JFK Assassination Forum

Hi all,

I talked with Groden's wife, who informed Jeff Morley of Groden having the Wiegman film. It's all a big misunderstanding. Groden has a 1st gen copy FROM the original, and when told this, Morley immediately demanded Groden gift it to him, which he politely declined to do.

Although Groden has an extraordinary collection of photos and films, some of which I'd never seen before, he doesn't have every original film as people accuse him of. I can't say much as to what he DOES have, but to be absolutely clear, he doesn't have the original Wiegman film. Now, I'm sure he would love to have it, just like the original Nix film, because both would resolve so many issues with the photographic evidence, but he simply doesn't have them.

Hopefully this clears things up, although I know it probably won't.

Thanks,
-Alex Harris
aka "The JFK Theorist"

   ALEX - Thanks for clearing this "Original Wiegman" issue up. I have seen the You Tube Video you posted from inside a Groden Storage Unit. Groden was with you. You did this awhile back. Can you tell us what you might have seen inside that storage unit that was Not included in your presentation?  That storage unit looked very ramshackle.  Do you know/think Groden might have other storage unit(s) with more important JFK images/information squirrel'd away inside it? Thanks for ALL the JFK work product that you post on You Tube. I hope you post on this forum more often. You have a young/fresh perspective.

I agree that one doesn't need Zapruder's camera to make the case against Oswald. 

But Zapruder's camera was silent and it did not have great resolution.  If Zapruder's camera had sound, better resolution and a steady tripod, the zfilm might have perfect recall.  In any event, you are relying on witnesses to support an early missed shot.  The zfilm does not show that without an interpretation based on preferred witness evidence.

The Z-film alone gives us clues as to when the first shot was fired without using any witnesses. We see JBC turn to look over his right shoulder at Z164. Here's where a CORROBORARED witness can come into play. He said he turned in response to hearing the first shot which he recognized as the sound of a high powered rifle. The film and JBC's statement jibe. Without JBC's statement it would be hard to determine that his turn to look over his right shoulder was a reaction to the first shot. The fact the film and his statement jibe strengthens the probative value of both. In addition we have Rosemary Willis running alongside the limo. She begins to slowdown during the Z160s and when she comes to a stop, she turns and looks back to the TSBD. She later said she did that upon hearing a gunshot. She didn't testify before the WC but was called by the HSCA. None of this is proof positive as to when the first shot was fired but taken as a whole, it is probative of a shot prior to Z164. If we add to that the blurring and frame jump in Z155, it is a strong indication of a shot around Z147-148.

If we don't read the reactions of JBC and Willis as evidence of a gunshot, there is nothing in the Z-film that would tell us when Oswald's missed shot was fired.  That is why the WC never determined which shot missed. They allowed that it could be the first, second, or third shot.

The case against Oswald can be made on the forensic evidence alone without a single eyewitness.

Your opinion. Good to know

I posted on Jeff Morley and his coverage by RT, the Moscow propaganda channel. Seemed like a topic relevant to the JFKA news environment.

This post was first moved into the U.S. And International Politics thread, and then disappeared.

I will follow any instructions of the moderator...but is this topic off-limits for some reason I don't know?

Everything's fine, you can post it again, my mistake. 

For the most part,  Nutters don't rely on fallible human witnesses and instead look at the hard evidence which clearly points to Oswald as the lone gunman. There is no hard evidence of any other shooter from any other location.  Witnesses have some value but only to the extent their accounts can be corroborated by the hard evidence. If one were to rely on witnesses to tell them what happened, it would be easy to construct a dozen or more scenarios depending on which witnesses one chooses to believe. The assassination only happened one way and the hard evidence tells us what that one way was.

IOW; we pick and choose the statement that serves us best