Zapruder film alteration or not?

[Phil Dragoo]

Wim, Joe, Thom, Turtleman, Big, Tom,I had read the section in Noel Twyman, Bloody Treason; the section in Assassination Science edited by Jim Fetzer, and the section in Doug Horne, Inside the ARRB, Volume IV, pages 1187-1377.I do not support or endorse any of the discussed issues be they Jack White or the others.I do note for the record that Horne established that there were two separate, compartmentalized procedures at National Photographic Imaging Center, the CIA's image operation.Event I and Event II, Brugioni and McMahon, Saturday November 23 and Sunday 24; which produced two separate sets of briefing boards.The chain of custody of the Zapruder film is irreparably broken.The man who took the film was in the clique with Byrd who owned the Depository, and Murchison who was the antiKennedy money man. And who was Zapruder's business partner—Jeanne DeMohrenschildt. And she was married to the man who maneuvered Oswald into place and was killed the day Charles Nicoletti was killed.And who negotiated the deal for Life: CD Jackson Ike's psyop chief.What was altered.Where is the large wound to the back of the head seen by forty medical witnesses between Parkland and Bethesda.For Blakey lied when he said nobody at Bethesda saw what they saw at Parkland—they all saw the big wound at the back of the head.Jimmy Files said in a video interview I saw that he looked through his scope, aimed for the eye, the back of the head shot pushed the head forward and he got the temple.Malcolm Kilduff pointed to his temple after the Parkland visit. Tom Robinson and others saw that wound.But the Zapruder film doesn't show the back of the head wound that Jimmy Files and forty medical professionals saw.18 fps? That's six free frames.The jet-black trapezoid with remarkably distinct edges on the back of the head.And who's got the so-great Movie of the Century now—Dunkel's Donuts.Next we'll have Tom Hanks in Toy Depository IV with another cartoon a la Posniosi.

[dankbaar]

ThomZajac wrote:Wim, what you’ve written above clearly demonstrates your fundamental misunderstanding of the how the film was altered, There no purpose, per say, of putting Moorman and Hill on the grass. This simply had to be done because in the making of the composite the curb was used as the dividing point between the two separate films used to make the Zapruder film, and nothing, therefore, in the back ground could extend into the foreground movie without messing up the whole thing (see link from previous post). Since Moorman and Hill were indeed standing in the street (with most of their bodies, of course, visually above the curb line that was to divide the two films) they had to either be eliminated or moved back entirely on the background (above) side of the curb. This is essentially provable by the fact that Hill is wearing different color shoes than what she’d been wearing earlier in the day when photographed. Her shoes had not been visable in the original Zapruder film and so the conspirators had to guess her shoe color and they guessed wrong! I don’t think simply eliminating the two women from the altered version was really an option as they had been so visible to so many and their absence would have been most conspicuous. I do too. Easy fix. It was confiscated, was it not? My opinion is that the "fundamental misunderstanding" is on your side. The number 1 expert on the film from the first hour, Robert Groden, who was the first to examine the film, is also of the firm opinion that the film was not altered in any way, except for removing maybe a few frames in the beginning when the car turns from Houston to Elm (the so called splice). This was possibly done to remove evidence of a first missed shot. It is clear to me that you have fallen so much in love with the alteration theory, that it is almost impossible to unlock this from your brain. I have seen this with Jack White and James Fetzer too, but they have an extra problem. They would have to give up the extensive work they put into the theory. ThomZajac wrote:Wim wrote:“Thom, could I ask you to rethink that thought?”TZ-You could Wim, but your arrogance on this matter is quite remarkable. The conspirators controlled not only the investigation, they controlled virtually ALL of the evidence; the president's body, the Zapruder film, and ALL the film -they miraculously confiscated all film within minutes. Do you actually believe the conspirators would give back evidence that was clearly at odds with the official version? This is a self fullfilling circle reasoning. The fact that someone controlled the evidence does not automatically ALLOW you to conclude they manipulated it. Yet this is exactly what you do without looking at the facts. Arrogance? I believe it's more arrogant to attach a "fundamental misunderstanding" to someone when