RSS

Monthly Archives: February 2014

The New JFK Calc Witness Spreadsheet: Absolute Numerical Proof of a Conspiracy

The New JFK Calc Witness Spreadsheet: Absolute Numerical Proof of a Conspiracy

Richard Charnin
Feb. 27, 2014
Updated March 1, 2014

Click Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy to look inside the book.

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

The JFK Calc spreadsheet was originally created to analyze unnatural witness death probabilities. It has been expanded to include live witness testimony.

1) Material Witness Deaths
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/executive-action-jfk-witness-deaths-and-the-london-times-actuary/
A detailed analysis of 122 JFK-related witness deaths (78 unnatural) from 1964-78 shows that the probabilities of the deaths are 1 in trillions. It confirmed the London Times actuary’s calculation which was dismissed by the HSCA lead statistician as invalid with the bogus claim that there was no way to determine the extent of the witness universe.

The HSCA did not mention the Warren Commission’s 552 witnesses and the 1100+ sought to testify in four investigations. Even more astounding, the HSCA failed to mention that 7 top FBI who were sought to testify at the HSCA itself all died within a 6 month period in 1977. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=0

2) Dealey Plaza Witnesses: Origin of shots http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/12th_Issue/51_wits.html
In three of four surveys, a large majority of witnesses said shots came from the Grassy Knoll. Only John McAdams survey showed a TSBD majority.
In the Adjusted survey, 92 witnesses said shots were from the Grassy Knoll. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=65

Origin.......Feldman McAdams Galanor Adjusted
Grassy Knoll....51......35......52......83
Book Depository.32......61......48......37
GK and TSBD......0.......2.......5.......9

3) Time interval between shots
http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/shot_pattern_excerpt.PDF http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/11th_Issue/guns_dp.html
A “double-bang” of nearly simultaneous shots was reported by at least 44 witnesses.This was impossible for a bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano with telescopic sight; it required at least 2.3 seconds between shots.  Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman described the shots as a “flurry” and had “practically no time element between them.” https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=64

4) JFK Limo Speed http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/27th_Issue/59_1.html
Thirty-three (33) of 59 witnesses stated that the Limo came to a full stop, 13 said it came to a near stop, 13 did not comment. Their testimony contradicts the Zapruder film which does not even show a near stop. It is clear proof that the film must have been altered. The eyewitnesses confirmed the photographic experts and others who claimed to have seen the original. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=63

5) Description of JFK Wounds: Parkland and Autopsy
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_tabfig.htm
The initial observations of 44 Parkland Hospital and Autopsy witnesses depicted a gaping exit wound in the right rear of JFK’s skull, indicating a shot from the front.The Parkland doctors also observed an entrance wound to the throat.

Note: Disregard the summary in the following caption. The author is obviously a WC  apologist. He has it completely wrong. The witnesses spoke the truth. The photos that the author refers to were doctored to cover up the head wound. The drawing reflects the truth.

The one-sided eyewitness evidence constitutes overwhelming proof of a conspiracy. The mainstream media is complicit in propagating transparent Warren Commission lies in the 50 year cover-up. Why does it continue to hide the facts? It should allow a prime-time debate between JFK truth seekers and Warren Commission apologists. There is no longer any doubt. Lee Harvey Oswald was just a patsy and never fired a shot. The history books will have to be re-written.

Advertisements
 
6 Comments

Posted by on February 27, 2014 in JFK

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

JFK Dealey Plaza Witnesses: John McAdams Strange List

JFK Dealey Plaza Witnesses: John McAdams Strange List

Richard Charnin
Feb.26, 2014
Updated: May 10, 2014

Click Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy to look inside the book.

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

The JFK Calc spreadsheet was originally created to analyze unnatural material witness death probabilities. The spreadsheet has been enhanced to include Dealey Plaza witness observations of the origin of the shots, the Limo stop and the “Double Bang” (two near simultaneous shots). The statistical analysis proves there were at least two shooters. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=65

In the four surveys of Dealey Plaza witness observations on the source of shots, only John McAdams’ indicates that the majority came from the Texas School Book Depository. This survey is the one quoted in Wikipedia.

This post analyzes the discrepancies in witness observations between McAdams (37 Knoll) and the “Adjusted” (93 Knoll) survey. The data is based on Warren Commission testimony and witnesses who were not called to testify.

In McAdams survey 21 had no opinion, 14 were not asked, 14 said the shots came from the TSBD. These were classified as Grassy Knoll witnesses in the “Adjusted” survey.

In JFK Calc, the data can be sorted by witness name, observation and group. Code “1” in column B denotes a difference between Feldman, McAdams, Galanor and the Adjusted list.

Dallas Deputy Sheriffs (19)
Fifteen (15) said shots were from the Grassy Knoll and 4 were not asked.
But according to McAdams, 5 had no opinion and 12 were not asked.

Dallas Police (14)
The adjusted list has 4 TSBD, 6 Grassy Knoll, 1 both. 2 no opinion, 1 not asked.
McAdams has 6 TSBD and 2 Grassy Knoll.

Secret Service (17)
The adjusted list has 6 TSBD, 4 GK, 1 both TSBD and GK, 5 no opinion, 1 not asked.
McAdams has 10 TSBD, 1 GK, 1 both, 2 no opinion, 3 not asked.
Not a single agent specifically said shots came from the TSBD.

Note: SS agent Roy Kellerman implied that there was at least one Grassy Knoll shooter. He said “President Kennedy had four wounds, two in the head and shoulder and the neck. Governor Connally, from our reports, had three. There have got to be more than three shots”. This is amazing testimony that no one talks about. McAdams claims Kellerman said the shots were fired from the TSBD – a clear contradiction of his WC testimony.

SS agent Clint Hill has maintained for 50 years that he saw a massive gaping wound at the right rear of JFK’s head. This implies a shot from the front, contradicting the autopsy photos. McAdams claims Hill said shots were fired from the TSBD – a contradiction of his testimony.

TSBD Employees (22)
The adjusted group has 11 GK, 6 TSBD, 1 elsewhere, 2 no opinion, 2 not asked.
McAdams had 8 Grassy Knoll, 7 TSBD, 1 no opinion, 2 not asked.

Reporters (5)
Mary Woodward is a McAdams Grassy Knoll witness. But McAdams does not include three reporters standing with Woodward: Alonzo, Brown and Donaldson or Mike Brownlow, another reporter.

