71
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The “People to Kill” List and Oswald’s Missing Address Book Page
« Last post by Bill Brown on September 26, 2026, 10:21:16 PM »Great article, Sean... And congrats on your new site.
Recent Posts
As we can see on this opening frame of the Darnell Film, your claim, "The Thornton sign PERFECTLY COVERS where Zapruder and Sitzman are seconds after the head shot...." is just Not True. We can see the Zapruder Perch on this Darnell still frame and several feet (E) of the Zapruder Perch. But, we see absolutely No Sitzman and No Zapruder. And the Bell Film clearly shows Sitzman between the Perch and the Shelter. I appreciate your attempting to apply a timeline to the Darnell Film. That is a very difficult task to take on. Problem is, you are using the same Inaccurate JFK Assassination Image time lines and Excuses, (like the Thornton Sign baloney), that have been fed to the public for 62+ years to arrive at your Darnell Film timeline. And remember that the frames following this opening frame are Much Clearer. Don't restrict yourself to this opening frame. The Red Box you have placed around the Thornton Sign is far wider toward the Zapruder Perch than the sign extends in that (W) direction. The Darnell frames following the opening frame make this blatantly clear.
Hi Alex, to be honest, I'm coming up with an even quicker time for the beginning of the Darnell footage that begins with this frame:
It's something closer to 19 seconds as I believe Weigman is in position filming the Hesters during this frame.
Whatever the case, a big thanks to yourself for providing some excellent quality footage to work with.
That I am aware of, there are No Images of Sitzman wandering away from the Zapruder Perch to the point where our viewing of her "Might" be obscured by the Thornton Sign. The Bell Film shows Sitzman going Straight toward/into the shelter directly behind the Zapruder Perch. She's still very close to the Z pedestal. And Zapruder is in shock and meandering close by her. And we also see Wiegman moving (W) across the top of the Knoll. Just where are ALL of these people on the opening frames of the Darnell Film? And, that opening frame of the Darnell Film shows the driver of Camera Car #2 standing flat footed outside of his car. ALL of this is going on only 19 seconds after the Kill Shot? Whether it be the "Missing" Zapruder and Sitzman, the "Missing" 3rd man standing at the bottom of The Steps on Willis 5, or the "Missing" Getaway Car on the Wiegman Film. The timeline of this Darnell Film snippet is wrong. And like dominoes, so are the assigned timelines of other images. And why? Because Wiegman filmed the JFK Limo going under the Triple Underpass. Which traces back to an extended "rolling Stop" or a complete "Stop" of the JFK Limo on Elm St.
The work done synchronising the Bell and Zapruder films demonstrates Zapruder was down from the pedestal and a few steps away from it in less than 12 seconds.
The reason you can't see them near the pedestal in the Darnell frame is because the Thornton sign is in the way.
From the work I've done on this I put Baker reaching the steps of the TSBD about 19 seconds after the headshot.
Look at the background of this Darnell Film opening frame. You can see the Zapruder perch. We do Not see Zapruder and/or Sitzman anywhere. They are not On the Perch, they are Not near the perch, they are Not anywhere on the cement that is around the Perch. They are simply NOT there. And how long did it take Zapruder who was suffering from vertigo to dismount that Pedestal? Certainly more than 15 seconds. Much more. This Darnell opening frame is far later than roughly 15 seconds after the Kill Shot. And much later than the Bell Film which does show Zapruder wandering around the cement area near the Pedestal. The current time stamp of the Darnell Film is Wrong. And so is the :20 second time stamp that has been applied to this same Darnell film showing Officer Baker running across the Island.
Even the uber-cautious Pat Speer points out some of the gaping problems with Givens' WC testimony:
We now arrive at the 4-8-64 testimony of Charles Givens (6H345-356). There are four problems with Givens' testimony that would almost certainly have come to light should Oswald have been provided a defense, or even if Ball (and his junior partner Belin) had found his testimony at odds with the Oswald-did-it conclusion.
The first problem bubbles up near the beginning of his testimony.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what time you got to work that day?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes; I got to work around about a quarter to eight.
