy.
He admitted that he turned after the first shot and failed to see Kennedy. It was really Nellie who was convinced that different shots hit JBC and JFK.
@ John McAdams at August 25, 2014 at 9:31 pm
In this taped press announcement, JBC said that the Warren Commission DISAGREED with him on this point, ergo he was convinced as was Nellie that he was hit by a separate shot than JFK:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhSIHCTTaWg
On another note, since the WC didn’t conclude which shot missed, it means another scenario: that JBC could’ve been hit by the first shot, which is not possible since the bullet travels faster than the speed of sound which he heard *first* before feeling it.
In this next video link, he says right before the end, that the BACK of the limo was covered in blood and brain matter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3-lZNR_yAc
Mr. BALL. What was the position of your motorcycle at that time with reference to the President’s car?
Mr. MARTIN. Just to the rear of his car – on the left rear of his car.
Mr. BALL. And were there any other spots of any other material on the helmet there besides blood?
Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir; there was other matter that looked like pieces of flesh.
Mr. BALL. What about your uniform?
Mr. MARTIN. There was blood and matter on my left shoulder of my uniform
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/martin.htm
Were you even aware that brain matter landed on Chaney, who was to the right of Kennedy?
Were you aware that brain matter landed on John and Nellie Connally? On the front hood of the presidential limo?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/exploded.htm
It was a horrid mess, but the main axis of ejected matter was forward and upward.
Nice try Professor.
Z-Frame 313 doesn’t tell the whole story since Mrs. Kennedy picked up a piece of the President’s head to his LEFT REAR on the trunk (Clint Hill confirmed this in a 50th anniversary documentary special – she wasn’t seeking his help).
Also, Tink’s presentation last November at Lancer included this Shadow-Enhanced Version of Z-313 that shows a ‘blow back’ or ‘back splatter’ pattern that is almost 360 degrees, and not a single ejection of tissue, which is indicative of a shot from the front using a frangible bullet.
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=10f9lok&s=8#.U-uCYvldV8E
Gerry,
Buddy Walthers, shown in these photos in a dark hat, told a reporter that he had picked up a piece of bone there:
http://s10.postimg.org/tjacc1crd/Walthers2.jpg
On this map, the spot labeled “material picked up by Walthers and others” is well ahead of the limo at Z313 (c. 50 feet, if I’m reading the scale right):
http://cfrankdavis.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/jfk-dealeyplaza.gif
The “Harper fragment” was found in that same general area, according to another map marked by Harper for a CT researcher:
http://s1285.photobucket.com/user/quaneeri2/media/harpermap_zps4fedcf32.gif.html
And this is supposed to be “back splatter” from a frontal shot?
Buddy Walthers changed his mind about it being a bullet to bone.
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKwalthersB.htm
In his Warren Commission testimony, he never mentioned that he found bone to Liebeler? Why is that? Such an omission is incredible.
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol7/page550.php
If you are aware of any document or report that says Walthers picked up bone and gave it to the Secret Service, please present that here.
As for the Harper Fragment, Josiah Thompson makes a case for a second head shot from the REAR at around Z-328. You can see the windshield bellowing from a bullet strike in this slide presented at Lancer last November:
http://tinypic.com/r/25543mu/8
Such a shot could have come from the Dal-Tex building.
So we can postulate that a shot from the front blows out bone which winds up on the trunk that Jackie retrieves, and the Harper fragment could be from a shot behind.
As for the “back splatter”, it resulted from an exploding bullet which may have also flung bone to the front(in addition by the forward motion of the limo).
Jean, with this are you arguing there is absolutely and unequivocally no evidence of a frontal shot? Would you go on the record here and now to that end?
Or are you drawing attention to evidence that suggests a shot from behind in an effort to distract from facts that indicate a shot from the front?
It’s a subtle differentiation, but then for the uninformed most of your presentations are.
Gerry,
What evidence is there that Walthers “changed his mind”? Spartacus lists no source.
There’s no mention of a bullet in Walthers’ 11/22 report to the Sheriff’s office, and he specifically denied finding a bullet in his WC testimony.
Another deputy, Seymour Weitzman, testified that he gave the Secret Service a small piece of bone found on the left side of the street. I don’t know what happened to the one Walthers picked up.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/weitzman.htm
Two head shots now, Gerry? The windshield was “bellowing”? All I see there is a spot of glare from the sun. There’s no need to postulate two shots — as I said before, the Z313 debris went in every direction.
The Spartacus site is full of errors, btw.
Ms. Davison,
As shown on the video from this thread, did it appear to you that Dino Brugioni was honest and credible while answering questions from Mr. Horne?
Is the implication of your question that either he’s a liar, or else everything he says has to be taken at face value?
Do you actually understand how questionable 30+ year-old testimony is, even from sincere witnesses?
Jean has already challenged you to produce a reliable source on this. That would be a primary source.
The “slug on the infield” thing is a factoid:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/slug.htm
Phil,
I haven’t watched the entire video, but
yes, Brugioni appeared to be honest and credible to me. That doesn’t mean that his memory of all the details is necessarily correct after so many years, I hope you’ll agree.
Here’s something that puzzles me. According to alteration theorists, the “original” Z film supposedly showed the fatal wound low on the back of the head. Brugioni supposedly worked on this “original” Z film — and yet that’s not where he placed the head wound. He described approximately what we still see in Z313, with matter being ejected upwards above JFK’s head, not out of the back of his head.
This is also where Zapruder and Bill Newman placed the head wound in their first-day TV interviews.
<@ Jean Davison of 15Aug2014, 2:39 pm
From testimony of Buddy Walthers, WCH Vol. VII, page 550:
So to answer your question, apparently there was an initial report that he found a spent bullet, otherwise, Liebeler wouldn’t have asked him!
Walthers denies it of course, but where is YOUR report that he found a piece of bone? (It wasn’t specified in your photo link).
BTW, somebody CARRIED a piece of bone to Constable Weitzman and I doubt it was Walthers himself.
The glare in Photo 14-80 for Z-328 is sharper than the blurred glare in Photo 14-81 in Z-329 and the next frame. It’s obvious that the windshield shook to blur the sunlight reflection.
Here is the TinyPic link again but use the zoom option within the Tools menu on the right.
The red arrows should help. :p
http://tinypic.com/r/nve3qw/8
Jean, do you have a source for Walthers’ saying this?
The link just goes to the usual Murray and Allen photos.
In the following document, Walthers just alludes to a piece of bone that somebody might have picked up.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=791195
But of course, what he told the FBI during the Garrison investigation might have been highly evasive, with him not wanting to be explicit about something so gruesome and sensitive.
So you changed “initial report” of Walters finding a bullet to Walthers saying he found a bullet.
Not good.
If there was ever such a report, somebody needs to produce it.
John,
When Garrison saw these photos and claimed that a .45 bullet had been found in the grass, Walthers responded. My source is a 12/14/67 Dallas Morning News article, p. 6, “Deputy Says Bullet Story All Wrong.”
QUOTE:
>>>
“I never saw any bullet,” Walthers recalled. “That’s all there is to it.” If he had found a bullet he would have shouted, “Look a bullet,” the deputy reasoned.
>>>
That’s a good point, I think. What reason was there to hide a bullet’s discovery that early?
According to my notes, there was a similar article in the Baton Rouge Sunday Advocate, 3/17/68.
P.S. to John,
The quote you asked about was in the BR article of 3/17/68, quoting what Walthers had told the Dallas reporter earlier in Dallas. He said “that the object was not a bullet…but a piece of the President’s skull.” (The quote may well be in a Dallas paper from 1967 too, but I don’t have that.)
@ John McAdams, Aug. 16/14 at 10:23 pm
I said ‘initial report’ because Liebeler refers to ‘story’ in his questioning of Walthers, and Walthers referred that story to some ‘book’ (my emphasis).
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol7/page550.php
So yes, we do need to find what this book Walthers is referring to.
Could it be a bound legal document with a list of questions posed by WC staff?
Interestingly enough, Walthers is guessing that someone else found bone based on the color of blood on the grass.
Addendum to G. Simone, Aug 18/14, 12:44 am
Just another thought about what BOOK Walthers referred to during his WC hearing, which he says reported him finding a bullet in DP.
Could that ‘book’ have been the initial FBI report?
(Couldn’t have been a conspiracy book).
Gerry,
I found the book’s name at the maryferrell.org website. It’s “The Red Roses of Dallas” by Nerin E. Gun, published in summer 1964. The FBI asked Walthers about it– 2 pages starting here:
https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=59605&relPageId=17
CE 2580 lists several points from the book, including what it said about Walthers:
https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=145991
There are other FBI documents about the book that I haven’t read:
https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/textsearch/advancedResults.do
@ Jean Davison, August 18th, 2014 at 4:11 pm
So it WAS a ‘conspiracy’ book, lol.
Excellent find Jean.
Can you find Walthers’ own report which Sheriff Decker loaned to the FBI as alluded to in the 1st MMF link you provided above?
This is important because I’m curious if Walthers’ mentions anything about any finding of blood or bone in the grass.
As for the allegations contained in that book about Walthers working alongside a SSA, it has been claimed that the other fellow who put something in his pocket was an FBI agent (not a SSA).
It would be odd if Walthers makes no mention of the Bureau’s agents searching the grass along side him that fateful day.
It is also odd that Walthers doesn’t volunteer any information to Liebeler about a finding of blood or bone in the grass by anyone, when asked if he found a bullet.
Gerry, [re Aug. 20 at 6:10pm]
Walthers’ 4-page report doesn’t mention the debris but covers a lot of other things he did that day:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1136&relPageId=536
The “agent” is said to be the blond guy bending over and supposedly putting something in his pocket:
http://s10.postimg.org/tjacc1crd/Walthers2.jpg
I don’t know who he was, possibly just a spectator like this guy:
http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/photo_popup.php?photoid=83436&gallery_id=3767
Walthers may not have wanted to mention that pieces of the President’s brain had been found on the ground. It’s shocking to say that, even now. Remember there was no controversy about “back and to the left” until much later.
@ Jean Davison, August 21, 2014 at 10:56 am
Thank you again Jean, but I can’t believe that that ‘agent’ is a bystander, unless the police had a very lackadaisical attitude WRT securing the crime scene.
It’s more likely that if there were lay persons around them, that these bystanders were volunteering to assist law enforcement officers in their search of whatever.
In that Baylor photo link, I believe the ‘agent’ is standing with his back to us, to our left of Walthers who is crouching to pick something up or search for it. The ‘unknown’ man looks like a uniformed worker.
Walthers describes how he went first to the railroad yard, then proceeded to the Triple Underpass (he doesn’t explain why he 1st went to the railroad yard after crossing Elm St., but says he left when other officers arrived).
He says he then went to the underpass to search for stray bullets or marks. He mentions James Tague.
What was he expecting to find in the grass later?
The photographic record of him searching the grassy area doesn’t exactly support what he describes in his report.
Not according to SSA’s Hargis and Hill. Especially Hargis, who thought he himself was shot.