Other witnesses
Charles Brehm was initially quoted in the Dallas Times: “The shots came from in front of or beside the President.” McAdams clains that Brehm said they cane from the TSBD.
Abraham Zapruder testified: “Shots came from in back of me”. McAdams said Zapruder had no opinion and only “inferred” that the shots came from the knoll because the right side of Kennedy’s head exploded, and he saw people were running up the knoll.
J.C. Price said “shots were from behind the wooden fence at the triple overpass” and was not called by the Warren Commission. McAdams said that Price did not give an opinion.

These witnesses were not mentioned by McAdams or called by the Warren Commission:
Beverly Oliver Massagee, the “Babushka Lady”, testified at ARRB.
Julia Ann Mercer saw a man carrying a rifle up the knoll.
Ed Hoffman saw two men at the fence, smoke and a rifle.

In John McAdams Dealey Plaza witness survey, he writes: “Over the years, several students of the assassination have tabulated testimony of witnesses who heard the shots in Dealey Plaza. This sounds like a precise and scientific way of going about analyzing evidence, but in reality the tabulations have differed radically in the results they have produced. Not surprisingly, students who believe there were multiple shooters have found more witnesses who heard shots from the Knoll, and fewer who heard shots from the Depository. People who believe that Oswald was the only shooter have consistently found more witnesses who heard shots from the Depository than from the Grassy Knoll.

The table below shows the assessments of four different scholars who have tabulated earwitness testimony. In addition, I have included my own assessment — based on a thorough canvass of testimony by my students — in the next-to-last column. In making any tabulation, a scholar must face a variety of problems and challenges. In producing my own assessment, I have used the following rules.”

Although McAdams’ students did the survey, he had the final word on interpreting the results. Not surprisingly, the majority of witnesses in his survey claimed they heard shots from the Texas Book Depository.

Links to Surveys and WC testimony
Warren Commission: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/wit.htm
Feldman http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/12th_Issue/51_wits.html
Galanor http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/Index.htm .

In this article, Galanor discusses the McAdams and HSCA surveys: In 1977, the HSCA interviewed 178 witnesses based on FBI reports and the Warren Commission. Of the 178, 49 said shots were from the TSBD and only 21 from the Knoll. The HSCA failed to reveal who the witnesses were! http://jfklancer.com/pdf/galanor.pdf

McAdams http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm

Charnin (adjusted): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=65

………………………………………………..
Stewart Galanor on the Warren Commission and HSCA
The Art and Science of Misrepresenting Evidence
How the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations manipulated evidence to dismiss witness accounts of the assassination. http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/artScience.htm

Over six hundred people witnessed the assassination of President Kennedy. The FBI acting on behalf of the Warren Commission interviewed at least two hundred of them.
Regrettably, the Commission seemed unconcerned that the FBI reports on seventy of these interviews did not reveal if the witness had an opinion on the source of the shots. Nor did the Commission conduct an analysis of witness accounts or give any credence to those accounts of witnesses who thought the shots came from the grassy knoll.

Analysis of 178 Witnesses
In 1978 the House Select Committee on Assassinations analyzed the accounts of the witnesses taken by the Warren Commission and from FBI reports published in the 26 Volumes of Hearings and Exhibits that accompanied the Warren Report. In analyzing witness accounts, a diligent investigator would consider various issues that the House Committee failed to address.

Witnesses Not Called
According to the HSCA, 692 witnesses “were present in the Plaza during the assassination.” Most of them were never called to testify by either the Warren Commission or the HSCA. (8HSCA139)

Ed Johnson, a reporter for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram who was riding in the motorcade, wrote for his paper the next day, “Some of us saw little puffs of white smoke that seemed to hit the grassy area in the esplanade that divides Dallas’ main downtown streets.” He was never interviewed by any government agency.

Overzealous Analysis
Any analysis of the 216 witnesses is inherently biased towards producing an unrealistically high percentage of Depository witnesses. Of the 216 witnesses who were interviewed by the FBI or the Warren Commission, 73 of them were Dallas Police Officers, Dallas Deputy Sheriffs, Secret Service Agents and other government employees who traditionally tend to identify with the government’s case. Thus, the tabulation of 216 witnesses (culled from the Warren Commission’s 26 Volumes and from Commission Documents stored in the National Archives) does not constitute a random sample of the witnesses to the assassination. Hence, it cannot be the basis for an accurate statistical analysis of witness accounts. What happens if we separate out the 73 government employees from the 143 nongovernment employees?

143 Non-government Employees
Depository 22; Knoll 44

73 Government Employees
Depository 26; Knoll 8

In the nongovernment group, the number of Knoll witnesses is two times larger than the Depository witnesses, while in the government group, the number of Depository witnesses is three times larger than the number of Knoll witnesses.

The House Committee’s analysis of witness accounts is a disingenuous attempt to dismiss and discredit evidence that the shots were fired from at least two locations. The evidence of a shooter firing from behind the fence is staggering, not least of which is the testimony of witnesses who heard shots or saw smoke on the grassy knoll.

What does it all mean? The testimony of Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses is, by itself, overwhelming evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was just a patsy. Along with the astronomical odds against 100 unnatural material witness deaths, we have proven two conspiracies: the planning of the assassination and the cover-up. If Lee Harvey Oswald was a Lone-nut assassin as John McAdams and Warren Commission apologists claim, there would not be anything to “clean-up”, would there?

This 1964 article by Vincent Salandria, one of the original assassination researchers, is an excellent summary of the evidence. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/HWNAU/VJS110264.html
………………………………………………..
Data Summary

Survey... Feldman McAdams Galanor Adjusted
Total Witnesses 121 241 216 224
Opinion..........83 100 109 133
Source of Shots:
Grassy Knoll.....51 35 52 84
Book Depository..32 61 48 36
Both TB and GK....0 2 5 9
Other locations...0 2 4 4
No Opinion.......38 69 37 36
Not asked.........0 72 70 54
Percentages:
Grassy Knoll....61% 35% 48% 63%
Book Depository.39% 61% 44% 27%
GK / (GK+TB)....61% 36% 52% 70%

GALINOR SURVEY ANALYSIS

100 of 273 witnesses gave an opinion (52 GK, 48 TSBD)
66 NON GOVT:
44 GK (84.6% of 52 GK total witnesses)
22 TSBD (45.8% of 48 TSBD total witnesses)
34 GOVT:
8 GK (15.4% of 52 total GK witnesses; 17.7 (52%) expected)
26 TSBD (54.2% of 48 total TSBD witnesses; 16.3 (48%) expected)

PROBABILITY OF NON-GOVT vs. GOVT WITNESS DISCREPANCY
Z-Score =4.43
P= 1 – NORMSDIST(Z-SCORE)
P= 0.000004779 or 1 in 209,250

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
66 Non-government witnesses
TSBD GK 1 in
22 44 209,250 (actual)
26 40 142
30 36 4
32 34 2
………………………………………………..