Mr. BELIN. Where did you go when you got to work?
Mr. GIVENS. I went in a little lunchroom that we have downstairs.
Mr. BELIN. Is that what you call the domino room?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. You carry your lunch with you?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. You put your lunch there?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Did you wear a jacket to work that day?
Mr. GIVENS. I wore a raincoat, I believe. It was misting that morning.
Mr. BELIN. Did you hang up your coat in that room, too?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
Now, this is clear, right? Belin asked Givens about a jacket, and Givens corrected Belin and told him he'd wore a raincoat, and that he'd hung it up in the domino room.
Belin then asked Givens about his seeing Oswald on the morning of the 22nd. Givens said he saw Oswald on the first floor around 8:30. Belin then asked Givens about the next time he saw Oswald.
Here is his response: “Well, it was about a quarter till 12, we were on our way downstairs, and we passed him, and he (Oswald) was standing at the gate on the fifth floor. I came downstairs, and I discovered I left my cigarettes in my jacket pocket upstairs, and I took the elevator back upstairs to get my jacket with my cigarettes in it."
Well, wait a second. This bit about the jacket is not only in conflict with Givens' earlier testimony he hung up his raincoat (not jacket) in the domino room, it's in conflict with a statement Givens provided the FBI on 3-18-64, in which he asserted that he was a block away from Dealey Plaza when the President was shot, but that "After the President was shot I returned to the Texas School Book Depository Building, and was told by a Dallas policeman that I could not enter the building. About an hour later, I went to the Dallas Police Department and was questioned by the police for about forty-five minutes. Then I returned to the Book Depository Building about 5 o'clock that same afternoon to pick up my hat and coat. I left the building a few minutes after I picked up my hat and coat." (22H649)
Okay. Let's get this straight. Givens said he went to the sixth floor to get cigarettes from his jacket. No jacket was found on the sixth floor. It follows then that Givens took his jacket with him when he went to lunch. Now, he also claimed he returned to the building to get his coat. Well, the only way Givens' statements and testimony can make any sense, then, is if we give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he wore both a coat and jacket to work on 11-22-63.
Now, should we give him that benefit? Absolutely not. Givens was a warehouse worker. He did not work in a jacket. So, why should we believe he wore a raincoat to work over a jacket, removed this raincoat in the domino room, and then removed the jacket up on the sixth floor? I repeat, he was a warehouse worker. He would know, upon entrance into the building, that he wasn't gonna need a jacket while working up on the sixth floor. It follows, then, that he would have left his jacket (if he was even wearing a jacket) with his coat in the domino room. I mean, think about it. The order pullers and floor crew with access to the sixth floor were not allowed to return to that floor after the shooting. Some of them--Harold Norman, Bonnie Ray Williams, and Billy Lovelady come to mind--were captured in photographs during or just after the shooting. And yet none of them were wearing jackets when photographed. And yet none of their jackets were found on the sixth floor.
Givens' claim he left a jacket on the sixth floor is simply not credible.
Belin's failure to clarify Givens' testimony regarding his raincoat and/or jacket is also strange, if not suspicious...
Suspicious Omission #6
4-8-64. Warren Commission attorney David Belin fails to follow-up and clarify the record when Charles Givens testifies to leaving his coat in the domino room upon his arrival at work, but then going back up to the sixth floor to get his jacket after everyone else had left for lunch--a brand new addition to Givens' story that allowed Belin and the Commission to place Oswald in the proximity of the sniper's nest shortly before the shooting.
This brings us to the second problem with Givens' testimony.
Givens continued: "When I got back upstairs, he was on the sixth floor in that vicinity, coming from that way…Toward the window up front where the shots were fired from…he had his clipboard in his hand…He was coming towards the elevators…He said…'When you get downstairs, close the gate to the elevator.'"
Now, this is the centerpiece of Givens' testimony. He changed his story from seeing and hearing Oswald yell out to close the gate when the floor crew was heading down to lunch to his seeing Oswald on the sixth floor (and hearing Oswald yell out to close the gate) after the floor crew had gone down to lunch and he (Givens) had returned to the sixth floor.