the misunderstanding is with the accuser. I am not sure I can ever drive the point home to you. That is why I asked you to answer some questions in order to induce some reflections by yourself. However, you did not answer those questions clearly. If you would answer them clearly with yes or no, you would maybe see how preposterous the alteration theory is. At least that is my hope. Let's try again: 1) Do you believe the car came to a full stop? yes or no? 2) Do you believe the Zapruder film, the Muchmore film, the Bronson film and the Nix film were altered to conceal the full stop of the car? yes or no? 3) Do you believe they also changed the moving images of Clint Hill running onto the moving and accelerating car? yes or no? 4) Do you believe the alleged alterers put Moorman and Hill on the grass, while they were actually on the street? yes or no? ThomZajac wrote:Wim writes:“Or is the next thing you are going to say that the Muchmore film and the Nix film are "composites" too…”TZ-Not all film alterations require the making of composites. Just eliminating some frames is all that’s needed sometimes- and it’s way easier. I’ll look closer at Muchmore and Nix and get back to you. Eliminating some frames is not what you claimed. You claim that "composites" were made, as a result of which Moorman and Hill ended up on the grass. Let me show you some images not from the Zapruder film. Are they on the grass or on the street in the frames below? http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bond2.jpghtt ... 8lg.jpgAre all these composites too? You seem to attach a lot of value on the recollection of Jean Hill and other witnesses. Maybe the alteration wizards put her in these frames while she was not there at all. She claimed she was chasing the grassy knoll assassin by this time. ThomZajac wrote: Wim continues:“…and that Clint Hill's running was altered in all three films, since he did not need to huury, as the car came to standstill, which was hidden from us by altering at least three films?TZ-I think one of the films does show breaking at the very least. And Clint Hill, the only Secret Service agent who took any protective action that day, actually crashes into the car as it is coming to a stop- he semi falls. Watch the motorcycle cop have to veer out to the left a bit to avoid hitting the car. Also, when watching the Zapruder film, watch the Connolly’s lurch forward in their seats- an action that only could have been the result of hard braking. The question was not if the car brakes, but if it came to full stop. I have addressed this issue before. The lurching is not caused by braking. The passengers in the car are ducking for cover. A natural and instinctive reaction when you are being fired upon. This is proven by paying attention to Jackie. Is she lurching forward? No, she is actually moving in the opposite direction (backward) while the others are ducking. That is because her concern is with her husband. ThomZajac wrote: Personally Wim, I don’t see what you are so attached to the Zapruder film being genuine. That it was altered does not undermine James Files’ story at all, unless I am missing something. I’m sure you’ll let me know. I am attached to factual truth and unattached to silly conspiracy theories, wether deliberate or not. This has nothing to do with James Files. It has to do with the question on its own. See the title of the thread. The only thing you could say in connection with James Files is the following: If the film (actually we should say films) were not altered, it shows exactly what he describes, up to the two simultaneous headshots. Which by the way were never detected before.

[ThomZajac]

As those of you who have been reading this thread know, Wim has written that any talk of the Zapruder film being altered is ‘hogwash,’ and I have begged to differ. While it is extremely unlikely that Wim or I will be able to change each other’s minds, I hope this discussion is proving to be enjoyable. Also, it merits a mention here that Wim and I agree on a great many things, in particular that the president was hit in the head by a shot fired from in front.For those new to this thread, please take a moment to click on the link below and watch the short film demonstration how the Zapruder film was likely altered- it’s key.