 
5 Comments

Posted by on February 26, 2014 in JFK

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

JFK Dealey Plaza Witnesses: A Survey Comparison

JFK Dealey Plaza Witnesses: A Survey Comparison

Richard Charnin
Feb. 26, 2014
Updated: Feb. 28, 2014

Click Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy to look inside the book.

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

An analysis of four surveys of witnesses at Dealey Plaza yielded surprising results. Of witnesses who said shots were fired from either the Grassy Knoll (GK) or the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD), three surveys (Feldman, Galanor, Adjusted) indicated that 61%, 52% and 67% said shots came from the GK. But Warren Commission apologist John McAdams’ indicated just 35%.

This is an analysis of John McAdams Strange List: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/jfk-dealey-plaza-witnesses-john-mcadams-strange-list/

The following witness data has been added to the JFKCalc spreadsheet:

Dealy Plaza witnesses: Surveys of Source of Shots: Misinformation from the HSCA and John McAdams. In this article, Galanor discusses the McAdams and HSCA surveys: http://jfklancer.com/pdf/galanor.pdf

Harold Feldman (1965): 121 eyewitnesses: 51 said Grassy Knoll, 32 TSBD, 38 had no opinion.http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/12th_Issue/51_wits.html

Stewart Galanor (1988) 216 eyewitnesses: 52 GK, 48 TB, 5 GK and TB;TB, 4 elsewhere, 37 no opinion.: http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/Index.htm

John McAdams: 241 eyewitnesses: 61 TSBD, 35 GK, 2 GK and TB, 2 elsewhere, 69 no opinion.  http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm

Charnin (adjusted): 223 eyewitnesses: 84 GK, 39 TSBD; 6 GK and TB; 4 elsewhere, 38 no opinion. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=65

HSCA (1977): 178 witnesses based on FBI reports and the Warren Commission: 49 said shots were from the TSBD and only 21 from the Knoll. The HSCA failed to reveal who the witnesses were!

Stewart Galanor wrote: How the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations manipulated evidence to dismiss witness accounts of the assassination. http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/artScience.htm

“Over six hundred people witnessed the assassination of President Kennedy. The FBI acting on behalf of the Warren Commission interviewed at least two hundred of them. Regrettably, the Commission seemed unconcerned that the FBI reports on seventy of these interviews did not reveal if the witness had an opinion on the source of the shots. Nor did the Commission conduct an analysis of witness accounts or give any credence to those accounts of witnesses who thought the shots came from the grassy knoll.

In 1978 the House Select Committee on Assassinations analyzed the accounts of the witnesses taken by the Warren Commission and from FBI reports published in the 26 Volumes of Hearings and Exhibits that accompanied the Warren Report. In analyzing witness accounts, a diligent investigator would consider various issues that the House Committee failed to address. According to the HSCA, 692 witnesses “were present in the Plaza during the assassination.” Most of them were never called to testify by either the Warren Commission or the HSCA. (8HSCA139)

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 24, 2014 in JFK

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

JFK Assassination: Was Lee Harvey Oswald standing in front of the Texas Book Depository at 12:30?

JFK Assassination: Was Oswald standing in front of the Texas Book Depository at 12:30?

Richard Charnin
Feb. 13, 2014
Updated: Dec.29, 2014

Click Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy to look inside the book.

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

From the JFK Lancer site: Previously it had been told there were no notes taken from the Oswald interrogations the weekend of President Kennedy’s assassination, but first FBI Agent Hosty found his notes (included in his book) and now the Fritz notes are found. Released by the ARRB 11-20-97. According to Dallas Captain Will Fritz’s notes, Oswald said he was “out with Bill Shelley in front”. http://www.jfklancer.com/Fritzdocs.html

Latest update: Judyth Baker, author of “Me and Lee”, has done a pixel analysis of Oswald’s shirt vs. Lovelady’s which proves Oswald is Doorman. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X2eD2Wl3xSmRHTuE02ntfYkb3ES2Kuo8wl3HHzzAlD8/pub

Smoking Gun?
In Altgens 6, Lovelady appears to be standing on the steps in front. His face was cut out – except for the top right corner. Oswald was standing on the TOP level (1st floor) by the doorway.

David Von Pein writes:
There were TWO arrows placed on the photo at the Warren Commission. The first arrow was placed by Buell Frazier pointing to Doorman standing at the extreme left. Frazier claimed it was Billy Lovelady.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20007 http://oi50.tinypic.com/2lxgvi9.jpg

CE369 was first marked with an arrow by Buell Wesley Frazier on March 11, 1964, at 2 H 242: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0125b.htm

And that same exhibit was then marked with another arrow by Billy Lovelady himself on April 7, 1964 (at 6 H 338): http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0174b.htm

Now, from the testimony, it’s a bit unclear as to which witness (Frazier or Lovelady) drew in the dark arrow that is easily visible in CE369. But that visible arrow might very well have been drawn by Frazier and not Lovelady. But I’m not entirely sure of that.

But Joseph Ball’s instructions to Lovelady might give a clue. Ball told Lovelady:
“Take a pen or pencil and mark an arrow where you are. …. Draw an arrow down to that; do it in the dark. You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you.”

So, via the above testimony, it’s possible that Lovelady’s arrow is “in the dark” and cannot be easily seen.

I suppose this confusion about who drew the dark arrow pointing to Doorway Man in CE369 will spark some additional controversy concerning the true identity of the man in the TSBD doorway, with some conspiracy theorists possibly wanting to now claim that Billy Lovelady didn’t really mark CE369 at all with an arrow in 1964.

But it’s quite clear to me from the Warren Commission records that BOTH Wesley Frazier AND Billy Lovelady drew separate arrows pointing to the SAME PERSON (Doorway Man) in Commission Exhibit No. 369.

