JFK Assassination Forum

There is absolutely nothing in those 8 items that even remotely fits the film evidence. Are you looking at the film through a kaleidoscope?

Not everything is capable of being proven by the zfilm. It was a silent film. It can’t reveal the shot pattern. But the zfilm has to be consistent with the facts and it is consistent with those 8 bodies of evidence.  That evidence just conflicts with your interpretation of the reasons that you think things happen in the zfilm.

For example, a shot at z190 is quite consistent with the actions of JFK that begin at z193.  The HSCA photographic panel concluded that JFK shows signs of reaction to an external stimulus before disappearing behind the Stemmons sign.  But it is not definitive. And you disagree with their interpretation of the reasons for the movement of JFK. 

Another example of the zfilm being consistent with a shot around z190-193: Jack Ready said he turned to his right rear immediately upon hearing the first shot.  He begins that turn by z199 when he removes his right hand from the right hand-hold.

Another example is Rosemary stopping at z198-99 and turning her head sharply right at z202-206.

All are consistent with the zfilm and a shot at z190-193.  But the film by itself is equivocal as to when the first shot occurred.

Eye and earwitness accounts are the weakest form of evidence and also the weakest form of corroboration. We have a sizeable group of witnesses who say all three shots came from the GK and another sizeable group of witnesses who said all the shots came from the direction of the TSBD. Obviously a sizeable group of witnesses can be wrong.

Yes they can. Witnesses can be confused. They may estimate distances and time inaccurately.  It depends on the ability of a human to make the observation. 

Direction of a sound source involves the human brain discerning a time difference between the arrivals of the sound wavefront at each ear.  Since there were many reflective surfaces in Dealey Plaza, the witnesses’ ability to accurately determine the source depended on where they were.  In fact, the witnesses close to the SN were not confused.  Witnesses along Elm St toward the triple underpass would have heard reflections from the north pergola and underpass and many of them thought the shots came from there.

But:
1. a simple shot rhythm,
2. the number of shots,
3. the relative position of JFK when the first shot sounded,
4. where one’s car was when the first shot sounded
5. what JFK after the first shot, or
6. whether one pressed the shutter before or after the first shot
are all simple observations for a human to make.

I suppose we are supposed to believe that it is just coincidence that JBC's arm flipped up 2 frames after his jacket bulged out and also coincidentally, the same frame JFK's arm flipped upward.It doesn't matter whose diagram it is. It is FUBAR and you presented it anyway.

The zfilm shows a reduction in the area of while shirt visible between z223 and z224. It does not show whether there is outward movement of the jacket. There is also an increase in area of white shirt between z222 and z223.  Both changes can be the result of just movement of the jacket due to body or arm motion.

I really don't care what you say. If we go by your calculations, the bullet should have hit JBC in the middle of his back. Obviously your calculations are off.

?? I say it went a few inches to the left of JBC’s midline.

Why don't you calculate where the shot would have to have been fired from in order to exit JFK's midline and miss JBC to his left with JBC sitting a half a body width to the left of JFK.
Seriously? You think JFK slid to the left?

I put JBC 6 inches left of JFK.  I also explained that the bullet at z193 went to the left of JBC’s midline.  I didn’t suggest it missed striking him.

Groden does Not say he submitted this alleged Autopsy Photo showing the body of JFK to either the "Assassinations Committee" or the "ARRB". Now, why wouldn't Groden include this photo with his "Report"? The answer is obvious. That photo is NOT a legit JFK Autopsy Photo.

Probably because the National Archives dont allow people to make copies and have such photos under strict surveillance when someone is viewing them. Groden is saying he looked at the reel and could make out JFKs figure on the table.

These photos dont prove a conspiracy so there would appear to be no reason for Groden to be lying about them.

This is the image all the talk is about. Its obvious from the top image that he is recreating for the reader what the blow out wound would look like as. Hes doing the same in the black and white photo as he says "This is what all the frames look like". It seems to me to be just clumsy writing. It would have been better had be actually printed the poor quality images and let us see for ourselves how poor they are rather than doing a mock up of a "clear" version of what the image shows.

I at no stage ever thought that was a real image.

   I am not sure why you are trying to honey coat this. Groden claims that bottom photo was from a, "roll of 120 format black and white negative film, which had been listed as "blank", was Not blank at all". Groden claims he discovered this roll of film inside the NATIONAL ARCHIVES in 1977.  Groden said there was a series of vastly under exposed frames. He claims these frames ALL appeared, "to be nearly the same picture". That picture being the bottom JFK "image" that you have posted. Groden's writing is not "clumsy", it is obscure.  Groden added that he, "wrote a REPORT about the roll of film for the Assassinations Committee and another REPORT about my discovery to the ARRB". Groden does Not say he submitted this alleged Autopsy Photo showing the body of JFK to either the "Assassinations Committee" or the "ARRB". Now, why wouldn't Groden include this photo with his "Report"? The answer is obvious. That photo is NOT a legit JFK Autopsy Photo. 

No, it doesn't tell YOU what is happening. I guess that's the reason you developed a theory that is incompatible with the filmI'm all for that.