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Am4qdl9PTANow back to the discussion-The main argument Wim presents in support of the Zapruder film being unaltered is this: In order for the Zapruder film to have been altered, other films and photos would also had to have been altered to get key elements to correspond, a scenario he considers to be absurd. (I think I’ve stated this fairly, Wim, yes?)While Wim and I both believe there was a conspiracy to kill the president, it is my view that the assassination was planned with a very high degree of detail. The conspirators knew that many people would be taking photos, and a few would be shooting film and the conspirators placed vital importance- in preparing for the assassination- on collecting all such evidence in very quick fashion. The first thing they did- before the fact- was make the area as clear of spectators as possible, and this was accomplished in part by having the daily paper print an erroneous map not depicting a turn onto Houston and then onto Elm. Immediately after the last shot had been fired, a large number of conspirators confronted dozens of image-taking spectators and confiscated their film. The one very notable exception was Abraham Zapruder, the most obvious camer man of them all, which I believe was done intentionally. Many never saw their film (or photos made from them) again, and some others who did claimed alteration of their material: perhaps most notably Orville Nix. It is my conclusion that the conspirators returned unaltered any film that held no evidence contradicting the official story, altered film evidence that could be altered, and simply did not return film evidence that could not satisfactorily be altered. While Wim considers this conclusion ‘hogwash’ I think the facts tell otherwise.Before I begin responding point by point to Wim’s last post, I would like to ask Wim a question I’ve asked him before but I don’t believe he has yet to answer; do you believe JFK’s body was unaltered between its leaving the emergency room in Parkland Hospital and its arrival on the autopsy table at Bethesda? I think this is very pertinent to this conversation. In my view, the evidence that the body was indeed altered is overwhelming and conclusive. Anyone believing the body was not altered is being blinded by something beyond my comprehension, and this blindness would certainly translate to the question of the Zapruder’s film integrity. So, Wim, can you please stop dodging this question and tell us where you stand on this? (Are you on the grass, or in the street?)Now then, the points-Wim writes:“My opinion is that the "fundamental misunderstanding" is on your side.”TZ-Well, no. When you asked incredulously what could possibly be the motive for putting Mary Moorman and Jean Hill on the grass, you demonstrated that you did not understand how a composite would be made. You certainly don’t have to agree with that possibility to understand it, and your comment shows you simply didn’t understand it, or that you had a fundamental misunderstanding (I chose the later).Wim writes:“The number 1 expert on the film from the first hour, Robert Groden, who was the first to examine the film, is also of the firm opinion that the film was not altered in any way, except for removing maybe a few frames in the beginning when the car turns from Houston to Elm (the so called splice). This was possibly done to remove evidence of a first missed shot.”TZ-So let me put this another way, Wim: Robert Groden feels it likely that the conspirators altered the Zapruder film for the purpose of eliminating evidence that would do damage to the official story. Or, more succinctly; Robert Groden believes the Zapruder film was altered. And you are using Groden to support your argument that the Zapruder film was unaltered? Really? (You are making this easy!)On top of that, Robert Groden would have strong reason to be heavily invested in believing the film NOT to be altered; he’s spent most of his lifetime using it to support his assassination arguments: to find/admit that the Zapruder film was significantly altered would invalidate much of his life’s work. And yet, even he says the Zapruder film may have been significantly altered (but, to be fair, not to the degree I believe it to be). Wim writes;“It is clear to me that you have fallen so much in love with the alteration theory, that it is almost impossible to unlock this from your brain. I have seen this with Jack White and James Fetzer too, but they have an extra problem. They would have to give up the extensive work they put into the theory.”TZ-The irony of your above statement is rich, as is your misplaced arrogance. Wim writes:“This is a self fullfilling circle reasoning. The fact that someone controlled the evidence does not automatically ALLOW you to conclude they manipulated it. Yet this is exactly what you do without looking at the facts."TZ-I have not automatically concluded anything. Accusing me of not looking at the facts is ridiculous- it's hogwash Wim. Wim writes:"Arrogance? I believe it's more arrogant to attach a "fundamental misunderstanding" to someone when the misunderstanding is with the accuser. I am not sure I can ever drive the point home to you."TZ-Is t hat because you are right and I am wrong, Wim? You really are revealing your lack of intellect.Wim writes:"That is why I asked you to answer some questions in order to