And, of course, as I’ve pointed out in previous posts, there’s also Wes Frazier’s testimony at the 1986 mock trial in London, where Frazier identified Doorway Man as Lovelady.”
… End of Von Pein’s post….

David Von Pein is wrong. Frazier did not identify Lovelady as Doorman. Frazier testified that Lovelady was standing three or four steps BELOW him. Doorman was standing on the TOP level (the first floor), where Frazier was standing. And it is clear that Frazier contradicted himself when he placed the arrow in the white area pointing to Lovelady as Doorman. But he testified FIVE times that Lovelady was standing on the steps in FRONT of him.

1986 Oswald Mock trial:
Gerry Spence: “You recall that 23 years later that BNL was standing in front of you. About 4 steps in front of you. Is that correct?”
Frazier: Yes it is.

Let’s look at Lovelady’s Warren Commission testimony.He clearly states that he was in front, standing on the steps. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/lovelady.htm

Mr. LOVELADY – That’s on the second floor; so, I started going to the domino room where I generally went in to set down and eat and nobody was there and I happened to look on the outside and Mr. Shelley was standing outside with Miss Sarah Stanton, I believe her name is, and I said, “Well, I’ll go out there and talk with them, sit down and eat my lunch out there, set on the steps,” so I went out there.
Mr. BALL – You ate your lunch on the steps?
Mr. LOVELADY – Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL – Who was with you?
Mr. LOVELADY – Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right behind me….
Mr. BALL – What was that last name?
Mr. LOVELADY – Stanton.
Mr. BALL – What is the first name?
Mr. LOVELADY – Bill Shelley.
Mr. BALL – And Stanton’s first name?
Mr. LOVELADY – Miss Sarah Stanton.
Mr. BALL – Did you stay on the steps
Mr. LOVELADY – Yes.
Mr. BALL – Were you there when the President’s motorcade went by
Mr. LOVELADY – Right.


Wesley Frazier confirmed Lovelady was on the steps in 5 interviews from 1963-86. If Lovelady was in front on the steps, he could not be Doorman standing on the top level. Frazier indirectly proved that Oswald was Doorman.
11/22/63 to the DPD
3/1/64 at the WC
2/13/69 at the Garrison/Shaw trial
1978 at HSCA
1986 at the Oswald Mock trial

11/22 Dallas PD (handwritten statement and affidavit)
Standing on the front steps.

3/1/64 Warren Commission
Frazier testified that Lovelady was standing two or three steps below him. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm

Mr. BALL – We have got a picture taken the day of the parade and it shows the President’s car going by.
Now, take a look at that picture. Can you see your picture any place there?
Mr. FRAZIER – No, sir; I don’t, because I was back up in this more or less black area here.
Mr. BALL – I see.

Mr. FRAZIER – Because Billy, like I say, is two or three steps down in front of me.

Mr. BALL – Do you recognize this fellow?
Mr. FRAZIER – That is Billy, that is Billy Lovelady.

Mr. BALL – Billy?
Mr. FRAZIER – Right
Mr. BALL – Let’s take a marker and make an arrow down that way. That mark is Billy Lovelady?
Mr. FRAZIER – Right.
Mr. BALL – That is where you told us you were standing a moment ago.
Mr. FRAZIER – Right.
Mr. BALL – In front of you to the right over to the wall?
Mr. FRAZIER – Yes.
Mr. BALL – Is this a Commission exhibit?
We will make this a Commission Exhibit No. 369.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 369 for identification.)

2/13/69 Clay Shaw/Garrison trial http://www.jfk-online.com/fraziershaw.html

MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Can you see the spot where you were situated when the presidential motorcade came by?
A:Yes,sir,I can.
Q: Will you take this symbol and place it at that location where you were standing?
Q: Mr.Frazier, do you recall who you were with during the presidential motorcade?
A: Yes, sir, I can. When I was standing there at the top of the stairs, I was standing there by a heavyset lady who worked up in our office, her name is Sara, I forget her last name, but she was standing right there beside me when we watched the motorcade.
Q: Do you recall anyone else who may have been with you?
A: Right down in front of me at the bottom of the steps my foreman Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady were standing there.

1978 HSCA interview by Moriarity and Day
Standing right on the steps

1986 Oswald Mock trial
Gerry Spence: “You recall that 23 years later that BNL was standing in front of you. About 4 steps in front of you. Is that correct?”
Frazier: Yes it is.

Billy Lovelady died in Jan. 1979 at the age of 41 by complications from a heart attack. The House Select Committee (HSCA) was in session. Billy did not testify.
The probability of a 41 year old white male dying from a heart attack in 1979 was 1 in 10,000.

Did Officer Baker and Roy Truly encounter Oswald on the 2nd floor? Not according to their initial testimony. http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-lunchroom-encounter-that-never-was.html

http://theamericanchronicle.blogspot.com/2013/09/where-was-oswald-at-1230-pm-on-november.html

 
1 Comment

Posted by on February 12, 2014 in JFK

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

JFK: “Double Bang” Witness Testimony

JFK Witness Testimony on Hearing a Double Bang: A Math Analysis

Richard Charnin
Feb. 8, 2014
Updated: May 21, 2014

Click Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy to look inside the book.

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

In the article The Guns of Dealey Plaza by John S. Craig, the author lists 22 individuals who testified they heard a “double bang”: the final two of three shots occurred nearly simultaneously.

If Oswald was the only shooter there would have been at least 2.3 seconds between shots, assuming he used the telescopic sight found on the Mannlicher Carcano.

If we assume a 0.50 probability that a given witness was correct in hearing two shots fired nearly simultaneously, then the probability of the witness being mistaken is also 0.50. The probability that ALL 22 witnesses listed below were mistaken is
P= 0.5^22 = 0.000000238 or 1 in 4 million.That is also the probability that Oswald fired the shots, since the Carcano was a bolt-action rifle and incapable of being fired at “double-bang” speed.

