JFK murder reexamined

[Augustine2004]

Gjerde makes a nice point that if a conspirator rotates a photo, he then has to crop it to rectangular shape, thus making the resultant much smaller. To then make it normal size, one way would be to magnify it. But there is another way, to add stuff from previous or later frames as well as from the cropped-out areas to the small result. I think the conspirator would prefer to do it the latter way. To be sure, that would have to be done with great skill, so as to not leave any trace of fakery, but if the film had to be faked, might as well as do it that way, instead of so obviously magnifying the image.

I don't know of any investigation into determining what the image size should be, frame by frame, knowing the characteristics of the Zapruder camera, the distances from his position to Elm Street, the sizes of the Kennedy car,etc.

In any case, this image from the Nix film linked below does show a tilt that is even more pronounced. It is rather obvious

http://www.history-matters.com/archi...ol18_0055a.htm

I have tried to think why a conspirator would tilt the frames. The reason does not seem to be to make the magic-bullet explanation seem more plausible. In fact, the angles involved in the explanation become less plausible. If anything, the tilt ought to go the other way (clockwise instead of counterclockwise). In any case the conspirator has to be aware that any attempt to tilt the photos would be detectable by skilled photo examiners.


I saw what seems to be a discrepancy in commission exhibit 902. In the first 4 photographs the car is shown in the left lane. But in the last three photographs, the car is in the right lane.


What of Gjerde's conclusion that Shaneyfelt #33 is a composite (faked)? He argues it must be fake because it has to match the Zapruder film. Since it is faked, therefore Shaneyfelt #33 is fake. I would much prefer that it be shown to be fake by some means that does not involve the Zapruder film.



Some of the observations and conclusions made in the Stemmons sign section are interesting or curious, but I would not include any part of it in my case that the shadow part of the USFG murdered JFK.

[Augustine2004]

Odd. That's exactly how I feel about your pots.

You do accept the Warren Commission report entirely?

[Augustine2004]

On to the section headlined 'The Disappearance of Mrs Connally.'


I would agree Governor Connally was hit around zap 295. I think I see Mrs Connally ducking for cover behind the Governor's back as he slides to his left side. I think I occasionally see her head up to before zap 397.

Anyway, why would a conspirator want to make her disappear?

Nothing here to put in my case for the shadow part of the USFG etc.



The section headlined 'The Fort Worth Turnpike Sign.'

I see the sign is a single board. I think Gjerde was fooled by the white borders. One border runs around 'FORT WORTH' and the other border runs around 'TURNPIKE' and 'KEEP RIGHT.' The white borders both have rounded corners and are probably painted on the board.

[Sparko]

[Augustine2004]

The section headlined 'Why was the Zapruder film edited?'



I have not really gone into an examination of the evidence that the extant film called the Zapruder film was faked to a large degree yet. Most of Gjerde's article is IMO rubbish, and the section relies on that too much.



Right now, I'll just give general answers:

1. To keep the public from knowing evidence. For example, destroy it.

2. To give the public faked evidence, such as altering genuine evidence, to support a false account of things. If the evidence was altered or evidence was created from whole cloth not to support any false account, it may fall into the first category, that is, such an act has only the purpose of keeping the public from knowing the truth. The difference in this category (the second category) is to deceive the public, not merely to keep it in the dark.



I still plan to read the section, in the hope of finding something interesting, though.

[Augustine2004]

What is that in reference to? You cannot mean my criticisms of the Gjerde article.

[Sparko]

What is that in reference to? You cannot mean my criticisms of the Gjerde article.

I mean YOU.

[Augustine2004]

I mean YOU.

All of my posts? If not, which ones?

[Augustine2004]

Now on to Gjerde's speculations about why the Zapruder film was fabricated (page 49).

He IMO made a blunder in talking about JFK's head wound. He wrote (page 51) that it was caused by a shot from the South Knoll. I don't know where that is. The famous grassy knoll is NORTH of Elm Street. Delany Plaza is downhill, right? So, what south knoll?

Gjerde did find a contradiction in the Warren Commission report. Shaneyfelt of the FBI said the Kennedy car was traveling at an average speed of 11.2 mph between zap161 and zap313 (page 55), whereas about 60 witnesses, including Jackie Kennedy herself, said the car came to a complete stop or nearly so around then, especially near zap313. Page 56 adds that the Secret Service said the speed was 10-15 mph, and LBJ said, about the same.

Gjerde correctly IMO said one reason to edit the Zapruder film was to hide the coming of the car to a stop or a near-stop.

IMO Gjerde contradicts assassinationscience.com in asserting that the head wound is fairly accurately shown in the extant film (page 56).

Special Agent Kellerman's testimony is interesting (page 57). He speaks of more than three bullets.

It turns out the purpose of the section ('why') is to set up the next section, which is titlled 'Who filmed the Zapruder film?' Gjerde believes it was not Zapruder! Of course if the film was fabricated as John Costella said it was, then Zapruder was not the person who made the extant film, of course. What Gjerde means is that another person made the camera-original film on which the extant film is based.

More tomorrow.

[Sparko]

I mean YOU.

[moreta]

[Augustine2004]

Another possibility is that the extant 'Zapruder' film (note the scare quotes) is based only partly on the camera-original Zapruder film. At least another film was also used to fabricate the extant film.


IMO it is possible there was a movie cameraman where Gjerde says the 'Black Dog' was, and his film was used at least partly to fabricate the extant film. I just don't know what the probability is, though. Maybe low? IOW I am far from being convinced.


Now, the section titled 'Creating the deception' I am afraid it will turn to be even more speculative than the last section.