induce some reflections by yourself. However, you did not answer those questions clearly. If you would answer them clearly with yes or no, you would maybe see how preposterous the alteration theory is. At least that is my hope. Let's try again: TZ-Yes. Let’s!Wim asks:“1) Do you believe the car came to a full stop? yes or no?”TZ-A near stop or very near stop, yes I do. Wim asks:“2) Do you believe the Zapruder film, the Muchmore film, the Bronson film and the Nix film were altered to conceal the full stop of the car? yes or no?TZYes. Some better than others.Wim asks: “3) Do you believe they also changed the moving images of Clint Hill running onto the moving and accelerating car? yes or no?TZ-Clint Hill crashes into the car because of its sudden braking. Are we watching the same film?Wim asks: “4) Do you believe the alleged alterers put Moorman and Hill on the grass, while they were actually on the street? yes or no?TZ-Yes, I do. But the movement of their location is not essential to the case of alteration. If they were in the street, the Zapruder film is therefore proven to be altered. If they weren’t, that doesn’t mean that the Zapruder film wasn’t altered, only that it needs to be demonstrated in other ways. But, yes, I do.Wim writes:"Eliminating some frames is not what you claimed. You claim that "composites" were made, as a result of which Moorman and Hill ended up on the grass."TZ-I said the Zapruder film was a composite. I will have to look more closely at the others. Very possibly composites were made in those cases too.Let me show you some images not from the Zapruder film. Are they on the grass or on the street in the frames below? http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bond2.jpgYou mean, later on?http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/muchmore.jpgHard to tell. I do wonder if shoes may have been added (higher on the leg than where the real shoes would have been. Or perhaps some grass was added.http://www.io.com/~o_m/jfkaos/images/ba ... kside1.jpgSame answer as above.http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold/bond8lg.jpgYou mean later on?Wim writes:“Are all these composites too?”TZ-Could be. Wim writes:“You seem to attach a lot of value on the recollection of Jean Hill and other witnesses. Maybe the alteration wizards put her in these frames while she was not there at all. She claimed she was chasing the grassy knoll assassin by this time.”TZ-Maybe she was. Wim writes:“The question was not if the car brakes, but if it came to full stop. I have addressed this issue before.”TZ-When you come to a stop sign, Wim, do you come to a full stop, or a very near stop? I’m not claiming that the car absolutely came to a full stop, only that the driver stepped hard on the brakes after the president had been hit (bringing the car to a stop or very near stop), and that he did not accelerate until after he'd seen that the president had been fatally hit. Wim writes:“The lurching is not caused by braking. The passengers in the car are ducking for cover. A natural and instinctive reaction when you are being fired upon. This is proven by paying attention to Jackie. Is she lurching forward? No, she is actually moving in the opposite direction (backward) while the others are ducking. That is because her concern is with her husband.TZ-The lurching is most certainly caused by hard braking. This can be demonstrated by viewing the driver and the front seat passenger; they and the Connally’s all lurch at precisely the same moment. Why doesn’t Jackie lurch? This is further evidence of alteration. Just look at the reaction of the other four people in the car. Wim writes:“I am attached to factual truth and unattached to silly conspiracy theories, wether deliberate or not.”TZ-To label alteration of the Zapruder film as a silly conspiracy theory demonstrates a hard headedness that can only stand in the way of uncovering the truth. Good luck with that. Wim writes’“This has nothing to do with James Files. It has to do with the question on its own. See the title of the thread. The only thing you could say in connection with James Files is the following: If the film (actually we should say films) were not altered, it shows exactly what he describes, up to the two simultaneous headshots. Which by the way were never detected before.TZ-And that is why you are so attached to the film being genuine. Really, Wim, you have made this quite easy. I ask the jury to render a verdict: is any discussion of the Zapruder film being altered nothing more than hogwash? Oh, and Wim, that significant alteration suggested by Groden? Have I got it right?: That was BEFORE the part of the film that you hold so dear? You're saying that the conspirators may altered the film to conceal crucial evidence, but NOT THAT PART- have I got it right? Does anyone else here see the irony?