Andrew Mason determined that at least 44 witnesses heard a double bang. The probability all 44 would be mistaken is P=.5^44 = 5.7E-14 (1 in 17 trillion). http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/shot_pattern_excerpt.PDF

Let N = the number of witnesses who claimed shots came from the grassy knoll.
N Probability
22 2.4E-07
33 1.2E-10
44 5.7E-14

The Double Bang
http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/11th_Issue/guns_dp.html.
John Craig wrote:
The Warren Commission’s official conclusion concerning the “Number of Shots” states that all the shots were fired from the sixth-floor window at the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository Building. [58] The Commission stated that a consensus among witnesses at the scene was that three shots were fired, though some heard two shots and others heard four and perhaps as many as five or six shots. [59]

Numerous descriptions of the last two shots by so many witnesses leaves doubt as to whether Oswald was physically capable of firing both of the shots that so many characterized as being shot almost simultaneously, if not “automatically.”

It was the Commission’s belief that (a) one shot passed through the President’s neck and caused all of Governor Connally’s wounds, (b) a subsequent shot hit the President’s head, (c) no other shot struck any part of the automobile, and (d) three shots were fired with one missing, though which one missed is unknown. [60] “Two bullets probably caused all the wounds suffered by President Kennedy and Governor Connally. Since the preponderance of the evidence indicated that three shots were fired, the Commission concluded that one shot probably missed the Presidential limousine and its occupants, and that the three shots were fired in a time period ranging from approximately 4.8 to in excess of seven seconds.” [61]

FBI tests for the Warren Commission found that a 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano, bolt-action rifle, Model 91/38 required a minimum of 2.3 seconds to fire two shots. [62] The HSCA made tests in which the telescopic sight was removed to see how fast the rifle could be fired without aiming. Its tests resulted in firings of 1.65, 1.75, and just over two seconds. [63] The only way that the rifle could be fired this quickly was to simply maneuver the bolt action as fast as possible and shoot. The tests were not done with Oswald’s Mannlicher Carcano. Whether Oswald’s rifle was in a condition where it could be tested is questionable since “the pressure to open the bolt was so great that we tended to move the rifle off the target,” according to one of the Warren Commission testers. [64]

If Oswald were the only shooter there would have to be at least 2.3 seconds between shots, assuming he used the telescopic sight found on the Mannlicher Carcano. The three shots that the Warren Commission claimed were fired from Oswald’s rifle could not have been shot faster than 6.9 seconds, including the minimum of 2.3 seconds to set for the first shot. Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman described the shots as a “flurry.” Two of the shots were often described by witnesses as so closely spaced that they seemed “simultaneous” and had “practically no time element between them.” Additionally, there is a substantial amount of testimony, presented in this article, that describes the later shots as sounding different from the first shot. Governor Connally’s initial reaction to the gunfire was “that there were either two or three people involved or more in this or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle.” [65]

A double sound, or bang, is described by three Secret Service agents. Two of these agents sat within feet of Kennedy as occupants of the limousine. A double shot was reported by one of the witnesses standing on the overpass.

1. Special Agent William Greer, the limousine driver, testified that “the last two shots seemed to be just simultaneously, one behind the other.” [66].

2. Secret Service Roy Kellerman sat next to Greer and was intimately familiar with the sound of weapons. Kellerman testified: ” Let me give you an illustration … You have heard the sound barrier, of a plane breaking the sound barrier, bang, bang? That is it. It was like a doublebang — bang, bang.” [67]

3. Special Agent George Hickey (in reference to the second and third shots). “At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two reports, which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them.” [80]

4. Special Agent Clint Hill told the Commission that the second noise he heard was different from the first shot ” … like the sound of shooting a revolver into something hard… almost a double sound.” [69]

5. S.M. Holland carefully watched the motorcade from the railroad overpass. He heard four shots with the third and fourth sounding like a “double shot.” He thought some of the shots came from behind the fence on the grassy knoll.

6. Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig: “The first shot … sort of like it reverberated … well, it was quite a pause between there [the first and second shots] … It could have been a little longer [than two or three seconds]… ” Between the second and third shots there was “no more than two seconds. It was–they were real rapid.” [71]

6. Joe R. Molina, witness “… Of course, the first shot was fired then there was an interval between the first and second, longer than the second and third.” [72]

7. DPD Seymour Weitzman. “First one, then the second two seemed to be simultaneously.” [73]

8. Ladybird Johnson. ” … suddenly there was a sharp loud report–a shot. It seemed to me to come from the right, above my shoulder, from a building. Then a moment and then two more shots in rapid succession.” [74]

9. Secret Service Special Agent Forrest V. Sorrels. “There was to me about twice as much time between the first and second shots as there was between the second and third shots.” [75]

10. Congressman Ralph W. Yarborough. “… by my estimate–to me there seemed to be a longer time between the first and second shots, a much shorter time between the second and third shots…

11. Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell. “There was a longer pause between the first and second shots than there was between the second and third shots. They were in rather rapid succession.” [77]

12. Secret Service Special Agent Sam A. Kinney. “I saw the President lean toward the left and appeared to have grabbed his chest with his right hand. There was a second of pause and then two more shots were heard … ” [78]

13. Special Agent William A. McIntyre. “The Presidential vehicle was approximately 200 feet from the underpass when the first shot was fired, followed in quick succession by two more.

14. Special Agent Warren W. Taylor. “In the instant that my left foot touched the ground, I heard two more bangs and realized that they must be gun shots.” [81]

15. Linda Willis. “Yes, I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then there were two real fast bullets together. When the first one hit, well, the President turned from waving to the people, and he grabbed his throat, and he kind of slumped forward, and then I couldn’t tell where the second shot went.” [82]

16. Special Agent Rufus Youngblood. “There seemed to be a longer span of time between the first and the second shot than there was between the second and third shot.” [83] ” … from the beginning at the sound of the first shot to the second or third shot, happened with a few seconds.” [84]

17. Robert Jackson. “I would say to me it seemed like three or four seconds between the first and the second, and between the second and third, well, I guess two seconds, they were very close together … ” [85]

18. Arnold Rowland. “The actual time between the reports I would say now, after having had time to consider the six seconds between the first and second report and two between the second and third.” [86]

19. Luke Mooney. “… The second and third shot was pretty close together, but there was a short lapse there between the first and second shot.” [87]

20. Ms. Mitchell (Mary Ann Mitchell). “… there were three—the second and third being closer together than the first and second … ” [88]

21. Lee Bowers “I heard three shots. One, then a slight pause, then two very close together … also reverberation from the shots.” [89]

22. Jean Hill. “There were three shots — one right after the other, and a distinct pause, or just a moment’s pause, and I heard more … ” And concerning the shots that followed the first three Ms. Hill said they were “quicker — more automatic.” [90]

 
4 Comments

Posted by on February 8, 2014 in JFK

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

JFK Assassination: Mathematical Proof of a Grassy Knoll Shooter

JFK Assassination: Mathematical Proof of a Grassy Knoll Shooter

Richard Charnin
Feb 5, 2014
Updated: June 8, 2014

Click Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy to look inside the book.