Here is what Hargis really thought:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hargis.htm
Jean,
Thanks for your response. If during the interview Mr. Brugioni was honest, sincere and sound of mind, I think there is a high probability that he, in the very least, accurately remembered general aspects of his experiences (e.g., formation of Zapruder briefing boards and general knowledge of who was in attendance during the event etc.) If I had been him, a week wouldn’t have gone by in my life, where I wouldn’t have thought about my involvement in creating briefing boards exhibiting pictures of the assassination. Those general memories would have especially remained sharp because this event has been so controversial and part of the news for 50 years. However, I would agree that Mr. Horne has not produced a convincing case that the forensic copy of the Zapruder film in the Archives includes altered evidence (i.e., the back of the President’s head blackened out to hide an exit wound).
McAdams Chaney,was on right rear
Mr. HILL. This is the first sound that I heard; yes, sir. I jumped from the car, realizing that something was wrong, ran to the Presidential limousine. Just about as I reached it, there was another sound, which was different than the first sound. I think I described it in my statement as though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object–it seemed to have some type of an echo. I put my right foot, I believe it was, on the left rear step of the automobile, and I had a hold of the handgrip with my hand, when the car lurched forward. I lost my footing and I had to run about three or four more steps before I could get back up in the car.
Between the time I originally grabbed the handhold and until I was up on the car, Mrs. Kennedy–the second noise that I heard had removed a portion of the President’s head, and he had slumped noticeably to his left. Mrs. Kennedy had jumped up from the seat and was, it appeared to me, reaching for something coming off the right rear bumper of the car, the right rear tail, when she noticed that I was trying to climb on the car. She turned toward me and I grabbed her and put her back in the back seat, crawled up on top of the back seat and lay there.
You need to explain what your point is.
Of course Cheney was to the right rear. Hargis was to the left rear. Kellerman and Nellie and John Connally were in front of Kennedy. They all got splattered with brain matter.
If you are quoting Hill to claim that Jackie was retrieving a portion of Kennedy’s head, you need to note that is not what he actually said.
He first said that the shot “removed a portion of the President’s head” (doubtless true) and the that Jackie (it “appeared” to him) was reaching for “something.”
I’ve seen later versions of Hill’s testimony were he is more definite about this. And I don’t doubt he believes it.
If you think this is evidence of a shot from the front, you need to remember:
1.) a piece of Kennedy’s head going backwards is perfectly consistent with a shot from behind. His head literally exploded.
2.) the best copies of the Zapruder film don’t show anything on the trunk.
3.) the Altgens photo of the retreating limo shows Jackie’s hand flat on the surface of the trunk, and grasping anything. It looks to me like Hill has simply inferred that Jackie was trying to retrieve a piece of Kennedy’s head.
McAdams its interesting to note that driver GREER had no residue on him.
My point is Officer B. J. Martin on far rear left turned on hearing shots looked directly at JFK,Zapruder filming and the sniper behind.
M Baker WC star witness lied about Martin
Mr. BAKER – Yes, I believe Officer B. J. Martin—
Mr. BELIN – Is he a motorcycle policeman?
Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir; he is.
Mr. BELIN – On a one- or two-wheeler or three-wheeler?
Mr. BAKER – He is a solo motorcycle, two-wheeler.
Mr. BELIN – Where was he riding at this time?
Mr. BAKER – He was on the left front.
Mr. BELIN – Of what?
Mr. BAKER – There were five motorcycle officers in front. There were four, two on each right side behind.
Mr. BELIN – When you say in front and behind of what vehicle?
Mr. BAKER – We are referring to the President’s car.
Mr. BELIN – All right. He was on the front and to the left of the President’s car.
Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir; that is right.
Mr. BELIN – What did he say to you about blood or something?
Mr. BAKER – Like I say, we were talking about where the shot came from, and he said the first shot he couldn’t figure it Out where it came from. He turned his head backward, reflex, you know, and then he turned back and the second shot came off, and then the third shot is when the blood and everything hit his helmet and his windshield.
Mr. BELIN – Did it hit the inside or the outside of his windshield, did he say?
Mr. BAKER – It hit all this inside. Now, as far as the inside or outside of the windshield. I don’t know about that. But it was all on the right-hand side of his helmet.
Mr. BELIN – Of his helmet?
Mr. BAKER – On his uniform also.
Mr. BELIN – On his uniform.
Mr. BAKER – That is right.
Mr. BELIN – And he was riding to the left of the President and you say ahead of the President?
Mr. BAKER – On the left-hand side.
Mr. DULLES – But a little ahead of him?
Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir. They were immediately in front of the car.
You don’t have any evidence he lied. Baker was well back in the motorcade, and he’s either confused about Martin’s position, or perhaps the “in front of” thing is hearsay, with him misunderstanding what Martin told him.
Gerald,
How do you know that Greer “had no residue on him”? He may not have reported it, but everyone else in the car forward of Kennedy did. Kellerman said debris flew into the front seat area.
Harper and Walthers reported finding pieces of bone well forward of the limo’s position at Z313. CT books usually omit all these “forward” witnesses and only talk about Hargis and Jackie to argue for a shot from the front. That’s outrageously misleading, imo.
What would it matter if Jackie picked up something from the trunk? Since debris went in all directions, what would it prove?
Apparently he did.
See the following page, with citation, based on a compilation by Todd Wayne Vaughan.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/exploded.htm
Mr. McAdams – Dr. Marion Jenkins in a live interview stated very clearly that Jackie Kennedy nudged Jenkins in Trauma Room 1 and gave a pieced of JFK’s head to Jenkins which she had cradled in her hands.
This is what Clint Hill was alluding to when he stated that he thought Jackie had crawled onto the back of the limo to retrieve part of her husband’s head.
By the way – how was it possible for Jackie to crawl on to the back of the limo & for Hill to catch up to JFK’s limo if the car didn’t stop? Neither action would have been possible if the limo didn’t stop or at least slow down dramatically.
Was Clint Hill an Olympic sprinter in a suit & tie & dress shoes & Jackie an Olympic gymnast in a dress & heels?
So you are finally agreeing w/us, that the z film has been re-touched … all brain matter/tissue removed from limo trunk It’s about time!
In Re: McAdams post August 18, 2014 “2.) the best copies of the Zapruder film don’t show anything on the trunk.
david thurman,
I wouldn’t but in here, but you have made several comments here on the Z-film recently promoting the alterationist theory.
I was hoping for you to tell the readership here something of what your expertise in film might be. Specifically your knowledge of 8mm Kodachrome II, daylight film.
Here is some information you may not be aware of:
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-zapruder-film/
\\][//
She retrieved a piece of skull and or brain which she gave to a physician at Parkland. Hill stated to the effect the right rear portion of the President’s head was missing, gone.
As the only Officer to respond, to what others obviously heard, I think Clint Hill is an American Hero in one respect.
Being drawn to the Cellar may have slowed him down but it didn’t stop him from trying.
But he still supports the official version???
Apologies to the SSA on the right front of the follow up car who I guess did respond but was called back by the SSA in control in the right front seat. I forget names. Vince Palamara or his book Survivor’s Guilt wuld be of use here.
We don’t know she retrieved it from the trunk. She could have gotten it within the limo. Apparently, it was brain matter.
We don’t know she retrieved it from the trunk. She could have gotten it within the limo. Apparently, it was brain matter.
Ahhh, but we do know Professor.
I recorded a 50th anniversary documentary wherein Clint Hill clearly stated that Mrs. Kennedy jumped on the trunk to retrieve a piece of the President’s head.
(Please don’t imply that she was seeking help which is a lone-assassin factoid).
See my post above. That seems to be what Clint Hill inferred, not what he witnessed.
Note that he didn’t say that to the Warren Commission.
@ John McAdams, August 20, 2014 at 1:47 pm
According to his WC testimony, it doesn’t sound like he was inferring, and more like he thought he SAW something.
He probably wasn’t sure because it was concealed within Mrs. Kennedy’s hand as she grabbed the tissue ejected to the rear.
Thank you for admitting he wasn’t sure.
In a bunch of other posts, you have claimed he was sure.
The Altgens photo of the retreating limo shows Jackie’s hand flat on the surface of the trunk, and not grasping anything.
@ .John McAdams, August 21, 2014 at 10:56 pm
He wasn’t absolutely sure at the time of his WC testimony.*
If you saw that recent documentary, he sure sounds sure of himself now Professor.
Here’s Altgen’s photo (borrowed from DVP’s site):
http://tinypic.com/r/2rdaljk/8
I don’t think you can tell with absolute certainy with this photo, but it’s possible that she’s covering brain tissue with her hand, even if momentarily flat.
Bottom line, an objective analysis of the Z film shows her jumping to retrieve something before Clint Hill’s close enough to help or push her back. The instance of her retreat PRE-EMPTS Clint Hill’s assistance.
*Taking a comment out of context should be added to my ‘spin techniques’ list.
Addendum to G. Simone, August 22, 2014 at 2:56 pm
It looks like her gloved right hand may be tilted up a little or in a small angle as if to ‘scrape’ material.
REPLY TO McAdams WE can forgive Baker but can not forgive Allan Dulles for coaching Baker to lie.Dulles new exactly where Martin position was by viewing Zapruder film over and over. Dulles like you knew that story had to have JFK’s Tissue going foreward not sideways.
No, an “objective analysis” merely shows her to be crawling back onto the trunk.
Dulles was simply trying to clarify what Baker was saying. Baker had already agreed that Martin was “in front” of the limo.
Is it your claim that Dulles should have argued with the witness?
The WC also took the testimony of Hargis.
But a question for you: do you understand that Kennedy’s brain tissue was blown into the air, and came down all around?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/exploded.htm
@ John McAdams, August 23, 2014 at 11:54 am
The expression ‘jump on’ means to get on something. You have to get on to something before you crawl on it which she did.
But she had a reason to do that after the fatal head shot.
Jackie got on the trunk to grab bone and/or brain matter, and began her retreat before Clint Hill got to her.
She did NOT wait for him to begin her retreat.
She was acting independently.
Eventually, he got to her and helped her back inside the passenger compartment.
(Jean Davison says Walthers probably didn’t want to get graphic when he didn’t volunteer to mention ‘bone’. So maybe Clint Hill back in 1964, didn’t specifically want to say ‘piece of the President’s head’, but I swear this is what he said recently in that 50th anniversary documentary).
Clint Hill’s memory of the event has changed fore times than I’d like to think about. He states that he was just about to reach the limo. This is not the case at all. He was clearly only at the level of the Queen Mary follow-up car when the fatal shot hit JFK. His testimony only shows that EVEN TRAINED Agents can be wrong. I feel sorry for him. He lives with his agony…but honestly…he just tries to put himself ever closer to the event to quell his own guilt…or his own inaction at the moment history changed America.
Many of us agree that there was at least one shot from the rear and one from the front.
If Clint Hill was perched on the limo’s rear bumper foot stand the whole time on Elm St., he might have obstructed those shots resulting in non-fatal wounds, but I doubt a head shot from the front.
Hill’s response to the asassination has always puzzled me. Researcher Robert Harris has called him a “true American hero” and I wonder if any of that is sarcastic, or if his overall response appears to confirm a conspiracy. He has said he only heard 2 shots.He has also said one of them was the fatal headshot, as he saw the blood spatter from the back of JFK’s head. Not sure what to make of Clint Hill, but I do agree he has been very upset since the assassination happened.
