Okay, these comments are not necessarily from “readers” who have read my book or even this website, but they are comments that have been made to me directly (via the “Contact” form on this website) or indirectly (via forum discussion), and this seems like a good place to respond to them, so here goes…
1. From RH:
Dr. Luis Alvarez determined that there was a loud and startling noise at frame 285, which startled Greer, causing him to slow the limo and Zapruder, causing him to react by blurring frames 290-291. He was right.
Zapruder's and Greer's reactions were simultaneous with those of the surviving limo passengers, each of which began at 290-292. These videos provide more analysis and evidence,
285 is actually, the earliest frame in which the shot was fired. It may have been as late as 288. That same shot provoked Clint Hill to jump to the pavement, and of course, it startled Hickey as well.
I believe that the entire Zapruder film (at least from the point where the limousine appears on Elm Street, not just after Z-313) is a fabrication, which explains why there are so many splices in the film. In my book I point out the anomalies and indications of compositing artifacts, including the use of added "reflections" to draw the eye and create the illusion of continuity. I believe that images from earlier frames were pasted into later frames (and possibly vice-versa) to hide the first shot and condense the timeline of the assassination (and hide Secret Service inaction). "Blurs" and "jiggles" may also have been added, and probably were. With that in mind, I think it's difficult at the very least to determine what was happening in the original film at any given time. There may very well have been a shot at Z-285 to 280, but which shot and who fired it and what the film shows vs. what really happened are open to debate. Possibly that is when Connally was actually hit, or possibly when I believe SA Warren Taylor fired a defensive shot, or possibly the "jiggle" was created during the alteration of the Zapruder film. That said, I think that the Alvarez "Jiggle Analysis" could be applied to the early frames of the Muchmore film, at about the point where SA Warren Taylor's door in the VP Secret Service Follow-up car can be seen to open.
2. From RH:
As a followup to my previous message, do you have access to a good version of the Bronson film? I have not been able to find one and have only been able to study frames from a DVD copy of a Groden video.
Hickey doesn't seem to be standing at the instant of the head shot, but the quality of the film is so poor that I cannot be certain. Would you know where I might find a good digital copy of that film? I've already tried Gary Mack.
I wish I knew how to access a good copy of the Bronson film, too. I've also tried Gary Mack (or at least the Sixth Floor Museum through their website "contact" e-mail address). All my e-mail inquiries to them have gone unanswered, and I think it's very telling that researchers can't access a good copy of the film. How the "Drums of Conspiracy" website and the Pat Speer website were able to acquire the one frame close-ups, I don't know. And as for Hickey, I think he "doesn't seem to be standing" because he's still in the process of falling over. I think the agent who is sitting (indicated by the arrows in the close-up images) is SA Glen Bennett. (See "Response to Critics" and "Bronson Film" above.)
The next three items (3,4,5) are comments from a forum site. I asked a couple of honest questions (to see if there is any confirmation for the Molly Cruz statements about A: the overhead CBS news "blimp" http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/index.php/topic/2026-blimp-over-dealey-plaza/--bearing in mind that I remember an overhead view of the limo turning from Houston onto Elm in my first view of the Parkland movie; and B: if there are any other accounts of persons who listened to the original Sam Pate radio broadcast http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/index.php/topic/2029-sam-pate-original-kbox-radio-broadcast/. I recognize that the Molly Cruz comments about the "blimp" (which really has little to do with my theory, but is interesting nonetheless) and the original Sam Pate radio broadcast (which has a lot to do with my theory) are the "weakest links" in my chain of reasoning, as I've described elsewhere on this website. However, I've never seen any other explanation offered for the FBI stealing the original broadcast tapes from KBOX (or the editing of the police radio recordings), so Pate re-broadcasting that "A Secret Service man accidentally shot the President" after hearing it on the police radio is as good a theory as any. In fact, as far as I know, it's the only theory for the KBOX tape of the broadcast disappearing after the FBI visited their office, and also for the evidence of splicing in the police recordings.
It is interesting that these forum readers are vilifying me when they know little about what I think, or why. For instance, #3 (JH II) thinks I support the SBT (which I don't). #4 and #5 (C.D., same person) seems to enjoy making sarcastic comments and put-downs (see his other comments on the site) without reading more than the back of my book. I include here the comments from the forum site because I promised to respond to on my website, in order to (try to) keep the forum discussions from getting any more off-task than than they were already getting.