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

The corporate media never discusses the HSCA conclusion of a probable conspiracy based on overwhelming eyewitness testimony and scientific acoustic evidence of shooters at the Grassy Knoll. Warren Commission apologists are relentless in their shameless promotion of the ridiculous, discredited Lone Nut Gunman and Single Bullet Theory.

The General Problem
Given:
1) n witnesses claim they heard, saw or smelled shots from the Grassy Knoll
2) P is a probability estimate that a given witness would be correct
3) Witness observations are independent events
Then:
4) The probability PM that a given witness is MISTAKEN: PM = 1 – P
5) The probability PA that ALL n witnesses are MISTAKEN: PA = PM^n

This is an update to the original post which is referenced in JFKFacts.org: http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/is-there-mathematical-proof-of-a-grassy-knoll-shooter/#more-12235

Dealey Plaza witness survey data is in the JFKCalc spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=65

This article discusses the importance of independent, corroborating witness evidence in a court of law. http://www.spmlaw.ca/jfk/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf

My adjusted survey, which includes witnesses cited by Feldman and Galanor, indicates that at least 93 heard or saw shots fired from the Grassy Knoll; 45 said the TSBD.

Researcher Harold Feldman wrote that of 121 eyewitnesses: 51 (42%) said shots came from the Grassy Knoll area, 32 from the TSBD, and 38 had no opinion. http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/12th_Issue/51_wits.html

Given P = 0.42 is probability of a witness being correct in stating that shots came from the Knoll, then the probability PM = 0.58 = 1-.42 that the witness was mistaken.The joint probability PA that ALL 51 witnesses were mistaken and there was NOT a Grassy Knoll shooter is 0.58 to the 51st power.
PA = 0.58^51 = 8.6E-13 = 0.000000000000861 or of 1 in 1,161,909,568,739 or 1 in 1.16 trillion.

Therefore, the probability PS that there was a Grassy Knoll shooter is PS = 1-PA = 0.999999999999139

If we exclude the 38 witnesses who had no opinion as to the origin of the shots, then 51 of 83 (62%) said shots came from the Grassy Knoll and there is a 38% probability that a given witness would be mistaken. The probability that ALL 51 witnesses would be mistaken is much lower: PA = 0.38^51 = 3.71E-22
PA= 1 in 2,697,966,622,402,536,000,000 or 1 in 2.7 billion trillion!

Of course, if just ONE witness was correct in observing a shot from the Grassy Knoll, then all 51 were correct. Therefore, the Warren Commission’s conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was a Lone Gunman shooting from the Texas Book Depository was bogus.

Summary of Surveys

Survey..........Feldman McAdams Galanor Adjusted

Total Asked…………121 241 216 223
Total Opinions……….83 100 110 133
Grassy Knoll…………51. 35. 52. 84
Book Depository…….32. 61. 48. 36
Both TB and GK………0.. 2.. 5.. 9
Other locations………..0.. 2.. 4.. 4
No opinion……………38. 69. 37. 36
Not asked……………..0. 72. 70. 54

GK % of Opinions……61. 35. 47. 63
TB % of Opinions……39. 61. 44. 27
Probability ALL GK witnesses mistaken:
Probability……….E-22 E-07 E-17 E-43

John McAdams http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm
Of 241 total witnesses, 102 had an opinion on the origin of the shots. Sixty-three (63) said they came from the TSBD and 37 from the Grassy Knoll.  The probability that ALL  37 witnesses were mistaken in claiming that shots came from the Grassy Knoll is 3.76E-08 or 1 in 26 million!

Stewart Galanor
http://jfklancer.com/pdf/galanor.pdf
How the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations
minipulated evidence to dismiss witness accounts of the assassination.
http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/artScience.htm

Of the 216 interviewed, 52 heard at least one shot from the knoll, 48 from the TSBD, 5 from both locations, 4 elsewhere. The probability PA that 52 witnesses who said shots were fired from the Grassy Knoll would ALL be MISTAKEN is E-17 (1 in 100,000 trillion).

Adjusted Totals
A total of 224 witnesses were asked where the shots came from. Of the 133 who had an opinion, 84 said the Grassy Knoll; 36 said the TSBD; 9 both locations; 4 said elsewhere, 37 had no opinion.

The probability analysis was posted in jfkfacts.org and elicited the following comments: http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/response-to-charnin-the-grassy-knoll-probability-problem/#comment-342727

Acoustic Evidence
In 1978 at the HSCA, an analysis of gunshots recorded on a DPD dictabelt was presented by engineers from Bolt, Beraneck and Newman. The study indicated that there was a 96% probability that at least 6 sharp impulses occurred at 12:30 – the exact time of the shots. At least three were from in front of the limo at the Grassy Knoll. The evidence forced the HSCA to conclude that the assassination was “probably” a conspiracy. It was a “limited hangout”. There has been no follow-up investigation.
http://themysteriesofdealeyplaza.blogspot.com/2011/01/let-there-be-sound-acoustics-evidence.html

Sounds of Silence
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/larry-sabatos-new-book-does-not.html.
“The conclusion of four separate shots coincides with 4 impacts visible in the Z-film. The acoustic impulses were retested in a 2001 investigation (‘Echo Correlation Analysis and the Acoustic Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination Revisited’) by D.B. Thomas, published in the Journal Science and Justice, Vol. 41, p. 21. The impulses are shown below, with the four highest amplitude peaks associated with rifle muzzle blasts.

The hypergeometric p-function was used for differing weighting factor distribution sets, H{M..N, n, i} to assess significance or likelihood of occurrence. It’s based on the no. of echo ‘windows’ M, with each spanning 190msec (total time) at 2msec width per window and n for assigned impulses in the evidence pattern, with ‘i’ the “coincident impulses” or those matching the original (11/22/63)evidence and the test result. The question was whether a succession of first impulses of given amplitude could be manifesting a signal or was merely random noise.