A big thank you to Jeff Morley & staff for presenting this information on the Internet. Mr. Horne’s research has a chilling effect; not only were the final moments of John Kennedy’s life on earth distorted & fed to the public as propaganda supporting a false official explanation of the public execution of JFK, but the very evil act spawns questions of ‘what else was distorted by the government back in the day & fed to the public as false truth’ by all forms of media? Has it ever stopped? How much of historical events that we think we know the truthful answers to are clouded with BS?
There are so many opportunities for the “powers-that-are” to alter, distort, modify and whatever else, to make certain that the truth will never be known, so give it up. We are all lucky to be alive!
A commenter in this thread refuses to address what Doug Horne has revealed: there were two NPIC events involving the Zapruder Film.
The commenter, McAdams, tries effectively to take the discussion down a different pathway.
The pathway here leads to two NPIC events, involving two different NPIC teams, which didn’t know about each other, and the processing of two different rolls of film. This is the pathway on which the discussion should stay but from which it has been allowed to stray.
That is true. Where is the push back to the Brugioni interview? Not here nor anywhere on the internet can I find anyone who has the ability or even the desire to address head on what is clearly a hard punch to the gut for non-conspiracy theorists. I fear that those who would attack him could be waiting until his passing before assassinating his character. The recorded interviews, and his own true American hero status, will make that very difficult however, and should never succeed in a just world. If they have something to say, they should say it now, while he is living, or forever remain as silent as they are today.
Like all of Horne’s stuff, this piece of nonsense is based on 30+ year-old testimony, and contradicts the contemporaneous testimony and documents.
Here is something from Horne’s boss you need to take to heart:
This from Dr. Jeremy Gunn, Executive Director and General Counsel of the ARRB in a speech at Stanford.
Yep, this is what happens when you believe unreliable testimony. You get two of everything!
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/double.htm
And who shall be the final arbiter of all testimony reliable or unreliable? You? No thank you. I trust Mr. Brugioni’s statements and recollections far, far more than I trust your judgement of same.
and….crickets. The above thread is officially hijacked while nothing of this monumental historical event is given any attention anywhere except in places like the beginning of this thread, before it was hijacked of course.
The silence is deafening while due a reckoning.
With regards to the JFK head wound, look at Clint Hill’s testimony, and what he says today.
He agrees with the Warren Commission, yet he says the right rear of JFK’s head was missing, consistent with what the Dallas doctors and other witnesses saw. Also, look at the photos of the back of JFK’s shirt and suit, the blood is down the back, consistent with a rear wound exit, and shot from the front. Regarding the Z film would be interesting to see if readers have views on why the head shot frame photos were reversed in the Warren Report to depict head going forward instead of backward.
Curt…I read your comments on JFK’s shirt/wound pattern with interest. I have a couple of comments I’d like to make on your observations. I think my comments are able to be verified by photo/film analysis and by physics.
First, Clint Hill. Over the years Clint Hill has changed his story. IF one were to watch the Nix or Muchmore films of the assassination you can see that Agent Hill, despite his assertion today, was not anywhere near the car when Kennedy was struck and killed. I’ve noticed that he keeps putting himself ever closer to the event. You can see that he was clearly only even with the left front tire of the Queen Mary follow-up vehicle when the President was struck in the head. He had jumped off and had only made it one or two steps and was just about at the wheel of the QM when it hits JFK and not near the running board…or reaching up and loosing his grip etc. HIs memory has changed with age.
Kennedy’s Shirt shows massive amounts of blood on the left side that seem to cross over the mid-line about 1/3 of the way down his back. The front shows a massive amount as well. I think it’s important to remember that, as JFK tumbled leftward and actually landed on his wives left calf as she jumped upward before settling down on the seat, where she returned to cradle his head, he was on his left side AND back and bleeding out. Jackie was not in a position to do anything more than cradle his head from her own awkward position. So, with this being the case, with JFK resting on his left side/back on that seat, the amount of blood is not an indicator of direction for anything other than how Kennedy lay on the seat. Not a direction indictor for shot locations.
Regardless of its current interpretation, Doug Horne’s research & video are very important to the history of the JFK assassination story & should not be quickly dismissed. Interpretations change over time as more information develops, is released & analyzed. For the 1st time ever Mr. Horne takes us inside NPIC & provides a witness that not only worked there, but worked on the Zapruder film when the public was led to believe the film was in the possession of Time-Life in Chicago. Whether genuine SS agents or imposters, someone was creating a before & after evidence trail concerning the authenticity of the film. If the SS brass wasn’t the customer, someone was setting them up to take the blame for falsifying the film. If the SS was the customer, they very ignorantly created evidence that led back to them with both sets of briefing boards. The WC uncovered none of what Mr. Horne has.
In the expected onslaught of TV coverage praising the work & conclusions of the WC on it’s 50th anniversary this September it’s important to focus on Mr. Horne’s research, consider his analysis, consider alternate analysis & openly discuss it. It is doubtful the media will cover it much, if at all.
I always hope that in time someone will infiltrate the secrecy of Hawkeye & get some of the technicians involved in this sordid story (or their relatives or friends if no longer alive)& educate us on what was done to Mr. Zapruder’s home movie so we can close the book it. It’s doubtful the evidence removed from the film will ever or can ever be presented to the public. We’ll have to settle for ‘word pictures’ of what Zapruder captured on his film that those in possession of it distorted or destroyed.
Jeff Morley:
“I haven’t watched this video yet. Based on the people involved (O’Sullivan, Horne, and Brugioni), I have no hesitation about posting.”
Douglas Horne on Aug 19, 2012: “…..Your attempt to suggest otherwise, via your citations, conveniently ignores this vital fact. Peter Janney has not identified Mitchell as Meyer’s murderer “because Mitchell could not be found,” as you claim; rather, he has identified Mitchell as Meyer’s murderer because Mitchellconfessed this to Damore. All the citations in the world will not erase
this fact…”
H.P. Albarelli, Jr. on May 29, 2013: “…[My source knew Mr. Mitchell quite well and indeed still communicates and occasionally visits with him; that I passed this on to peter was entirely appropriate.}…”
Peter Janney in paperback edition of his book, “Mary’s Mosaic:” pub. October 1, 2013: “…attorney James Smith’s notes….reflected Damore’s statements that William Mitchell had been married with five children and was now living under another name in Virginia. None of this appears to be true. In addition, the real William L. Mitchell was not seventy-four years old in 1993, but fifty-four. There has also been, so far, no indication that Mitchell had any liason with the FBI…”
Shane O’Sullivan claimed Gordon Campbell was one of three CIA officials at the Ambassador Hotel. Campbell’s great-niece: “He died of a heart attack in September, 1962; he couldn’t have been at The Ambassador where RFK was assassinated in 1968.”
Jeff, you gave John Simkin space here after he suddenly deleted more than 4600 posts by Jim DiEugenio on the Education Forum.
Why not have more hesitation, Jeff?
we lawyers know quite well that eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable or at least less credible that “hard evidence” especially when there is so much post-event publicity which can cause confusion and false memories. But I suppose if one is going to use eyewitness testimony, statements closest to the event are more reliable than those made later on. so i dont understand the comment about “30+ year-old testimony.”
larry
Lee Bowers and some of the other witnesses who spoke out about what they heard and/or saw and who died in larger numbers than normal death rate statistical pattern would have revealed seem to show that somebody took their testimony quite seriously.
I would also add that IF the car hadn’t been quickly cleaned up at Parkland, then squirreled away before being re-habbed, and IF JFK’s body had been better documented for wounds as evidence than the rather shoddy job that was done, we’d have a better hard evidence trail. The fact that quite a lot of the hard evidence was destroyed, hidden, handled poorly, and that the alleged assassin, Oswald, was so quickly removed, raises red flags all over the place!
This is correct. Stepping back and seeing the forest from the trees makes it clear the official version is incomplete.
But these wild goose chases don’t help the research efforts. It was only after watching ” Good Night America” and seeing the film did I become convinced that the official story was not possible. Now, people are claiming that the film was altered? For heaven’s sake-why? What information has come out in the last 30 years that requires the film to be altered-or faked? Too many faked photos,films, records. Too many questionable witnesses and claims. It almost seems like normal standards of evidence and common sense are being dismissed to support simply unbelievable theories.
Instead of coming up with frankly ridiculous theories of of altered photographic evidence with nothing to support them, why not address the real evidence and how it rules out the lone nut hypothesis. Zapruder seems to have been an honorable man yet some folks on this blog think that he participated in some type of plan to obscure the evidence. It almost seems to me that if you have to come up with these stories about how this is photo is faked or that film is altered the original claim is probably not valid.
I don’t think you are actually familiar with Bowers’ testimony.
He saw two men behind the Stockade Fence who were not together, and who were doing nothing suspicious.
After the shooting, one remained around. About the other, Bowers could not say, since his clothing blended in with the foliage.
Beware of the version of witness testimony that Mark Lane shows you. Look for the complete version.
No, they did not. You are accepting Charnin’s bogus analysis here.
By the way – Phil Willis & AJ Millican (both were veterans of military combat) stated that shots came from different locations – from the corner of Elm & Houston & from the right front – so apparently they virtually didn’t exist.
Officer Hargis indicated the overpass was initially where he thought the shots were coming from – anyone who has studied the case or walked in Dealy Plaza knows the overpass & knoll & fence area would at least be considered from the front.
I would think any objective researcher would agree that there is no evidence that there was a gunman on the overpass – then Hargis’s statement would be relating to the knoll or fence area as the source of the shots. Is that in dispute?
“I was just a little back & to the left of Mrs. Kennedy … I was splattered with blood & brain & a kind of bloody water”. That is why the NY Daily News reported on Nov. 24 1963 that Hargis stated “(he) thought at first I might have been hit”.
Officer BJ Martin – riding beside Hargis supports the idea that shots came from the front & that he saw blood & brains on Hargis.
Doing nothing suspicious?!
People with an open mind should watch this interview with Lee Bowers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8H_DaL_tQk
Bowers said at the time of the shooting he saw a “flash of light or something that caught me eye” and adds it could have been smoke, but “something unusual had occurred there.”
Some people who claim to be researchers are far from that and engage these topics as a parlor game and nothing more.
But Bowers was perfectly positioned to actually see any shooter, and he reported no shooter.
As for “flash of light:” that’s an addition to his story.
He only told the Warren Commission about some “commotion:”
As for “flash of light:” do you actually believe he could see a muzzle flash in broad daylight, especially when the shooter would have been shooting directly away from him?
Then there is his November 22 statement, in which he mentioned none of this, but merely three cars that he thought might be suspicious.
It’s best to look at testimony that has not been filtered and selected by Mark Lane.
Are you suggesting that Bowers added to his story at Lane’s suggestion? Why did he add to his orginal story when he testified before the WC? It’s entirely possible that Bowers, after being able to think about what he saw over time, decided that what might have drawn his attention was a flash of light or a puff of smoke. He doesn’t claim that’s what it was, but suggest that it might have been what caught his eye. As to the flash of light, that area in question is in shadow. A flash of light is potentially visible, sufficient to draw attention if the viewer is looking at the correct angle at that moment. And various people saw a puff of smoke from that area, and smelled expended gunpowder as well.