3. From JH II (from the Assassination of JFK Forum Site):
Uh......I can't agree with any bending of reality to prop up again the SBT and or the LHO dunnit fables.
But I can't hang my hat on Dealy Plaza so called evidence either, it is so contrived.
I posit that the some people inside USSS and DPD were "in-the-know" before the fact. Messers Gerald Hill and Patrick Dean as probable accessories before the factS.
USSS misnamed incompetence cannot account for facts we know NOW, to wit:
Alteration of the motorcade route and sequence of vehicles as well as the destruction of the records of all 1963 motorcades in which the President participated.
A conscious disregard of LAW that was by no means a 'snafu' but A DAMNABLE CRIME.
A specific high crime and misdemeanor even by constitution UNPUNISHED by the Department of Treasury and the Department of In-Justice!
See Mr. Doug Horne's IARRB written works for details or check YouTube for his elucidation in video.
Or even this link: http://assassination...dical-evidence/
These are not indicators of screwing the pooch by the Federal, State and Local Governments.
These facts are evidence of complicity for all that play the dirty games.
Anyone aware of the facts attending the murder of John Kennedy that does not conclude a conspiracy exists in the matter is either complicit in the cover up or ...?
I defend free speech but hey, I gotta draw the line somewhere.
I disagree with the SBT (See my chapter "SBT--BS"), and I don't really analyze who was in the Sniper's Window. I think it was Oswald, but I allow that it could have been someone else. Mostly I look at the film and photographic evidence, and witness accounts.
As for the rest, I do think people in the SS are "in the know." For example, SSA John Norris' statements. I also think Clint Hill's accounts for what he saw in Dealey Plaza are absolutely correct, but he has never responded to what he saw after the autopsy. Stuff like that. SS absconding with the body absolutely was breaking the law. But I think it was covering up the explosive head shot accident. A pre-planned conspiracy by rival govt factions would have been neater, without so many witnesses, without so many films and photos to be collected and later altered, and without the guarantee that some evidence (such as the Muchmore film) wouldn't surface later. It was a cover-up operation, not a sloppy conspiracy to murder.
I also like Doug Horne's evidence, and reference his work a number of places in my book, but I don't reach the same conclusions.
4. from C.D. (from the Assassination of JFK Forum Site):
Ms. Hazelwood writes, "I think there was a head shot right when the limousine was in the turn. I think it was covered up due to the non-reaction of most of the President's SS Detail [.]"
Okay ... You think JFK was hit in the head in mid-turn between Houston and Elm. So you're implying, Ms. Hazelwood, that this was a classic "delayed reactions" scenario ... not just the physical reactions of the target, but also the involuntary reactions and sensory perceptions of every innocent witness who failed to flinch and to describe the immediate aftermath of such a shot?
Please be clear on this.
Okay, I'll try to be as clear as I can: Yes! Maybe not when the limo was in "mid-turn," possibly just at the end of it.
Note the reaction of the VICE-President's Secret Service just after their car turned from Main onto Houston Street (Muchmore camera jiggle, door opening--same open door with the "phantom revolver" as in the Altgens photo, damaged frames at this point in Towner film and Hughes film, etc. Something is happening at this point, and the President's limo is in the turn. Mrs. Cabell (in the car immediately behind the VPSS car) was "looking right at" the rifle when her car turned and she turned to say something to Sen. Roberts next to her. (Logically, it had to be the turn from Main onto Houston, or else she would have had to crane her neck to see the rifle.) I think many witnesses interpreted the sound/s of the shot/s as motorcycle backfire (at least the motorcycle engine noises helped to mask the report/s), mistook JFK's beginning "slump" (slowed by his back brace) as "looking down." There are a number of witnesses who talk about the turn as a reference point for the first shot.
5. also from C.D. (from the Assassination of JFK Forum Site):
Further, Ms. Hazelwood writes that she believes "Oswald was taking aim" at JFK during the attack sequence.
If and when you have the time, Ms. Hazelwood, please share with us the evidence which compels you to conclude that Oswald fired a weapon at JFK on November 22, 1963.
If you would, also please locate Oswald's firing position, identify the weapon and ammunition he used, the manner in which they came into his possession, the number of rounds he got off, the numbers of hits and misses he scored, and the means and timing of his escape from the scene.
Thank you for your attention.