Thomas found that for a given configuration for 2 motorcycles at designated locations, 1 for (GK) shooter location and one for alignment of muzzle blasts with one pair of echoes, the p -value is 0.000012 or about 1 in 100,000 against the null hypothesis, i.e. that the impulses were from random noise. An alternative way to put this is that the odds are 100,000 to 1 in favor of the impulses comprising actual rifle shots.”

David Lifton: #5 man
In 1965, assassination researcher and author David Lifton (“Best Evidence”) analyzed the famous Mary Moorman photo. He discovered a figure holding an object behind the fence on the Grassy Knoll. The image was the fifth, final and clearest image of the subject identified in the photo. Later, the figure was identified as a man by 10 independent photographic experts. Each signed statements to that effect and none were told that the photo was taken in Dealey Plaza. http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/Kelin33/no_5.html

http://www.academia.edu/5036142/PHYSICS_AND_JFK_ASSASSINATION_FINAL_EVIDENCE_OF_A_SECOND_SNIPER_BEHIND_THE_STOCKADE_FENCE_New_important_updates_



 
24 Comments

Posted by on February 5, 2014 in JFK

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

JFK Assassination: Mathematical Proof that the Zapruder film was Altered

Mathematical Proof that the Zapruder film was Altered

Richard Charnin
Feb. 4,2014
Updated: Sept.28,2014

Click Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy to look inside the book.

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

The mathematical proof of Zapruder film alteration is based on an article by Vince Palamara:
 59 Witnesses: Delay on Elm Street.

See the discussion below by Andrew Mason on the applicability and mathematical basis of multiple independent eyewitness evidence in a court of law. Also view sections from a groundbreaking article by Doug Horne which exposes the the chain of custody and alterations made to the Zapruder film. And watch the film. http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/

Finally, view videos of three experts who prove that the film was altered.

The Math Proof
Palamara shows that 33 (56%) of 59 eyewitnesses said the JFK presidential limo came to a FULL STOP, 13 said NEAR STOP and 13 had no opinion. Palamara’s article clearly indicates that 18 witnesses stated the Limo STOPPED, 9 said it came to a STOP, and 6 said it HALTED MOMENTARILY. The witness observations are summarized in the JFKCalc spreadsheet.

The Zapruder film does NOT show a FULL OR NEAR STOP.

What is the probability that ALL 33 witnesses who said the limo came to a FULL stop were mistaken? Let’s assume that P= 0.56 is the probability that a given witness is correct based on the observed statistics. Then P= 1-.56 = 0.44 is the probability that the witness was mistaken.

The probability that ALL 33 witnesses would be mistaken and the Zapruder film was NOT altered is
P= 0.44^33 = 0.000000000001714 or 1 in 583,527,967,610.
That’s 1 in 583 BILLION!

In fact at least 93 witnesses said they saw or heard shots coming from the Grassy Knoll area. The probability that ALL were mistaken is 1 in trillions. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/02/24/jfk-dealey-plaza-witnesses-a-survey-comparison/.

The bottom line:
a) If just ONE eyewitness was correct in observing that the limo came to a FULL STOP, it is proof the Zapruder film WAS altered – and that there was a conspiracy.
b) If just ONE Dealey Plaza witness was correct in observing that shots came from the Grassy Knoll, it is proof that there was a conspiracy.
———————————————————————-

Andrew Mason on the applicability of witness evidence.
http://www.spmlaw.ca/jfk/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf

One need not start with the belief that witnesses are reliable at all. Provided there are several independent witnesses, determining a witness’ reliability is simply a matter of seeing how their recollections fit with the rest of the evidence. Subjective techniques for assessing witness accuracy and trustworthiness are fraught with uncertainty.

It is very important to distinguish between the fallibility of a single witness and that of a group of witnesses who independently report observing the same fact. If the witnesses are independent, they will either independently agree on a fact because they observed it or they will be independently mistaken. Where there is more than one way to be mistaken, independent errors will be distributed over the range of all incorrect possibilities.

Dishonesty is an inherently random factor unless there is collusion between witnesses.The testimony of the independently mistaken or dishonest witnesses will necessarily fail to converge on a common explanation. Conversely, the convergence of consistent witness evidence on a particular detail can have only one of two rational explanations: either they all shared a common observation or they are not independent.

This use of corroboration as a technique for assessing reliability does not require subjective assessment of the witness’ demeanour or appearance of trustworthiness. It is not the witness recollection per se that is important. It is the fact that the same witness recollection is produced by multiple independent sources that is key. Juries intuitively understand this and, generally, do not need to have the probabilities quantified. They apply common sense to conclude how unlikely it is that multiple witnesses will independently have with the same recollection of something that they did not actually observe. The mathematics of probability supports our common sense.

———————————————————————-
Doug Horne: The Z-film chain of custody and alterations
Douglas P. Horne graduated Cum Laude from Ohio State University in 1974, with a B.A. in History. He served for ten years as a Surface Warfare Officer in the U.S. Navy, and then worked for the Navy for ten more years as a Federal civilian. In 1995 he joined the staff of the President John F. Kennedy “Assassination Records Review Board,” and rose to the position of Chief Analyst for Military Records. In that capacity, he focused on the medical evidence surrounding the JFK autopsy; the Zapruder film; and ensured the release of military records on Cuba and Vietnam. In 2009 he published the extensive five-volume work, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, which documents the U.S. government’s coverup of the medical evidence surrounding JFK’s assassination, and the alteration of the Zapruder film of President Kennedy’s assassination.

Horne writes:
Most Americans don’t know anything about the two significant events involving the famous Zapruder film of President Kennedy’s Assassination that took place back-to-back, on successive nights, at the CIA’s National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) – in Washington, D.C. – on the weekend immediately following JFK’s assassination. But anyone evenly remotely interested in what is perhaps the key piece of film evidence in the Kennedy assassination – what for decades was viewed as the “bedrock evidence” in the case, the “closest thing to ground truth” – needs to become acquainted with what happened to Abraham Zapruder’s home movie of JFK’s assassination during the three days immediately following President Kennedy’s death. Why?

Because the hottest debate raging within the JFK research community for the past several years is about whether the Zapruder film in the National Archives is an authentic film from which sound, scientific conclusions regarding JFK’s assassination can be divined, or whether it is an altered film indicative of a government cover-up, which yields tainted and suspect information, and leads us to false conclusions, about what happened in Dealey Plaza.