“As for “flash of light:” do you actually believe he could see a muzzle flash in broad daylight, especially when the shooter would have been shooting directly away from him?”
Well yeah, if he/they were standing in a shaded area, which seems to be have been the case. You damn right you will see the ”flash of light”
John McAdams, you continue to make the same mistake that Bugliosi and the HSCA made. They did not distinguish between UNNATURAL and NATURAL mortality rates.
In 1964-78, there were 34 ruled, OFFICIAL homicides among 122 suspicious deaths of JFK-related individuals (see “Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination” for the 1400 total universe of JFK-related persons).
But many deaths that were ruled suicides, accidents and heart attacks were likely homicides. The mathematical expectation based on the respective mortality rate for each cause of death was exceeded. Therefore we can estimate there were at least 80 homicides, not the 34 officially ruled.
We would only expect TWO homicides based on the average 0.000084 homicide rate over the 15 year period from 1964-78.
But we will be conservative and assume 34 homicides. In a JFK-related group of 1400, the probability is 1 in 9000 trillion.
Assuming 5000 implausible, inflated JFK-related witnesses, the probability is 1 in 70 trillion.
John, do the math:
Prob = 1- poisson (33,6.32,true)= 1.29E-14
= 1 in 77.6 million.
typo: P = 1 in 77.6 trillion
The problem with your entire “analysis” is that your “witnesses” mostly aren’t witnesses, and didn’t witness anything.
They are people with a third- or fourth-hand connection with the assassination, and are called “witnesses” because they died.
So basically, you are dealing with a population of people not objectively defined, but rather seeded with people who died, but have no objective connection with the assassination. But conspiracists think that since they died, they must have a connection.
Jacqueline Hess consulted with actuaries. You know, people with real credentials.
She reported:
And the conclusion:
Note that essentially every witness to the head shot in Dealey Plaza described the “top” or “side” of Kennedy’s head exploding.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpwound.htm
That’s consistent with the extant Zapruder film, but not with Horne’s alterationist theories.
Like all the rest of his theories, those are based on 30+ year-old testimony.
Are we now to accept witness testimony? Because if we are, let’s not cherry pick. Most of the witnesses said at least one shot came from in front of the limousine too. Included in this list was Abe Zapruder.
Sources:
http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/Witness/Sort216Witness.htm
http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-witnesses
This guy’s blog addresses some bias apparent on your site, John, regarding eyewitnesses:
http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/jfk-dealey-plaza-witnesses-john-mcadams-strange-list/
If you folks are going to claim that Parkland testimony proves that the back of Kennedy’s head was blown out, you have no right to ignore contradictory Dealey Plaza testimony.
If you want to ignore witness testimony altogether, and use the photos and x-rays to determine the nature of the wounds, that’s fine with me.
The biases are Charnin’s, who is absurdly selective and tendentious in the way he uses testimony.
Take Zapruder: he told the Warren Commission he could not tell the direction of the shots because of reverberation. He inferred the shots came from behind him because he saw the right side of Kennedy’s head blow open, and because cops and others ran up to the Knoll.
But a witness inference is not a witness perception.
John McAdams, You have been trying to hoodwink the people long enough. You are hereby challenged to try and debunk these three surveys which prove that your survey is pure fiction. The differences are astounding. But that is what we have come to expect from you John in every aspect of the assassination: the unnatural witness deaths, alteration of the Z-film, the Limo stop, the destruction of the medical evidence, the insane Single Bullet Theory, and on and on and on… https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=65
Unlike the Dealey Plaza testimony, the Parkland testimony is based on professional observations of a close and static subject.
A fleeting perception may be clarified by making inferences from other observations or sounds.
In the Galanor survey of 100 witnesses, there were:
66 non. govt. witnesses: 44 said GK and 22 TSBD
34 govt. witnesses: 26 said TSBD and 8 GK
Probability of the percentage difference:
1 in 200,000
In the first place, Galanor radically over counts Knoll witnesses. His tabulation is no good.
Your supposed statistical test is no good either. The “governmental” witnesses were overwhelmingly in the motorcade, out in the middle of the Plaza, and better positioned to tell the direction of the shots.
Your probability estimates would only be valid if witnesses were randomly assigned to locations around the Plaza.
That’s a very amateur error on your part.
No, John, what I’m reminding your disciples is that you cannot ignore the fact that a very large number of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza thought at least one shot came from the front. You cleverly steered around my statement. Nice try. I will accept that the witnesses thought a shot came from the front, AND that they thought blood and tissue blew out of the top and side of JFK’s head. Fine. I don’t see the two as being mutually exclusive, any more than recent findings in SCIENCE Magazine that show certain areas of the Earth to be experiencing slight cooling below the climate norm, while at the same time, glacial ice and polar ice cap cover, including permafrost in the Arctic, are continually in decline, and have been declining at a rate consistent with man’s carbon emissions. The point here is that if you want to be a man of reason, you can’t unreasonably ignore inconvenient facts, and you must be ready to scrap your BELIEF SYSTEM when new facts are discovered. This idea that CIA or the NSA or FBI (or that politicians like Lyndon Johnson) would always act above board and like angels is absurd! The idea that the Warren Commission, set up and run by politicians and former spy masters like Dulles would be honest and purely driven by scientific curiosity is equally absurd. I’ve read my Hofstadter in grammar school (it was required), but that doesn’t mean I put my faith and complete trust in the hands of venal politicians like LBJ, or in secret bureaucracies that spy on our domestic governments and citizenry either. I think your McAdams JFK site asks the reader to just hat check his suspicions at the door to your church of belief. Skeptical minds don’t like to do that.
But virtually no witnesses heard shots from two directions.
Given the overwhelming witness evidence of at least some shots from the Depository, the most likely explanation is that all witnesses heard the same shots, but that some were confused about the direction.
The vast majority of witnesses heard three shots.
Do you believe that some witnesses heard three shots from the Knoll, but no shots from the Depository?
And other witnesses heard three shots from the Depository, and none from the Knoll?
Or did the shots come from one direction, with witnesses being confused as to what that direction was?
“Given the overwhelming witness evidence of at least some shots from the Depository, the most likely explanation is that all witnesses heard the same shots, but that some were confused about the direction.”
No, that’s a clever hypothesis, but there were witnesses who claimed to have heard shots from the front, as well as witnesses who saw smoke from behind the fence. Most of the witnesses thought at least one shot came from the front of the car. I am not arguing that some shots came from the rear; you are missing the point: At least one shot came from the front, according to the majority of witnesses’ testimony.
Source (again, in case you haven’t actually read it yet):
http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-witnesses
No, only a minority did.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
But the key thing is that virtually every witness who thought any shot came from the front thought all of them did.
Remember, the vast majority of witnesses heard three shots.
Do you believe there were three shots from the Grassy Knoll, heard by these witnesses, who didn’t hear any of the shots from the Depository?
Much more sensible is the idea that there were shots from only one direction, with a fair number of witnesses being confused as to the direction.
After looking at Doug Horne’s video I noticed he failed to ask his witness involved with the 1st NPIC event the same 3 questions interviewers fail to ask to made the deal to purchase Zapruder’s film & his 3 copies, Dick Stolley. The questions being: Did the film contain a limo turn onto Elm Street from Houston, did the limo stop & was JFK’s head thrown violently forward? If the answer is yes to any of the 3 questions, the film has obviously been modified. When, where & under who’s direction is the big question. I find myself more prone to suspect the people who initially lied to the public about the film showing JFK turning to look back at the TSBD & a sniper shooting him in the throat, namely, Time-Life. Beginning Monday, 25 November 1963 Time-Life legally owned the Zapruder original & all 3 copies. The owners had ample time to distort the film between gaining ownership & the initial screening for the Warren Commission in early 1964. There was no need to do what Mr. Horne suggests behind Time-Life’s back; upper echelon Time-Life executives were already ‘sleeping with the enemy’.
This John Costella interview is also enlightening when it comes to discussion if the Zapruder film :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnnxwijxG7Q
Thanks for the link. The assassination did indeed change the world, including those not yet born, in other countries.
I stated this earlier and I’ll go over it again: Why does the researcher NOT try to find the procurement document, for the 8 millimeter projector, that MUST exist for the special order (in order to view the Z film? If there was no 8 millimeter projector on site…..then 2 points remain:
1. Who signed for the 8 millimeter Projector that was (allegedly) ordered on Saturday PM) and,
2. If there was No 8 Millimeter Projector…then how did Group Number 2 come up with their storyboard?
Documents….Documents…DOCUMENTS.
“The Zapruder Film Mystery” is excellent. Thanks, Jeff.
The documentary “Killing Oswald” is also very good although it over-relies on historian David Kaiser. Kaiser is at best superficially informed about Oswald and the JFK assassination, IMO.
“Killing Oswald” relates through an actor the words Oswald allegedly wrote from Russia to Robert Oswald. The words reflect a lucid, thoughtful mind highly uncharacteristic in their sophistication of a twenty-year-old. If the words truly are those of Oswald, he was one unusual guy.
Excellent piece of work, what i take from it was the Navy people that process U2 Cuban overflights did reconstruction of White Russian Zapruder film
Conspiracists claim that “the back” of Kennedy’s head (they seem to mean occipital bone) was blown out.
So it’s necessary to say that the Z-film was faked.
And of course, it’s necessary to say that the autopsy photos and x-rays were faked.
But both Nix and Muchmore show the main axis of brain matter blown out of Kennedy’s head was upward and forward.
Are both Nix and Muchmore faked too?
The Z-film supports a back of head (BOH) or occipital bone avulsion or blow out in frame 335, as show here (you can choose enlarge option):
http://tinypic.com/r/xor0cp/8
or here:
http://tinypic.com/r/2629zz7/8
As for ‘main axis’ being upward and forward, that’s a lone-assassin factoid. Tink demonstrates that it was almost 360 degrees (‘blow back’ or splatter), per the slides below.
With Directional Arrows:
http://tinypic.com/r/vwzpme/8
and with his Shadow-Enhanced Analysis here:
http://tinypic.com/r/24zd3eu/8
can we really make three dimensional conclusions from a two dimensional film? not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand how that is done.
Larry Schnapf
Yes.
A debate over whether ejected tissue has travelled backward, forward, upward or downward can be analyzed two-dimensionally.
You have ignored my comment about Nix and Muchmore.
Want to claim they were faked too?
Where is any brain matter blowing out?
This is an example of seeing what you want to see in one isolated frame, and ignoring other frames that show the back of the head intact.
But then, since those are inconvenient, they must have been faked.
As for Tink’s analysis, it’s half right.
From the Itek Report:
Then, an underlined passage:
I have no comment about fakery* about any assassination films, and the Nix and Muchmore are farther away than the Z film.
Blowback or back splatter from an exploding bullet, and JFK’s violent backward motion would support a shot from the front in any of those films.
Orlando Martin (Analysis Of A Shooting), decorated Marine drill instructor, also confirms this.