The point is that the film is equivocal in showing what JBC is reacting to. The evidence is that there was one shot at that point. That is corroborated by many independent bodies of independent evidence:
1. that the time of the first shot being after z186.
2. that JFK reacted to the first shot in ways not seen until after z193.
3. that the second and third shots were in raoid succession with the second after the midpoint between 1 and 3
4. the shots occurred over a short period of time that few witnesses estimated to be as much as 10 seconds.
5. that JBC recoiled visibly from the second shot and immediately lay back onto his wife (Nellie, Greer, Powers, Gayle Newman). The only motion seen that fits this observation occurs from z271-290.
6. that JFK’s hair flew up on the second shot (Hickey and possibly Kinney). This occurs at only one place: z273-276.
7. That Greer turned around at the time of the second shot (Greer, also noted by John Chism).
8. That there was an impact in the car sensed by Greer at the time of the second shot. This is consistent with the evidence of Tague that he was struck by a fragment on the second shot and the damage seen on the windshield frame, indicating that fragments from the second shot went up to at least the top of the windshield.

In my experience evidence does not fit together like that without a reason.

JBC's sworn testimony is evidence. I don't put complete faith in eye and earwitnesses unless they can be corroborated.

I don’t either.  You don’t seem to acknowledge that other witnesses can independently corroborate a witness.

JBC said he turned and looked over his right shoulder in reaction to a shot that sounded to him came from the right rear and from an elevated position. We see JBC start to turn to look over his right shoulder beginning at Z164.

And not only does JBC make no effort to see JFK, his rightward 2-3 o’clock right turn is exactly what JFK and Jackie do which Mary Woodward said was in response to her calls to the President to look in their direction.  And she said this was before the first shot.  So you have evidence that directly contradicts what your spidey sense suggests.

That's corroboration.

No it isn’t. At best it is evidence that could be corroborative if there was evidence of only one place where JBC turns to the right.  But it isn’t.  There is also z230-270.  Besides, z164ff is not a turn to look at JFK and your interpretation is directly refuted by Mary Woodward and many others.

That tells us the shot came before Z164. You continue to rely on uncorroborated witnesses. Nothing corroborates Altgens recollection. Altgens was focused on his job which was getting photos of the motorcade as it started down Elm St. His famous photos is #6. That means he took 5 more before that. Do you really expect him to remember after which of those photos he heard the first shot, assuming he even heard the first shot and recognized it for what it was.

Altgens is corroborated by Hickey, Greer, John Chism, 40+ witnesses to the shot pattern, 20+ witnesses as to JFK’s reaction to the first shot and all the witnesses who put the first shot after z186 ( Betzner, motorcade witnesses, Elm St. witnesses etc.).

Many people in DP did not. Nellie might be one of the worst witnesses available. Not only is she not corroborated by the Z-film. Almost everything she said is refuted by it.

Well, everything she says is inconsistent with your interpretation of when you think you see JBC reacting to being hit in the back. But her evidence is corroborated by others, such as Greer, Powers, Chism, Gayle Newman, Hickey.

If that is Itek's diagram you posted, they show JBC directly in front of JFK. No wonder their analysis if FUBAR.

It isn’t Itek.  That is the Hess & Eisenhart drawing of the limo at 6 HSCA 50.

I will neither agree nor disagree as to whether the seat was 2.5 inches inboard but you have to do more than that to figure out how far inboard JBC was. He would likely have been seated in the center of the seat so you have to add half the width of the seat to the 2.5 inches to determine how far inboard his spine would have been. They show the seat to be 20.5 inches wide so the center of that seat would be (20.5/2) +2.5 = 13 which puts JBC's spine 13 inches inboard from the side of the car.

Ok. That puts the right armpit wound, which was 7.87 inches right of his spine, 5.1 inches from the inside of the car. For the SBT to work JFK’s midline would have to be at the inside wall of the car, which is impossible.

What I do know is that David Powers was filming from directly behind JFK and JBC and throughout the motorcade, the left half of JBC's head and torso are visible in front of JFK. That tells me he was about a half a body width inside JFK. At the time of the SBT, his shoulders were rotated to his right which would bring the point of entry under his right armpit even further to the left.

The question is how far and how much does that change the position of the right armpit entrance wound. I say 30 degrees max, which means 1.1 inch.

 

Here is a still from David Powers film taken from the QM. As you can see, most of JBC's head is visible. It looks clear to me that JBC's right armpit would be to the left of JFK's centerline and he isn't even rotated to the right as he was when the single bullet struck.Well once again you have proven that if you start with faulty premises, you will reach faulty conclusions.

I was referring to the position of JFK before he disappears behind the Stemmons sign:
His upper arm extends out from his shoulder forward and to the right.  By z224 he is farther to the left.

It's in Absolute Proof, which I no longer own, so unfortunately I can't tell you the page number. But it sounds like you are aware of the photo in question, which was apparently taken of a prop "head" from the JFK movie. I am 100% certain Groden did not in any way specify that this image was NOT of President Kennedy and instead passed it off as if it were a legitimate "unreleased" autopsy photo.

I have that book. I was always able to tell which photos were the genuine autopsy photos and which were JFK movie shots. if i remember correctly, one was a recreation effort to show what the back of the head blow out wound might have looked like by superimposing the mystery photo over the back fo the head photo. I always knew what i was looking at. I never felt like i was being duped into thinking something was a genuine autopsy photo when it wasn't. Perhaps thats because i am familar with what the autopsy photos look like.

Maybe some people were not able to tell the difference but the difference was always clear to me which is why i dont see what all the fuss is about.