The resolution of this debate hinges on the answers to two essential questions: First, is the film’s chain of custody immediately after the assassination what it has been purported to be for many years, or is it, in reality, quite different? Second, are there visual indications within the film’s imagery which prove it has been tampered with, i.e., altered? If the film’s chain of custody has been misrepresented for decades, and if the opportunity and means existed that weekend to alter the film, then suspect imagery within the film takes on a crucial new level of importance, and is not simply of academic interest.

SUMMARY OF VISUAL INDICATIONS OF ALTERATION

The two NPIC “briefing board events” the weekend following President Kennedy’s assassination have together definitively proven: (1) that the film’s chain of custody is not what we thought it was for decades; and (2) that the film was located that weekend in a facility where the means almost certainly existed to alter its image content.

First, based on Dino Brugioni’s very clear recollections of his NPIC “briefing board event,” the camera-original, 8 mm Zapruder film was not in Chicago, at the LIFE printing plant, on the Saturday night following JFK’s assassination; but rather, was in Washington, D.C. at NPIC on Saturday, 11/23/63, from about 10 PM that night, until 3 or 4 AM the next morning, on Sunday, 11/24/63.

Second, the statements of the Secret Service courier who brought the altered, and reformatted 16 mm wide, unslit, “double 8” Zapruder film back to NPIC on Sunday night, 11/24/63 – “Bill Smith” – revealed to Homer McMahon that the Zapruder film delivered to him for the making of prints had been processed at “Hawkeyeworks,” a state-of-the-art, world class photo laboratory at Kodak headquarters, that was regularly used in support of classified CIA contracts. The two major classified CIA-Kodak contracts at the time were in support of “special orders” for U-2 high-altitude and Corona satellite photography, but the overall physical capabilities of the “Hawkeye Plant” went well beyond these two areas, and included much work in the motion picture field, according to what Mr. Brugioni was told by the Kodak employees who managed the Rochester lab, and who were his points of contact there.

We know from the historical record that the two key statements made by “Bill Smith” about the Zapruder film were outright fabrications – to wit, the original film was not donated to the government for free by Mr. Zapruder; and the camera-original Zapruder film was not developed at “Hawkeyeworks” in Rochester, as Smith had claimed. [Zapruder had negotiated an initial sales contract with LIFE magazine for $50,000.00 on Saturday morning; and the camera-original film had been developed in Dallas, not at “Hawkeyeworks” in Rochester.]

Dino Brugioni’s knowledge of the “Hawkeyeworks” facility in Rochester, gained from Mr. Ed Green of Kodak and others whom he knew at the facility, was that it could indeed process motion picture film, and that the Kodak technicians at the Top Secret laboratory “could do anything” with film. Because “Bill Smith” of the Secret Service delivered a Zapruder film to NPIC on Sunday, 11/24/63, whose format had miraculously been transformed, within 24 hours, from a slit, 8 mm wide “double 8” film, to an unslit, 16 mm wide, “double 8” film, it is reasonable to conclude that the Zapruder film’s image content was indeed altered on Sunday, 11/24/63, and that the alteration occurred at “Hawkeyeworks,” from whence Bill Smith had come with the film, which he readily admitted had been processed at that facility.

For all of the foregoing reasons, it is therefore appropriate to briefly review three of the major indicators that the Zapruder film’s imagery has undergone alteration.
…….
The Head Explosion

As discussed earlier in this paper, Dino Brugioni opined during his July 9, 2011 interview with the author that the head explosion seen today in the extant Zapruder film is markedly different from what he saw on 11/23/63, when he worked with what he is certain was the camera-original film. The head explosion he recalls was much bigger than the one seen today in frame 313 of the extant film (going “three or four feet into the air”); was a “white cloud” that did not exhibit any of the pink or red color seen in frame 313 today; and was of such a duration that he is quite sure that in the film he viewed in 1963, there were many more frames than just one graphically depicting the fatal head shot on the film he viewed in 1963. Mr. Brugioni cannot, and does not, accept frame 313 of the extant Zapruder film as an accurate or complete representation of the fatal head shot he saw in the camera-original Zapruder film on the Saturday evening following President Kennedy’s assassination.

He is supported in this view by two other opinions.

Erwin Schwartz, Abraham Zapruder’s business partner, told interviewer Noel Twyman on November 21, 1994 that when he viewed the original film on Friday, November 22, 1963, he saw biological debris from the head explosion propelled to the left rear of the President when he viewed the film. This debris pattern is not visible on the film today, but dovetails with the consistent recollections of motorcycle officer Bobby W. Hargis, who was hit with great force at the time of the head shot by debris travelling to the left rear. [32]

Similarly, professional surveyors Robert West and Chester Breneman performed the first of several site surveys of Dealey Plaza that they participated in on Monday, November 25, 1963 – for LIFE magazine. Breneman was quoted in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on April 14, 1978 as saying that in using the color prints of individual Zapruder frames provided by LIFE, he could see in some of the prints “large blobs of blood and brain matter flying from Kennedy’s head to the rear of the car.” [33] Whether his remembered date for the LIFE-sponsored survey is precisely accurate or not, the important factor here is that he saw debris traveling to the rear of the President in enlargements made from individual frames of the Zapruder film – imagery that is not seen in the extant film today. If his recollection that those images were provided by LIFE was correct, it suggests covert collusion between some at LIFE magazine and the U.S. government – namely, a joint effort to determine exactly what did happen in Dealey Plaza, apparently using frames from the unaltered Zapruder film.

.…..
The extant Zapruder film also depicts a large head wound in the top and right side of President Kennedy’s skull – most notably in frames 335 and 337 – that was not seen by any of the treatment staff at Parkand Hospital.

The implication here is that if the true exit wound on President Kennedy’s head can be obscured in the Zapruder film through use of aerial imaging (i.e., self-matting animation, applied to each frame’s image via an animation stand married to an optical printer) – as revealed by the “6K” scans of the 35 mm dupe negative – then the same technique could be used to add a desired exit wound, one consistent with the cover story of a lone shooter firing from behind.

The apparent alteration of the Zapruder film seen in the area of the rear of JFK’s head in the “6K” scans is consistent with the capabilities believed to have been in place at “Hawkeyeworks” in 1963.
…….
————————————————————————




 
8 Comments

Posted by on February 4, 2014 in JFK

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,