*(the dark blob exposed at JFK’s BOH when he turns slightly to his left seems strange though)
“Blowback or back splatter from an exploding bullet, and JFK’s violent backward motion would support a shot from the front in any of those films.”
It’s spatter, not ‘splatter’.
You are assuming a frangible bullet when there is no hard evidence of such. And if we can stick to the hard evidence (full metal jacketed bullet (built to remain intact in the human body, hint, hint) we can see in which direction the spatter flies according to science. But for this post, I shall leave that matter aside.
You are ignoring the possibility that JFK’s body stiffened & straightened out due to involuntary neurological reaction (and since Horne claims a huge ejecta event, much bigger than the ‘faked’ Z-film displays; and not being one to look a gift horse in the mouth, especially from the Twilight Zone, I shall temporarily grab onto that little gem, and add the infamous-amongst-CTers term ‘jet effect’).
—————————-
“*(the dark blob exposed at JFK’s BOH when he turns slightly to his left seems strange though)”
Wow, you’re not at all embarrassed to throw such silliness at us, are you… really grasping at straws there.. and what’s so strange about the back of Kennedy’s head, clearly deep in shadow at that angle?
JFK hair in shadow:
http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/528e17b66da811c5596d4a27/the-last-beautiful-picture-of-jfk-and-jackie.jpg
BTW, that avulsion is not just in one frame. It’s best scene in frame 335 but is discernible in frames 333 to 337. At Z-338, you don’t see it much if at all because JFK’s head turns away or he slumps towards Jackie.
Since this occurs at least 20 frames after the fatal head shot, you don’t see ejection of tissue.
Jackie’s glove around JFK’s head at 335 creates the impression of an avulsion. I do not think the alterationists were so sloppy as to miss this. They had already eliminated the real avulsive wound.
I recall one of the motorcycle officers stated he was hit so hard with debris he thought he’d been shot. Also 4 of them spoke of a “rolling stop,” which is maybe visible in the nix (you can see the brake light come on/off), only sign of it in Z-film is when the motorcycles unexplainably run up on the limo as agent clint hill is climbing on.
BTW, Why we’re cycles cut from usual 8 (pair in front, pair behind and one at each wheel on either side = standard formation per ’62 book on the ss) to only 4 and instructed not to ride ahead of the rear bumper? I bet McAdams will tell us some nonsense about JFK wanting to make sure he was seen … that they shouldn’t be in the way. ~ lol
The “so hard” stuff is a conspiracy book factoid. It refers to Bobby Hargis, but Hargis never said “so hard.”
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hargis.htm
There was no “usual” configuration.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Hawaii2.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/cork.jpg
https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1440&bih=760&q=kennedy+motorcade+photos&oq=kennedy+motorcade+photos&gs_l=img.12…0.0.2.92872.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0….0…1ac..51.img..21.19.1283.WHq9ftyqu2E
John McAdams,
Hargis: “Then I felt something hit me. It could have been concrete or something, but I thought at first I might have been hit.”
It is easy to understand how ‘concrete’ morphed into ‘so hard’ stuff over the years; the meaning remains quite clear. What exactly is your point, and why reduce this statement made by Hargis to your rubble of ‘factoids?’
Conspiracy theorists should not “morph” testimony into something it was not.
Hargis never said he was hit “hard.”
In “The Men Who Killed Kennedy,” Hargis talks about a bit of bone fragment that another officer (Buddy Brewer, IIRC) noticed on his face. That’s the best guess about what he thought was “concrete.”
But none of this justifies “hit hard.”
John McA, a statement including the word “concrete” does not suggest Hargis thought he had been hit by a cotton ball. Concrete by definition is an extremely hard substance. You are playing at semantics.
Being his by tiny pieces of something “hard” is not the same as being “hit hard.”
Just who is playing at semantics?
That explains why rear motorcycle riders where sprayed with JFK tissue. You and Allan Dulles can make believe all you want.
No, brain matter was blown into the air, and the motorcycle cops ran through it.
That’s what Bobby Hargis said.
He said he saw “the splash come out the other side.” That would be the right side of Kennedy’s head.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hargis.htm
Hargis was positioned to the rear left sir, so he could NOT have driven through that main axis forward and to the right that you speak of.
Moreover, the direction of the breeze or wind was northwesterly (i.e., the opposite direction of the tissue blown towards Hargis).
You also forget that Jackie jumped on the trunk to retrieve a piece of JFK’s head blown rearward and to his left.
This was confirmed recently by Clint Hill in a 50th anniversary documentary (she was not seeking his help).
But if the event happened as you think, the blood and tissue came out the front of the head and jetted upward with forward momentum. There was also a fairly significant wind going in basically that direction (toward the knoll), and you can see this by looking at women’s skirts in the pics. It makes little sense that the motorcyclists would drive through the plume in your scenario.
Actually, the wind was blowing towards the TSBD, not in the direction of the knoll (IOW, away from Hargis).
Check out the rain coats worn by these ladies on the south side of Elm.
http://tinypic.com/r/5ur02/8
Only the motorcyclists riding on the right side of the limo might ride into the plume, but not Hargis who was on the other side. It would’ve had to been blown over towards him (back and to the left).
Where did you get that?
Look at the coats of Jean Hill and Mary Moorman:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/posc4191/muchmore.jpg
Where did you get that idea?
Look at the coats of Jean Hill and Mary Moorman:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/posc4191/muchmore.jpg
The piece linked to by John McAdams leaves out this part of Bobby Hargis’ WC testimony:
Mr. STERN – Just a minute. Do you recall your impression at the time regarding the source of the shots?
Mr. HARGIS – Well, at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me. There wasn’t any way in the world I could tell where they were coming from, but at the time there was something in my head that said that they probably could have been coming from the railroad overpass, because I thought since I had got splattered, with blood – I was just a little back and left of – just a little bit back and left of Mrs. Kennedy, but I didn’t know. I had a feeling that it might have been from the Texas Book Depository, and these two places was the primary place that could have been shot from.
Certainly Hargis’ words above are germane to the discussion. It’s not hard to figure out why they were left out of McAdams’ piece.
I’ve noticed McAdams does that a lot, leaves things out or he will quote someone incompletely, putting the parentheses where it serves his point of view, leaving off what doesn’t. Typically the portion left out changes the meaning of the quoted material, at the least it seems less than totally above board. If pointed out, he usually claims an “oversight” apologetically, thus avoiding outright dishonesty.
What? The point of the piece was the claim that Hargis was “hit hard” by Kennedy’s brain matter, blown out of the back of Kennedy’s head.
Where Hargis thought the shots came from is a different matter. He clearly didn’t know, and that’s how I classify him:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm
As Hargis told the commission, he initially suspected a shot from the overpass because of the blood splatter as he was riding a little back and to the left of Mrs. Kennedy.
His first action was to dismount his motorcycle and run across the street “towards the railroad overpass.”
John McAdams’ piece on Hargis does not even mention the railroad overpass.
Yet, according to the same essay, Hargis told Garrison’s staffers that he “initially ran to the Book Depository because of the suggestion of the direction of the shot.”
McAdams did not seem to notice the discrepancy.
The testimony of Hargis that John McAdams
left out of his piece certainly had more to do with how Hargis was struck than many of the other tangential quotes that McAdams thought to include.
Here is Hargis’ testimony on the source of the shots:
You want to make him into a Grassy Knoll earwitness?
How?
Had you actually read his WC testimony? Or just seen it described in a conspiracy book?
I’m not sure to whom John McAdams is responding or to whom he is directing his questions.
I had already posted that part of Hargis’ WC testimony three days ago. (See above)
The testimony you cite says nothing about “how he was struck.”
It in no way contradicts his testimony to Bethell and Oser.
Mr. McAdams, what you should do is to show the paths of the trayectories in the body of the President Kennedy. So far, you and nobody has shown the trayectories of the bullets in the President’s body because the government is still keeping under seal the x-rays and the pictures of the autopsy.
It’s the Kennedy family that is keeping them under seal.
And plenty of people, including top forensic pathologists have seen the photos and x-rays.
We know the trajectories perfectly well.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=39083
John McAdams,
you said no brain matter was blown into air? Didnt connolly say he had brain matter on him? Or are you saying no brain matter went into the air to the left of the JFK? Hard to tell from your sweeping broad generalizations.
Larry
Commas matter, Larry.
In Re: McAdams August 8, 2014 “There was no “usual” configuration.”
In San Antonio, Houston & Ft.Worth the motorcycle outriders accompanying the presidential motorcade were 2 in front, 2 behind and one alongside each wheel, for a total of 8. We know 8 were planned for in dallas as well until at the airport they were told only 4 would be needed, with specific instructions not to ride forward the rear wheels. One of the officers stated, “it was the damnedest formation” he’d ever seen.
A flatbed truck intended for the media, to be in front of presidential limo., was also cancelled at the airport at the last minute. It is obvious to me that JFK’s security was stripped in Dallas as he was driven into an ambush at a very low speed, necessitated by two turn’s, from Main onto Houston Street, then the dogleg back to Elm (where Greer almost hit the curb). This was unnecessary and violated Secret Service rules … if driver Greer had simply stomped on the accelerator and evaded (as their practice dictated) instead of hitting the brakes and turning around twice (??) Kennedy should have survived the attack.
Gerald,
JFK conspiracy books talk about Hargis, but how many mention Kellerman’s testimony? Kellerman reported that debris from the head wound flew into the front seat area and “When I got to the hospital, sir, it was all over my coat.”
Not pleasant to talk about, but the FBI’s Robert Frazier examined the limo and found debris literally all over it, from the hood ornament to the trunk:
https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=169157
I wasn’t too impressed with Robert Frazier’s handwritten, scant forensic diagram. Don’t understand why detailed photos weren’t taken for such an important investigation.
There would’ve been more blood & brain matter to the rear if it wasn’t washed washed away (and evidence destroyed) at Parkland.
Blow back or back splatter can explain any blood towards the front.
If you believe that a bullet when through Kennedy’s neck from the rear, that blood would’ve traveled forward too as well as any coming from Connally.
This book review touches on aspects of Orlando Martin’s analysis of the fatal head shot.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/06/ralph-cinque/checkmate-a-review-of-jfk-analysis-of-a-shooting-by-orlando-martin/
Todd Wayne Vaughan did a compilation of “gore” witnesses several years ago, and indeed, brain matter was blown all over the place.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/exploded.htm
And yes, conspiracy books conceal all that.
One could say that WC proponents discount or ignore blood, brain and bone matter blown to the rear.
Not every conspiracy book, John. “Hear No Evil” by Don Thomas does NOT conceal the multi-direction of the brain and blood splatter. What many of the lone nutter literature conceals is the splatter that went backward. There was that splatter as well as in front and up high, landing in front and to the sides.
Jean, you did not quote Kellerman’s WC testimony. SS “President Kennedy had four wounds, two in the head and shoulder and the neck. Governor Connally, from our reports, had three. There have got to be more than three shots.”
There you go.
Richard,
Kellerman was giving his opinion but he wasn’t a wound ballistics expert. Several experts in wound ballistics have found no problem with all the wounds being caused by two bullets — Duncan McPherson and Martin Fackler, e.g.
