Mary Woodward said there were 3 shots and the 1st shot missed everything

[James Slater]

I'm not going to get involved in your inane games, Slater.

You asked a question about Jackie, and I answered you.

If you'll actually read my answer and look at the pertinent Zapruder frames, you might even, despite your agonizing cognitive dissonance, actually learn something.

It's not an insane game at all.
The chain of custody from when the secret service first took the Zapruder film to the National Photographic Interpretation Center and was first examined by Dino Brugioni what happened after that is unknown.
In assassination research Dino Brugioni is the most important figure since he took the stills from the original film which were used in the investigation. Dino has always maintained that the film we see today is not the film he first saw in 1963. He worked for the CIA a long time.
For those interested here is the youtube link:-

[Tom Graves]

[...]

I said "inane," but if you think your games are "insane," too, I won't argue with you.

Regardless, in your earlier post you asked me a question about Jackie, and I answered you.

The least you could do is thank me for having done so.

[James Slater]

I said "inane," but if you think your games are "insane," too, I won't argue with you.

Regardless, in your earlier post you asked me a question about Jackie, and I answered you.

The least you could do is thank me for having done so.

You gave me your interpretation of why Jackie's testimony doesn't tally with the Zapruder film and that's all it is - an interpretation since you are not an expert in this field. The real reason for the two not tallying and for JBC's testimony not tallying with the Zapruder film as far as I'm concerned remains unknown.
You will never be able to determine if the Zapruder film is admissible because the chain of command is questionable. I'd watch the link I've provided to determine that for yourself. OK I'll thank you for your interpretation if that helps.
But.......if the film cannot be verified and Dino Brugioni who first worked on the film is certain it is different from the original then we've got a problem on our hands haven't we? The hypothetical I provided is valid in terms of comparison but you side tracked it. The reason you side tracked it is because if you answer it honestly then you've by default destroyed the credibility of the Zapruder film.

[Tom Graves]

You gave me your interpretation of why Jackie's testimony doesn't tally with the Zapruder film and that's all it is - an interpretation since you are not an expert in this field. The real reason for the two not tallying and for JBC's testimony not tallying with the Zapruder film as far as I'm concerned remains unknown.

You said: "You're not an expert in this field."

What "field" are you referring to, Slater?

Anyone with an open mind will discern that Jackie is looking to her left in, for example, Z-161, that she's looking straight ahead or a little to her right in Z-180, and that she's looking to her far-right in Z-190.

The reason Jackie's testimony didn't "tally" with what we see her doing in the Zapruder film right before her husband was struck in the lower neck/upper back by CE-399 is due to her very human "failure" to remember that, although she'd been looking to her left for a long time, she had turned to her right around Z-175 to look at, and probably smile and wave to, Mary Woodward and her three journalism colleagues.

[Royell Storing]

You gave me your interpretation of why Jackie's testimony doesn't tally with the Zapruder film and that's all it is - an interpretation since you are not an expert in this field. The real reason for the two not tallying and for JBC's testimony not tallying with the Zapruder film as far as I'm concerned remains unknown.
You will never be able to determine if the Zapruder film is admissible because the chain of command is questionable. I'd watch the link I've provided to determine that for yourself. OK I'll thank you for your interpretation if that helps.
But.......if the film cannot be verified and Dino Brugioni who first worked on the film is certain it is different from the original then we've got a problem on our hands haven't we? The hypothetical I provided is valid in terms of comparison but you side tracked it. The reason you side tracked it is because if you answer it honestly then you've by default destroyed the credibility of the Zapruder film.

   You neglected to mention the Zapruder Film that CBS Dan Rather viewed/described to the World during his multiple broadcasts the very weekend of the JFK Assassination. Rather was even intro'd by CBS News Anchor Walter Cronkite. The Dan Rather broadcasts were highly regarded at the time they were made. Rather described the Zapruder Film showing the JFK Limo turning onto Elm St along with his describing other things on the film that are Not on the Current Zapruder Film. 

[James Slater]

You said: "You're not an expert in this field."

What "field" are you referring to, Slater?

Anyone with an open mind will discern that Jackie is looking to her left in, for example, Z-161, that she's looking straight ahead or a little to her right in Z-180, and that she's looking to her far-right in Z-190.

The reason Jackie's testimony didn't "tally" with what we see her doing in the Zapruder film right before her husband was struck in the lower neck/upper back by CE-399 is due to her very human "failure" to remember that, although she'd been looking to her left for a long time, she had turned to her right around Z-175 to look at, and probably smile and wave to, Mary Woodward and her three journalism colleagues.

In 1963 the CIA had a department called the National Photographic Interpretation Center. Dino Brugioni was the first CIA employee to examine the Zapruder film and he has testified on tape that the Zapruder film has been tampered with.
You on the other hand are not trained in the same field as Dino Brugioni, you have no expertise as to whether the frames are genuine or not. At this juncture in time I'm inclined to take Dino's word for it since he was a government employee with no reason to lie. I don't know who you are and I don't care how you interpret the Zapruder film or anything on it.

[James Slater]

   You neglected to mention the Zapruder Film that CBS Dan Rather viewed/described to the World during his multiple broadcasts the very weekend of the JFK Assassination. Rather was even intro'd by CBS News Anchor Walter Cronkite. The Dan Rather broadcasts were highly regarded at the time they were made. Rather described the Zapruder Film showing the JFK Limo turning onto Elm St along with his describing other things on the film that are Not on the Current Zapruder Film.

Some good points. But you'd need testimony from Rather to establish if that is the case. If you could find that, it would be helpful.
....James.