As I state in the intro to my book, I use "Oswald" as a matter of convenience. I don't really deal with "Oswald vs. someone else" and timing issues of his getting to the lunch room, etc. I do, however, allow for the possibility of witness mis-perceptions in how long it took for certain things to happen (none of them had a stop watch, after all). I think the shooter was Oswald, but admit that there was a lot of mishandling of evidence. The wedding ring/money left with Marina tells me something, unless the govt got Marina to lie about that, which I don't think they did. The negative paraffin test of Oswald's cheek is interesting, but I wonder if they could have tested the wrong cheek (another SNAFU?). And according to the site http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm, which quotes FBI expert Cortlandt Cunningham's testimony to the WC, the paraffin test isn't all that reliable. At any rate, as I state in my book, I don't really deal with "Oswald vs. someone else" as the TSBD shooter, but I lean towards Oswald (although given what is known today about altered evidence, I don't think I'd be able to convict him).
I'm not sure what you mean by "Oswald taking aim during the attack sequence." I never said that. It makes no sense. I did say that "Oswald" (as a matter of convenience to refer to the TSBD shooter, whom I think was Oswald) was taking aim when the VPSS first reacted. Of course the TSBD shooter would have to take aim before shooting, and that's when I think the VPSS first saw the rifle. Again, Oswald vs. someone else as the TSBD shooter I don't really deal with in my book.
I do have a short section on "The Assassin's Window" in my book, in which I discuss the window as seen in the Bronson film and Dillard/Powell photographs. Although there doesn't seem to be anyone (or any movement) in the Bronson film, I've provided examples of evidence of alteration in other films, and I think the Bronson film may very well have suffered a similar fate. Note SSA Warren Taylor's door opening in the Muchmore film, his open door and "phantom revolver" in the Altgens photograph, and his statements in his WC memo saying that he saw a "red streamer" and then opened the door. Note that I don't buy everything in the WC SS memos (see "Hickey's Odd Memo") but this is certainly an interesting statement, given that he was supposed to have spent the whole motorcade riding with his door open.
As for the rest, I do think the TSBD shooter got off 3 shots: 2 hits, one miss (in that order). There was also the AR-15 accidental shot. I also think the VPSS got off a couple of defensive revolver shots. Read the book.
The next question was a thoughtful and honest question from a website reader. I don't mind when someone has a healthy dose of skepticism but is still willing to keep an open mind. In fact, I enjoy discussions with people like that. And this reader's question is one that caused me to re-evaluate a claim that I had originally made about who was on the far-left of the sprocket area of Z-212. I took that section out of my website and my book as a result. And this reader also sent me a quote from Jackie Kennedy in William Manchester's The Death of a President, which is also posted below. I won't post my entire thought processes as I re-evaluated the Z-212 sprocket area image, but I'll post the end result.
6. from D.S.
I really love your site and am very impressed with your research and discoveries.
My question is:
Do you think the figures to the far left in these frames:
are Hickey? Or John Ready? And how can we know for sure?
I feel a little sheepish ("baa-aa-aa"), but your simple and thoughtful question led me to re-examine my claim about Hickey being missing from the Z-212 sprocket area. Your link to the Lightbox image revealed to me that the white area that I thought was the seat back of the follow-up car, was actually the sidewalk on the far side of the street. And although I still question whether there would actually be that much space between Hickey and McIntire (left-rear running board) in reality, it appears that I may have been suffering from confirmation bias or somesuch when I decided that the far-left character in z212 was Ready. I've removed the Z-212 "Where's Hickey?" section from both my book and my website. So thank you for pointing my weak argument out with your thoughtful question. Lord knows I don't need any unnecessary weaknesses in my modification of Donahue's theory.
That said, I still strongly hold that the Z-film was altered. The Lightbox images have revealed some additional anomalies indicative of alteration. I'm working on an article to describe them, and will let you know when that is ready and posted. As an example, check out JFK's extremely flexed right hand in z225, and compare with JFK's unflexed right arm (in front of the side of Connally's seat back?!?) one frame later in z226. Use the frames in "Close-up Sequence" under "Lightbox Frame Sets."
Again, I appreciate how your question helped me to eliminate an unnecessary weakness. If you have any other questions or if you spot any other examples of possible mistakes in my observations or whatever, please contact me.
7. from D.S.
“What was so terrible was the thought that it had been an accident, a freak, that an inch or two here, a moment or two there would have reversed history." – Jacqueline Kennedy to William Manchester, Death of a President, p. 645