The debris went in all directions but with the larger fragments heading up and forward according to ITEK, which published this high-contrast negative of Z313:
http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/4606/itek1976zap313highcontr.jpg
Richard Charnin, you state
“. . . you [Jean Davison] did not quote Kellerman’s WC testimony. . . ”
I think you have succinctly identified what is symptomatic of the serious flaw in Ms. Davison’s approach to the investigation into the assassination.
By chance, Jim diEugenio has revisited Davison’s sole effort at uncovering the truth behind Kennedy’s murder, “Oswald’s Game.” He points out repeated examples similar to this your single challenge to Davison.
It is my contention that new students should study diEugenio’s essay to fully understand how the cover up was perpetuated, particularly at the critical period 20 years after.
http://www.ctka.net/2014_reviews/Davison%20review.html
leslie sharp August 12, 2014 at 4:06 pm
I would quickly put my money on Davison being much more factual than DiEugino on any subject she comments on.
Bill Clarke, avoiding the pertinent issue in this exchange will not make it go away. Mr. Charnin pointed out that Jean Davison failed to include Kellerman’s testimony; Jim diEugenio cites in his “Why Jean Davison Won’t Quit: A look Back at Oswald’s Game” numerous instances of similar failures. Perhaps Jean can defend herself on this critical issue, one which has yet to be resolved on this forum; she continues to be afforded here the opportunity to perpetuate the failures of her single publication in 1983. Please read diEugenio’s essay so that we can have an informed debate.
@ Jean;
That Itek negative also shows a ‘splash’ pattern that is similar to Tink’s presentation at Lancer last November, being indicative of an almost 360 degree ‘back splash’ (Marsh referred to this as ‘blow back’. It can result from a frontal shot with a frangible bullet – also per Orlando Martin, decorated Marine Drill Instructor and author of JFK: Analysis of a Shooting). This is important as it is not a single ejection stream a la Alvarez’ fudged experiment for his pet Jet Effect Theory.
Here is Tink’s presentation slide:
http://tinypic.com/r/10f9lok/8
@ Leslie:
Thank you for the link to DiEugenio’s book review. I’ve read only the first section but looking forward to reading the rest later (back to number crunching for me).
Leslie,
Why should anyone quote Kellerman’s opinion about how many bullets were required to cause all the wounds? Was he a medical or wound ballistic expert, had he performed tests with a Carcano?
Of course not. I don’t quote Kellerman on that, and for good reason. I quote him on something else that he *was* an expert on — the debris on his coat. He’s a witness that the debris from the head shot didn’t just go “back and to the left.”
Did Richard Charnin quote Kellerman on *that*? Did he quote any other witness who spoke about debris that went forward? Not that I see. That’s okay with you, Leslie? No problem with selective quoting there, right?
I wrote a book 31 years ago that’s not perfect, for sure. What is? Certainly not diEugenio’s “review,” which misreads a lot of what I wrote. (I didn’t claim that Oswald taught himself Russian, e.g.) He complains that I didn’t interpret the evidence the same way that he does, didn’t mention all the points *he* would have mentioned. Well, hello? Does he think I agree with him about the JFK assassination?
I wonder why he “by chance” chose to review this decades-old book, instead of finally replying to the question I asked him repeatedly in this thread on Abe Bolden:
https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/2-jfk-assassination-plots-that-are-often-forgotten/
Jean, the allegation of a Chicago plot is not germane to this exchange so I choose not to be diverted.
At issue is a pattern of selective representation of facts. As I read it, Richard Charnin did not mention the debris testimony because you had already done so. I believe that Charnin’s challenge is if Kellerman is named in your argument about debris, then Kellerman’s additional testimony relating to the number of shots should also be considered given that it relates to the issue of debris.
I would compare this to the debate over the two female TSBD employees, one of whose testimony you rely heavily upon in your arguments on this site, yet you discount completely that the other woman was never called to testify by the Warren Commission. No amount of reasoning can explain that process as anything other than “selective,” on your part and on the part of the commission.
about Jim diEgenio you write “He complains that I didn’t interpret the evidence the same way that he does, didn’t mention all the points ‘he’ would have mentioned. Well, hello? Does he think I agree with him about the JFK assassination?”
Would you elaborate on your reasoning here? You do not now now, and I assume you never have agreed with Jim diEugenio about the assassination; how does that justify your failure to include certain facts in your book? Are you saying that you knew about certain points but chose not to include them, or that you didn’t have the information at the time of publication? If the former, does that mean that you knew the position your book was going to take from the outset and any points that challenged that position were simply left out? Has Jim diEugenio identified a series of ‘points’ that you continue to argue are irrelevant? Please, if you would, clarify.
So Jean should have quoted Kellerman on a matter of wound ballistics, and treated him as an expert, even though he had no expertise whatsoever in wound ballistics?
But I guess that’s what buffs do, isn’t it?
You folks are sorely lacking in experts who have any real credentials. You have only hobbyists.
You folks actually believe what Charnin says about “mystery deaths,” and ignore what actuaries say:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hess.txt
Some buff’s do read and thus question the WO mister dullles. It’s only natural, human curiosity, the search for truth, Associate Professor Mc Adams.
John McAdams: Yours is a weak response, albeit an effort to defend Ms. Davison, and loaded with your usual condescending folksy approach to serious discussion in an effort to diminish credibility and or intimidate.
Are you deliberately avoiding the fundamental and general issue in the exchange I initiated which is that Jean Davison fails to include pertinent facts both in “Oswald’s Game” and in her responses here in this forum. That suggests a pattern, and a deliberate one in my opinion. You also avoid mention let alone response to Jim diEugenio’s essay “Why Jean Davison Won’t Quit: . . . “
I’m wondering if you teach your poli-sci students that those who marched and protested and sometimes died in defense of de-segregation were mere civil rights ‘buffs?’ Or those who marched and protested and sometimes died to end US engagement in Vietnam were mere anti-war ‘buffs?’ Speaking for myself, researching the broad daylight assassination of a US in Dallas is not a hobby but rather a shared commitment to the restoration of democracy in America.
Can you cite your particular area of ‘expertise’ in the assassination investigation? It seems to me that you are mostly a repository not unlike Mary Ferrell or Mae Brussell. I do not denigrate their efforts, but they never claimed to be experts and they carried their mantle with humility, a quality you might consider in order to be more effective for “your side.”
For five decades, “experts” have disagreed on the facts of the assassination and the conclusions they lead to; “experts” disagree on the wisest US foreign policy in the Middle East; “experts” disagree on how to resolve (or ignore) climate change. Should we wait on ‘experts’ to come to consensus and resolve the cold case investigation into the assassination? That it is unresolved and perhaps irresolvable is enough to ignite outrage in a new generation of political activists, something the “experts” thus far sorely lack.
But your definition of “pertinent facts” is really “buff talking points.”
Do you really believe that Kellerman’s opinion on a matter of wound ballistics is “pertinent” to anything?
You know, Leslie, you would do well to focus more on issues and less on your obsession with McAdams and Davison, constantly questioning their motives.
Stephen Roy, “You know, Leslie, you would do well to focus more on issues . . ”
As I have stated, I see as the larger issue the failure to include certain pertinent facts, to exercise selectivity. That in my view is ‘an issue’ in the debate and moves it forward from the detail that will never be agreed upon, not on this forum while Davison and McAdams are participants.
Focusing on “methodology” is not an obsession. I recognize that questioning motive has been relegated from a rather rational and reasonable area of inquiry (motive, means and opportunity are legal questions) to being socially unacceptable; however, surely challenging McAdams’ or Davison’s method is not?
John McA,
To wrap this up, I argue that if the debris is significant because it was “material” matter, then so is Kellerman’s subjective assessment of the number of shots he believed to be necessary to have caused the damage they did to the extent of splattering so much debris. If I had been present in DP, if debris had landed on me, if I had heard shots, I would attempt to put two and two together, and I would not rely solely on post assassination experts – none of whom were in close proximity to the scene of the crime as was Kellerman – to tell me what I did or did not experience.
From the WC:
Senator COOPER. One other question: You said the flurry of shots came in the car. You were leaning forward talking to the driver after the first shot. What made you aware of a flurry of shots?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Senator, between all the matter that was–between all the matter that was blown off from an injured person, this stuff all came over.
Kellerman indicates that if debris hit him to the extent that it did, then he had to consider how many bullets might have been necessary to inflict all wounds and debris. Jean does not want to have that conversation but rather to jump from A (the debris) to C (the experts’ assessment) without considering B (eyewitness testimony). That is the crux of my argument … it has nothing to do with the single bullet theory. By selectively choosing what of Kellerman’s testimony she agrees with, she avoids giving Kellerman an inch lest more shots surface. Kellerman’s testimony prompts questions.
My argument is more about the subtlety of selective information and the persistent attempt to discredit eyewitnesses; if this were the only instance of that methodology, I would have considered carefully before I challenged Jean relating to the Kellerman episode; but it is not.
What you have been doing is engaging in ad hominem attacks on “method” rather than debate actual issues.
And the reason is clear. When you mix it up with Jean or me you find yourself on the defensive, since you believe a lot of stuff in badly-sourced conspiracy books and videos.
Leslie:
Given the enormous amount of evidence in this case, the observation that certain researchers are selective and include some pieces of evidence while not including others is one that could be applied to nearly ANY researcher, probably including some you admire. What evidence to include sometimes depends on your biases. Most rational researchers avoid questioning the motives of others
@Stephen Roy–How are your patronizing comments to Leslie Sharp helpful? I’m glad for her willingness to question everything,not only the facts of the plot as we know them but also her willingness to examine the methods and motives of those beating the WC drums. Those drums are loud, and we’ve heard them for a long, long time. She’s not doing anyone a disservice by holding McAdams’ feet to the fire. There’s a lot to be learned in these exchanges. Why be uncomfortable with that? I’m grateful.
Nonsense. All the debris was from the head shot. His opinions on whether the single bullet could have inflicted all those wounds (which is what he was talking about) have no probative value.
Nonsense. Trying to drive people away with attacks and insults is not something that truth seekers would do.
I’m ENCOURAGING her to continue the debate, minus the suspiciousness about other posters. That suspiciousness is, in effect, a means of stacking (and limiting) the debate, by saying “Your opinion is invalid because your motivations are suspicious.” Frankly, this sort of thinking does not support the needs of intellectual objectivity.
John McA,
“Folks, buff, and hobbyist” are terms designed to drive people away from the debate.
Respectful challenge to methodology – while uncomfortable – is not an attack on personality, nor should it be construed as insulting.
Teasing out the manner in which debates are conducted is beneficial to all truth seekers.
JFK’s two head wounds show the conspiracy for us. He was also hit in the back(which prompted Gerald Ford to amazingly raise the wound location to make the single-bullet theory “fit”), and Connolly was hit by a different bullet than any that hit JFK-a fact Connolly took to his grave. That’s 4 shots, and the bullet that caused debris to graze James Tague makes for 5.
Wouldn’t that evidence suggest shots coming from multiple directions?
This comment is in RE: to Jean Davidson’s post of August 7, 2014
“Not pleasant to talk about, but the FBI’s Robert Frazier examined the limo and found debris literally all over it, from the hood ornament to the trunk:
https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=169157“
As of 6:16 on August 5 I see that Jeff Morley has the last THREE comments listed on the What Readers are Saying list.