___________________________________________________________________________________________



Now here I am going to confront Sparko with what seems to be a probable case of fakery. If afterwards he continues to deny the possibility of fakery, he perforce would deny what Gjerde says in the section (not that I am close to accepting his suggestions and conclusions!)



Tina Turner filmed the motorcade with a movie camera from the southwest corner of the Elm Street-Houston Street intersection. Much closer to the motorcade as it was passing into Elm Street than Zapruder was, but otherwise she actually had approximately the same view into the part of Elm Street that is east of Houston Street that Zapruder should have, ignoring differences in elevation (Tina stood higher than Zapruder, I think, because Elm Street and its neighborhood west of Houston Street had a 3-degree slope downward). Sparko can check that by comparing the distance between the sign pole and the northwest corner of the County Records building in all 4 photos (1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D) shown on page 4. What goes for Zapruder also approximately goes for the Barnes photo of the Houston Street area (see Figure 1B on page 4).



Now if Sparko does not see any difference between Figure 1C and 1D (the Tina Turner frames showing the east part of Elm Street) and the Zapruder frame (Figure 1A) and the Barnes one (Figure 1B), I would think he is so biased that if I said, hey, there's a fly on your nose, he would thenceforth fail to see it and resolutely deny there was one on his nose.


______________________________________________________________________________________________



I don't find at all convincing that the vanishing of one of the motorcycle cops in zap42 is a sign of fakery. For some reason, perhaps zeal in doing his security duty, the cop was sticking rather close to the curb on the right. Even when he made the turn into Elm Street, he still thereafter maintained about the same distance from the Elm Street northern curb that he did to the Houston Street east curb out of sheer devotion to duty.



_____________________________________________________________________________________________



Gjerde says on page 66 that he feels pretty certain the interior of the car cannot appear as it did in the extant film from about zap300 to about zap400 if shot from Zapruder's pedestal. I tried to check that out by re-examining my copy of the Zapruder frames and comparing with Warren Commission Exhibit 875 http://www.history-matters.com/archi...ol17_0457b.htm



I cannot see the Stemmons sign on those exhibit photos! Can you see it? If so, would you please indicate where you see it on them?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



Regarding the car interior (see just above), I don't see it that way. For example, I lined up two lampposts and the top of a flag on the car in zap406 and tried to extrapolate the positioning on http://www.history-matters.com/archi...ol17_0457b.htm

The lineup to the alleged Zapruder position looks OK. Not sure about the appearance of the interior, but I don't see anything out of kilter. A run through zap 300 to zap400 shows me nothing out of kilter about the interior.


My evaluation of 'Creating the deception': Gjerde came up with much stuff that is new and intriguing to me, but I'm far from convinced.


Re the nonappearance of the Stemmons sign, should y'all also be unable to see it in the exhibit photos, I'm tempted to claim it's because the conspiracy wanted to obvitate the possibility investigators would try to check the extant film by comparing it to the real Dealey Plaza setting. By itself the nonappearance is not much, but combined with the nonappearance of that tree, it begins to look suspicious.



Now, 'The deceivers.' I agree the conspirators would want to have a person filming the operation, partly for to plan the coverup.



I'll review the whole Gjerde document then write a concluding paragraph.

[Augustine2004]

I may have made 2 errors. This youtube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryPt_IHvlr8

shows Dealey Plaza. 25 seconds in, it shows a part of Elm Street that is east of Houston Street. On inspection of the video it now looks like Zapruder's elevation while filming may have been somewhat higher (if at all) than Tina Turner's. First, the 'pedestal' is on a knoll. Second, Zapruder stood on it. But, really, I still doubt the difference in elevation is that important.

The second error is shown up in the video at about the 6:52 mark. I'd used the distance between the traffic pole and the northwest corner of the County Records Building to validate my supposition that the sight angles into the east part of Elm Street for Tina, Zapruder, and Barnes, respectively, were approximately the same. However, the youtube video at that mark is being taken from a position that is clearly further south than Zapruder and Barnes. The distance of the pole doesn't vary as much as I'd supposed.



But! Tina could still have roughly the same sight line into east Elm Street, yes?

[Augustine2004]

HOLD THE PRESS! video taken by someone standing on Zapruder's pedestal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=W6lzVhkBmH0

Things appear so different I need time to figure it out.

[Augustine2004]

Tina Towner (confused with Turner, sorry!) film.

I looked for any evidence that would throw light on why her film was not edited like the Zapruder and Barnes photography apparently was. Interesting webpages or sites that I discovered while looking:
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/06...in-dallas.html

wow, there seems to be a photo of Tina herself, running her camera. Click on the 'Photo' tab
http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/Witness...eath-remembers



This webpage says that the Towners responded to the Dallas Morning News' radio-ad call for stills and footage. No idea how soon is 'soon after.' The report does say that Tina's dad was told by the newspaper company that the FBI had taken the film for examination. http://leanderledger.com/2011/12/14/...%80%99s-death/

I checked the Warren Commission report--NO mention of the Tina Towner film. The one time 'Towner' came up is a reference to 'Senator Towner.' Certainly not Tina's dad.

I am left with just those explanations (at least the plausible ones that I can think of) that assume a government conspiracy:

* The FBI didn't know the Zapruder and Barnes films were going to be changed or how by the time they looked at the Towner film.

* The film somehow escaped being listed or something like that.

* The conspirators didn't think, correctly as things turned out, that the film wasn't worth editing.





The last part of the Towner film shows the famous North Pergola and the grassy knoll. It seems quite clear Zapruder/Barnes on his pedestal held his camera at a much higher elevation than Tina did hers. So, the building that appeared to be at the end of a cul-de-sac in the Barnes photo and in the Zapruder film would have been less prominent in the Towner film. But I think it should have shown up but it didn't.