And Belin knew this. A 3-18-64 Ball/Belin memo outlined the topics to be explored in Givens' upcoming testimony. Under the subject heading "Elevator," Belin noted: "Oswald was on the fifth floor. Oswald called for them to stop. Oswald yelled at Givens to close the gates so that Oswald could have the elevator to return to the sixth floor." Well, heck. That's almost shocking. But a few weeks before Givens testified to Oswald's yelling out when he (Givens) came down alone, Ball and Belin were planning to spin that Oswald's yelling out when the floor crew came down meant he wanted to use the elevator to go back up to the sixth floor.
In any event, when Givens testified to returning to the sixth floor on his lunch hour, seeing Oswald on the sixth floor near the sniper's nest, and hearing Oswald yell out when he (Givens) descended to the first floor, Belin failed to remind Givens of his prior statements. Or even the testimony of his co-workers, Bonnie Ray Williams, Danny Arce, and Billy Lovelady, who claimed Oswald yelled out when Givens first headed down for lunch. (A New Perspective on the John F. Kennedy Assassination, chapter 17, online book, https://www.patspeer.com/jahs-chapter-17)
I guess MTG's strategy is to ignore the fact it is impossible to sync the HSCA acoustics teams determination of the spacing of the shots to the Zapruder film in any way that fits the action in Zapruder film
That is what my AI search indicated. I know AI is not the most reliable source but it comes up with nothing on its own. Apparently AI found a source that indicated the photographic panel concluded JFK was hit in the Z223-224 window. A strike at or slightly before Z190 makes no sense since JFK didn't exhibit a reaction until two seconds later at Z226.
Anyone who makes the silly arguments you do has no business talking about somebody else's competence.
If you could only hear the chuckling from some of your fellow CTs when reading the nonsense you spew.
JFK does not react to a gunshot at Z200. He simply starts to lower his right hand after waving to the spectators on Elm St. He apparently was reacting to the fact there were few spectators left as the limo proceeded down Elm St.
ZZ26 is 4 frames after Z222 when I believe the bullet struck. Lattimer could be right but I would put the strike at Z222 plus or minus one frame. It's impossible to be more precise than that because JFK was hidden when the bullet struck and we are basing the estimated strike on JFK's reaction at Z226 and Zapruder's camera jiggle at Z227. Reaction times are measured in milliseconds and a single frame covers about 55 milliseconds in time.
JBC based that on the cognitive reaction he made when he doubled over. That reaction followed his involuntary arm flip which began at Z226 and was immediately followed by his cognitive reaction 9 frames later. That's a reaction you have no explanation for and choose to ignore instead. That's the same sort of denial Tony Marsh exhibited for years.
JBC gave a reasonable estimate on what he remembered and what he saw in the Z-film. He apparently didn't notice his Z226 arm flip which is understandable. I didn't notice if for decades until I saw the enhanced frames on DVP's website.
The lone gunman finding syncs perfectly with the physical evidence and the action in the Z-film. Your beliefs, not so much.
You have presented no case studies that shows how a 6.5mm CARCANO FMJ bullet behaves when striking a skull which would be the only case study pertinent to this case. It doesn't matter how a 5.56mm NATO FMJ round, a .30-06 FMJ round would behave after striking a skull. Since such ammo is not going to behave the same way every time it hits a skull, it would require dozens if not hundreds of test shots in to skulls to determine how an Carcano FMJ round might behave.
Do you accept the HSCA's determination that the shots were fired at Z166, Z196, Z296, and Z313? if so, where did BBN determine where each of these shots were fired from?
If not, tell us how you think the BBN shots sync with the Z-film and where you think each of those four shots were fired from.
You have presented no case studies that shows how a 6.5mm CARCANO FMJ bullet behaves when striking a skull which would be the only case study pertinent to this case.
JBC based that on the cognitive reaction he made when he doubled over. That reaction followed his involuntary arm flip which began at Z226 and was immediately followed by his cognitive reaction 9 frames later. That's a reaction you have no explanation for and choose to ignore instead. That's the same sort of denial Tony Marsh exhibited for years.