As I recall I was censored for doing the same thing several months ago.
As the unpaid proprietor of the site, I reserve the right to post whenever and whatever I want. To correct the record, none of your posts have ever been censored.
A fascinating response, Photon. Why have you been dormant for so long yet you surface on this particular issue? In gambling some might construe this as your “tell.”
A FORWARD HEAD SNAP?
I hope I can post one more time here, because there’s another question that I have about Doug Horne’s findings: the supposedly missing film frames which he talks about (at around the time of the head shot). If I read what Horne is saying correctly, early viewers of the original Zapruder film saw JFK’s head pushed violently FORWARD instead of backward. If this was what happened, how can we explain the shot to his head coming from the front and not the back? That seems to violate the basic laws of motion (physics) from an object hitting a human head with such force. Or am I missing something here? (and NO, I don’t buy the Alvarez explanation, for reasons covered quite well in a number of books, including Thomas’ “Hear No Evil”)
Mr. Horne,
Is the Zapruder film in the National Archives consistent in timing to copies of the original Nix film? Can you give us more information about the 35 Hollywood film people who examined the Zapruder copy purchased from the Archives?
The original Nix film and the original Muchmore film are both missing and currently unlocated.
Gayle Nix Jackson, the granddaughter of Orville Nix, has just published her book about the Nix film and everything she knows that is associated with it. It is quite a read.
Orville Nix told Mark Lane on film in 1966 (“Rush to Judgment”) that many of the frames had been removed when it was returned to him. That was in 1966 when he was interviewed. Any Nix film studied today is therefore of tainted provenance and I would not want to put too much stock in its timing. I’m not saying that the research should not be done, I’m just saying don’t go to the bank with it, unless or until the original Nix film is found. And then, look for splices and/or jump cuts.
I know of one different between the Nix film as shown in the film Executive Action (1973) and the Z film as we know it today. In the Executive Action Nix film segment, Clint Hill places his left arm and hand around Jackie’s shoulder; you don’t see this in the extant Zapruder film.
Can you say where the study of the apparently blacked out portions in the z-film by the folks in Hollywood stands? Is there additional information about their work and/or work results that you can point to? Thanks for all the work and info you provide.
No, he only said “a frame here and there.”
And your post shows how, once you start claiming alternation, you have to reject more and more evidence in order to maintain your alterationist position. Eventually, everything is faked and forged.
John McAdams,
how many frames need to be deleted to qualify as “many”. In your quibbling and parsing, you are losing forest for the trees. frames are missing and more than one. that seems important.
Larry Schnapf
There should be a simple rule here: don’t misquote witnesses.
And don’t make their testimony seem more dramatic than it really was.
Is that so hard to understand?
To not be suspicious that frames were “missing here and there” or whatever the wording is astounding for anyone claiming to be an objective researcher.
You can be as “suspicious” as you want, but buffs should not lie about what a witness said.
Is that rocket science?
My point still stands.
Is your point, then, that it’s OK to lie about what witnesses said?
Mr. Horne,
I have a question that I hope you will answer. In the video you argue that shortly after Dino Brugioni saw the original Z film it was altered to conceal an exit wound in the low back of Kennedy’s head. And yet the wound Brugioni describes isn’t in the back of the head but rather where we see it in the existing film. He explicitly says that the ejecta went *up* (not *back*). The hand motion he used when describing the wound (at c.28 minutes), moving toward his right temple and then forward/upward, is very similar to the gesture Zapruder used on 11/22 to describe the same wound (c. 1:15 here):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLqOGEBcjnI
Throughout the video I see no reference to a wound in the back of the skull or of ejecta going backward, only “up” or “above” the head.
Brugioni is also not that far off in describing the extent and duration of the cloud of debris, which in fact can be seen for more than one frame and extends high into the air:
313-314
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/frags/z-frags.jpg
315:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z315.jpg
So I don’t understand this. If the original film showed an exit wound in the back of the head with ejecta moving rearward, why isn’t that what Brugioni described?
“Nix film segment, Clint Hill places his left arm and hand around Jackie’s shoulder; you don’t see this in the extant Zapruder film.”~Doug Horne
We don’t see it in the Z-film because the view is obscured by the bushes at this point.
I would love to know where you get some of the nonsense you spew about film and special effects.
I have been a special effects artist most of my adult life, and I know your opinions on how the Zapruder film could have been forged are total BS.
I know that both Rolland Zavada and Raymond Fielding have advised you of your gross technical misunderstandings. Why don’t you address these critiques made by the premier experts in their fields?
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-zapruder-film/
\\][//
The only thing that makes sense to the forward head snap is that he was hit twice in the head-the first time from the back(that pushed his head forward), then the immediate second one that drove it backward and drove HIM into the seat. I think the witnesses who claim they heard two shots one on top of the other heard the two head shots.
That is also what I have always thought. A shot from the rear pushes the head exactly as shown FORWARD, I don’t believe that the shot came for the 6th floor, different caliber, NO exit, then the frontal shot, once again different caliber as it throws jfk’s head and body to the left and backwards quite violently. just 10ths of a second later,virtually exploding the already damaged skull. If frames 312 313 are to be believed, seems to me that is the only answer that makes any sense.
JSA
If the z film has been altered to remove a car stop then I think it’s possible that JFK jerked forward due to the car stop rather than being hit by a bullet at that moment.
A question: If you believe instruments of the U.S Government cooperated to keep the facts of the assassination hidden, do you find it hard to believe the Z-film was altered for that purpose?
If you do find it hard, why? A government bent on hiding the facts of a presidential assassination will stop at what? Film alteration?
There are three basic views of the assassination aftermath: [1] serious government cover-up; [2] no or negligible government cover-up; [3] maybe some government cover-up, maybe not. If you put yourself in category [1], how can you not admit freely the possibility the Z-film was altered as part of the cover-up?
The December 4, 1963 FBI interview with Abraham Zapruder has not been placed in primary importance in relation to the authenticity of the Zapruder film.
Zapruder makes it clear that there should have been no pause in the film – the current extant film begins with the film depicting just what Zapruder stated to the FBI, “Zapruder stated that he first picked up the motorcade as it made the turn on to Elm Street from Houston Street … and continued taking pictures until the motorcade disappeared to his right … the control buttons for the zoom lens were not touched once he started taking photographs of the Presidential motorcade.” The current extant film does not show what Zapruder stated – the president’s car appears out of nowhere halfway down Elm – Zapruder never said he stopped filming – he in fact stongly implies the opposite.
When one also considers Zapruder frame 335 – it clearly shows President Kennedy’s face is missing & one can clearly see Jackie’s pink jacket where his face should be. That cannot be an authentic frame – especially in light of the ensuing frames that show the back of his head intact when almost every primary witness (doctors, nurses, police, SS, eyewitness,…) that saw the president’s head stated that there was a huge hole in the back of his head.
Over 50 witnesses saw the limousine come to a stop – the brake lights of the presidential limousine turning off & on as shown in the Nix film also support the limousine stop & the argument that the current film was altered. We also know that Orrvile Nix stated that his film was returned to him from the FBI with frames missing (Mark Lane interview) & that his grandaughter – Gayle Nix Jackson is still trying to obtain the original film.
Zapruder died in 1970 before his film was shown to the public & after he sold his original to Life – to my knowledge he never was asked to verify the extant film. I’m pretty sure he would not have.
Dino Brugioni & Doug Horne along with David Lifton, John Costella, & James Fetzer have all done a great job in arguing that the Zapruder film has been altered – Brugioni’s statements are by far the “best evidence” as to the altering of the Zapruder film.
No.
http://home.comcast.net/~the-puzzle-palace/Mantik1.htm
The film seems to show the car decelerating just before the head shot, and I would imagine people would remember that as a full stop. I don’t see the point in assuming anything else.
Just saying no does not offer any documentation that the limousine did not come to a stop – what kind of research is that? I offer a number of witness statements in my book J. Edgar Hoover the Father of the Cold War (p.234).
Superintendent of the Book Depository Roy Truly (on the front steps of the TSBD) “I saw the President’s car swerve to the left & stop”. On the overpass, Policeman J. W. Foster “the car in which he(JFK) was riding pulled to the curb(left)”. Motorcycle policeman James Chaney (riding near the right bumper of the limo)”the car stopped completely, pulled to the left & stopped”. These three witnesses are all documented & are in separate locations in Dealy Plaza.
Vince Palamara has a list of 49 total witnesses & I have found a number of others who were not on his list. You also fail to comment on the brake lights in the Nix film
& you also failed to refute Zapruder’s December 1963 statement to the FBI.
When you can document your “no” on all the points that I have documented – then you will have done some appropriate research on this topic of discussion.
The claim that the limo “stopped” is based on witness testimony.
But the alterationists have misrepresented what the witnesses actually said.
And the evidence of that is in the essay I linked to.
If you have some evidence the limo stopped other than witness testimony, you need to post it.
“If you have some evidence the limo stopped other than witness testimony, you need to post it.”
You mean, perhaps, an interview with the car itself?
The fact that a number of people said it came to a full stop is compelling evidence that it might have. And I stress the words “might have.”
But then I seem to recall you’ve claimed that no one at the time of the shooting said the Grassy Knoll was the source of gunfire, that it was only autosuggestion induced by exposure to too many “factoids” that caused people to state this years after the fact.
Never said that.
My tabulation is here:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
If not you, then Photon. But I’m pretty sure it was you. If so, I can’t blame you for backtracking.
I’ve already seen that “tabulation” quite a while ago, I’ve been through your website in the vain hope I’d find something in the way of compelling argument. Nothing but a recitation of the same WC stuff (one is tempted to call them “factoids”) that have been so unconvincing for so long.
Grassy Knoll Witnesses http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-witnesses
Fearfaxer,
Someone may have said that on 11/22 no witness reported *seeing* anyone firing from the knoll, which is true.
The link you provided does not work.
“The link you provided does not work.” ~Gary Aguilar
This one? I have it up right now, these are quotes from it:
http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-witnesses
Evidence of Shots from the Front
About 40 witnesses to the assassination of President Kennedy claimed either to have heard gunshots from the infamous grassy knoll in the northwest corner of Dealey Plaza, or to have seen smoke or smelled gunpowder in that area.
Interviewing the Dealey Plaza Witnesses
Several of these witnesses were interviewed by newspaper, radio and television reporters immediately after the assassination. The interviews were influential in generating doubt about the lone–gunman theory. Many other interviews have been carried out in the years since the assassination, almost all of them by private researchers.
Examination of photographs and home movies suggests that there were perhaps as many as 600 people in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination. Official interviews or statements exist for around 200 of these witnesses. Because the Warren Commission did no investigation of its own, almost all of the witnesses who testified before the Commission were chosen from those who had already made official statements. The other 400 or so, including many of the spectators nearest to the president, were never interviewed officially at all. Few of these missing witnesses were identified, even when the authorities had been informed of their existence (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.15, pp.525f).
\\][//
Untrue.
From the Clay Shaw trial transcript:
http://www.jfk-info.com/az-shaw.htm
On the assumption there was a film alteration, it sounds like the Court had to pull it out of him by asking him twice as apparently he mumbled his answer the first time through. On the same assumption it’s sobering to think that if he had seen discrepancies between two film versions and had he chosen that particular time and venue to drop the bombshell of the century, then he would likely have walked out onto the street and promptly or soon thereafter met with the same fate as that of the subject of his film(s). It’s doubtful that a White Russian immigrant would fail to appreciate all that and not say “I would say that they do. Yes, they do”. If he was ever going to be convicted of perjury, then disclosure of the assumed film fraud would necessarily precede that finding and he very likely understood that wasn’t going to happen in his lifetime. After all, by then his primary concern would have been to keep his own lifetime to as long a time as possible.
It’s the Standard Conspiracy Response: somebody gives inconvenient testimony, they must be lying.
It’s not inconvenient, just invalid within a given context. You are right to say he was asked if someone says he never was asked, but if you are interpreting his answer as indicative of the film not being altered, then you are not right. His answer tells us nothing in that regard.
Mr. McAdams
Mr. Brugioni did seem very honest and credible. Do have a rebuttal for the comments he made while talking with Mr. Horne?
And the non-conspiracy theorists have had to employ all sorts of convoluted machinations of their own to explain away certain inconvenient testimonies.
They are often guilty of the same transgressions of which they accuse others.
“On the assumption there was a film alteration, it sounds like the Court had to pull it out of him by asking him twice as apparently he mumbled his answer the first time through”~Frank
This is clutching for straws Frank. The bench had problems with hearing testimony in that trial with many witnesses, and was continuously asking witnesses to speak up.
You also remark: ” if you are interpreting his answer as indicative of the film not being altered, then you are not right. His answer tells us nothing in that regard.”~Ibid
Utter hogwash Frank, Zapruder’s answer was in the exact context in which the question was asked.
You don’t seem to take the concept of perjury seriously. Have you ever testified at a trial? Have you ever lied to a police officer?
\\][//
Professor, would that Life copy film shown during the Shaw trial have those missing frames (can’t recall if that was the original or a copy)?
Generally, I would agree that Zapruder felt it was the same, but he might not have been able to discern a few missing frames, the effect of which is subtle from my recollection*.
*Images of an Assassination I believe shows both damaged and undamaged versions.
Since he had not seen the original film in 6 years (the Shaw Trial was in 1969) & he did not have the original copy – then Zapruder’s response is consistent with the question “Does it represent”? “I would say they do” is not a ringing endorsement. Maybe that accounts for his initial response & the court’s response “I didn’t hear you again”.
No one at that time was really considering the film was altered in 1969 – Garrison was using it to indicate JFK’s head went to the back & left. Do you think that Zapruder was going to state that this was not the film he head taken & argue (when no one else had) that maybe a portion of his film was altered or taken out in a court case that had the world’s attention less than a year before he died?
By the way – Zapruder does dispute some of the still frames of “his” film he was shown & asked to comment on in his Warren Commission testimony.
To R. Andrew Klel: you are “Spot On “–I’ve watched that special and I firmly believe that Dino Brugioni is an extremely competent, forthright, and credible witness to the Zapruder film as being much more explicit in the evidence of the fact that President Kennedy was fired upon from the front, as well as showing way more damage to his head wound than is now depicted in
the film we have since it was first shown on ” Geraldo’s “!
A few years back there was talk on the forums by a number of people who claimed to have seen a film of the assassination, in public presentations, that was either the “unaltered” Zapruder film, or a completely different film taken from a location very close to Zapruder. These people described the wide swing of the limo from Houston to Elm, the momentary car stop, and the different appearance of the head shot. To my knowledge, the discussion of CIA alteration by Mr. Horne has not brought any of these people forward to confirm the existence of this other film, whether unaltered Z-film or otherwise. I do not doubt the sincerity of Mr. Brugioni, and the viewers of the “unaltered” film were convinced of its authenticity. If their claims are true, it seems that there must be copies of these films somewhere. Do they really exist? If so, who has them?
Interesting, although there would need to be much clearer evidence produced of alteration before many people could have the confidence to believe it.
The question remains? Are there any copies of the original Dino Brugioni viewed that have not been destroyed.
Now got to the autopsy and see how many copies of Kennedys body and caskets are viewed..
I do not quite understand how removing frames turns a sudden head snap forward into the a move back and to the left, however, on further reflection it doesn’t matter because the key is that Rather’s story is at variance with the extant film. If we assume Rather is not fabricating, as we should, then the only explanation is he was watching a different film. Why he needed to make it a point that the limo did not stop is a mystery, but again what does it matter if there are brush strokes on the celluloid?
Mr. Brugioni could not appear more honest and credible. He is very sharp, lucid, and convincing. He is self limiting in the sense that he makes zero speculation about anything other than the facts as he relates them, which appear to be only those based on his own personal experience. What a block busting set of personal experiences he has.
If Mr. Horne is correct that existing evidence yet to be presented proves touch up to the head wound on the extant film, then it’s all over. That would render all other discussions, LN or CT and even hidden records, as secondary to any tiny brush strokes on strips of celluloid. That along with Mr. Brugioni’s recorded statements would transform theory to fact. I hope this resolves itself sooner rather than later.
I too have been skeptical of the idea of Z film alteration. Doug Horne and Dino Brugioni seem very credible in the documentary. The existence of either the Z film copy retained by Zapruder, or the 2-panel Brugioni briefing board would be interesting to see, and would put the alteration debate to rest. I’m hoping this possibility is what Mr. Horne is referring to at the end of the video. Great post Jeff!
I thought that the interviewer did a wonderful job of allowing Dino his chance to speak w/o any help, interference, or coaching.
To me the most important point to be made by Dino was this: There ‘was no 8 millimeter projector’ in the facility and they had to get it. Interesting point. This would then explain why/how, on Sunday Night (the next night) they were able to do the same job all over again and, luckily, already had an 8mm projector on site.
My question is: Who paid for the Projector on Saturday?
Right?
In Re: Bill Callahan August 3, 2014 “To me the most important point to be made by Dino was this: There ‘was no 8 millimeter projector’ in the facility and they had to get it. Interesting point. This would then explain why/how, on Sunday Night (the next night) they were able to do the same job all over again and, luckily, already had an 8mm projector on site.”
But the second night, agent Bill Smith came with an ‘UNSPLIT’ 16mm film, so no 8mm projector would have been needed. It’s been some time since i watched the doc., but i don’t recall them having split the film > so i assume they used a 16mm projector, as no mention is made of slitting the film.
“i assume they used a 16mm projector, as no mention is made of slitting the film.”~david thurman
You cannot show an unsplit 8mm format film on a 16mm projector.
The sproket holes on real 16mm is about twice the size of 8mm sprocket holes, and they are spaced completely differently.
The whole Dough Horne story is full of BS like this that doesn’t make any sense when you look closely at it.
\\][//
In Re: Willy Whitten April 24th, 2016 “You cannot show an unsplit 8mm format film on a 16mm projector.
The sproket holes on real 16mm is about twice the size of 8mm sprocket holes, and they are spaced completely differently.
The whole Dough Horne story is full of BS like this that doesn’t make any sense when you look closely at it.”
Whoa, whoa whoa; Ok maybe we are getting somewhere here. I re-watched the doc.and Brugioni does indicate they watched it as a film, that it arrived as an unslit, just developed film … but according to you this could not have happened, unless they split the film, attaching it end to end (which is not mentioned) prior to viewing on a 8mm projector.
But this thing about the sprocket holes, it sounds like you are objecting to their claims of how this 8mm film was processed/developed, that it was NEVER processed in this manner. Would you care to explain then, from your knowledge of vintage 1963 Bell & Howell 8mm home movie projector film, exactly what you are proposing as an alternative to how this film is processed?
The point about the Zapruder film Mr Thurman, is that the film (Kodachrome II Daylight film) was processed in Dallas as a projector ready 8mm film on Nov. 22, 1963, and was projected to prospective buyers the next day [Sat. Nov. 23]
>> The film was split, it cannot be put back together once it is split <<
There were two same-day copies made on Kodak copy film at the same time.
Here is a PDF of Zavada's analysis/report of the original Zapruder film:
http://www.jfk-info.com/zstudy1a.pdf
\\][//
Ooops—It appears that the speaker, Doug Horne, does address the other Zapruder copies.
I think he makes a good case here, backed up by Dino Brugioni’s testimony. It appears that evidence in this case was tampered with, and then the whole event was given a new cover story while the truth that threatened this cover story was suppressed.
If I recall, they went to the Secret Service and FBI.
The FBI then gave one to the CIA.
To my knowledge, those have not been shown to be altered.
The exit wound at the back of JFK’s head has been blacked out from frame Z-313 on, in my view. Even looking closely at the first published LIFE frames, the rear of his head looks too uniformly black to be a truthful representation of all the damage to the rear of the head that was consistently seen and reported by so many of the Parkland doctors.
Similiarlly, when you look at the ostensible front “exit” wound, it looks artificial, as if painted in.
The speaker mentions that Zapruder had FOUR copies: 1. the original film, and three duplicate copies made in Dallas by the original developer. So if he sold the original film to LIFE on November 24, did that mean that LIFE Magazine ALSO got the other three copies as part of the sale? Perhaps there is an obvious explanation, but watching/listening to the speaker it’s not made crystal clear. I’m assuming that the other three copies of the film that Zapruder had developed were copies of the original, presumably unaltered film. So what happened to the other three copies?
All your questions are answered in the video or dvd of Images Of An Assassination, which I have.
IIRC, he kept the original and one copy, and gave one copy to the FBI and another to the SS.
I believe Life Magazine got the original, which they partly damaged when they made slides for publishing.
Life bought all rights of publication. They eventually sold it back to Zapruder for a $1 or so due to the negative publicity in keeping it.
“Leading CIA photoanalyst talks about the Zapruder film”
JFK’s revenge takes a look how film technology of 1963 could be used to combine separate layers of film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Am4qdl9PTA
We ‘Won’t Get Fooled Again’ – or have we?
” about the CIA’s handling of the Zapruder film.”
Robert Parry asks What Did US Spy Satellites See in Ukraine?
http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/
Parry was one of the reporters who helped expose the Iran-Contra scandal for AP in the 80s.
Video of voice recordings posted on social media have been found to be altered. In Won’t Get Fooled Again Russ Baker describes how Russians criticized the US for backing its statements with social media and not releasing its own satellite images taken at the time of the shoot-down. The
http://whowhatwhy.com/2014/07/31/the-mh17-downing-how-to-be-a-smart-news-consumer/
The Russian government, with almost every major global media outlet in attendance, released all of its air traffic data and satellite imaging data (in fact, only part of it) – all verifiable, including time stamps and supporting data. The entire content of the presentation was also handed over to the European authorities:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/mh17-verdict-real-evidence-points-to-us-kiev-cover-up-of-failed-false-flag/5393317
World leaders had expressed concern that the black boxes, may have been manipulated,- but investigators at Britain’s Air Accident Investigation Branch have found no evidence that the aircraft’s black boxes were tampered with. Ukraine’s prime minister resigned on Thursday – but the corprate media seems uninterested.