[ThomZajac]

Fetzer and Horne-The question he poses, “If the Zapruder film is an alteration doesn’t this mean that other films of the assassination must have been altered also? And are there inconsistencies between other films and the Zapruder film?” Doug’s answer, “Absolutely - alteration of the Zapruder film does indeed imply that in a perfect conspiracy that other films must have been altered also and in the same way as the Zapruder film. If they were not altered, and the Zapruder film was this would have left undeniable evidence in the photographic record that “the” pre-eminent record of the assassination is indeed an alteration. In fact, what we do find in the evidence is one suggestion of identical alteration, and numerous instances of disagreement between various Dealey Plaza films, and the Zapruder [film.]”Now here I’ll read abbrviated portions of his discussion, so just know that there is more than I am reading here. The fist point he makes, the turn from Houston onto Elm may have been removed from the Zapruder film, the Nix film, and the Muchmore film.First, let us examine the suggested identical alteration of the Zapruder film, the Nix film, and the Muchmore film. Neithr the Nix film, the Muchmore film, nor the Zapruder film show the Presidentil limousine turning left from Houston Street onto Elm Street. Orville Nix told Mark Lane (on film) in 1966 that his film had been initially “lost” by the processing plant and that when the FBI returned his film to him, some frames had been “damaged” and were missing. The originals of both the Nix film and the Muchmore film (taken from the opposite side of the plaza from which Zapruder was shooting his film, and from much further away) are missing today. How convienent.”“The fact that the originals of the Nix and Muchmore films are missing is extremely suspicious; they may have been removed from circulation to prevent detection of their alteration--specifically, removal of the limousine’s turn onto Elm from Houston and of the car stop during the assassination. If ever found one of the first things that should be checked is to see whether the limousine’s turn onto Elm Street in these two films has been excised -- either crudely with splices or via reprinting of those films in an optical printer.”Another issue, “Clint Hill’s interactions with Jackie Kennedy on the trunk of the limousine appar to be inconsistent in the Nix film and the Zapruder film. There is also significant apparent disagreement between the Nix Film and the Zapruder film. In Harry Livingstone’s 2004 book about the Zapruder film he discusses differences between the images of Clint Hill and Jackie Kennedy on the trunk of the limousine in the Nix film, versus what is shown in the Zapruder film. Livingstone correctly points out that in the Nix film, Clint Hill appears to place his left arm around Jackie Kennedy’s right shoulder and push her back into her seat--wheras in the Zapruder film, he barely touches her with his right hand, and is not seen embracing her with his left arm at all. Another point, is the head snap different in the Zapruder, Nix, and Muchmore Films? The head snap in the Nix film appears to be slightly slower and less violent than in the Zapruder film; in the Muchmore film, there appears to be no head snap visible at all but this may be inconclusive because of the camera angle at the time of the headshot(s), and because the line of sight to the President’s head is obstructed by Dealey Plaza bystanders immediately afterwards.”“The perceived differences between the headshot(s) in the Zapruder, Nix, and Muchmore films suggests that when debris exiting from the back of President Kennedy’s head was removed from the three films, that it was not done uniformly, resulting in three slightly different versions of the motion of the President’s head caused by the fatal shot(s). This has not been conclusively proven, but is worthy of further investigation.”Another point, undeniable differences exist between the Zapruder film and other Dealey Plaza films. Researcehr jack White has conclusively demonstrted a major difference between the Zapruder film and other films of the assassination, notably the Marie Muchmore home movie (seen in its entirety in Groden’s DVD JFK Assassination Films), and a slide taken by Charles Bronson during the assassination. Jean Hill and her friend Mary Moorman both told interviewers for years that they were standing in the street (actually in front of the curb on the south side of Elm street) - not in the grass. They didn’t make a big deal about it, but both consistently recalled that they were standing in the street for many years.”“The Zapruder film evidence was used by many persons who wanted to believe the film was authentic as further evidence of the “notorious unreliability of eyewitness testimony” and of all human recollections. The problem is the Muchmore film and the bronson slide show Moorman and Hill standing not in the greass, but below the level of the grass, in the street.”“Clearly, it is the Zapruder film that has been altered in this instance, for Jack White has conclusively demonstrated that the shoes they were wearing the day of the assassinaiton are not shown in the Zapruder film. On page 42 of “The Great Zapruder Film Hoax,” Jack White published pictures taken of each other by Jean Hill and Mary Moorman on the day of the assassination, revealing that both women were wearing black shoes on November 22, 1963. Mary Moorman was wearing black penny loafers and Jean Hill was wearing black canvass “boat shoes.” And yet seen in the vicinity of frames 300-310 of the Zapruder film, the Jean Hill and Mary Moorman that are depicted standing on the grass are both wearing white shoes! Their location on the grass instead of in the street (where the Muchmore film and the Bronson slide show them to really be standing), and the fact that the black shoes they were wearing that day are not shown in the Zapruder film, together constitute dispositive evidence proving that the extant Zapruder film is an altered film. A second mater, and I’m paraphrasing momentarily is that Jack discovered a line of sight internal to the Moorman photograph that indicated the photograph had to have been taken on that line of sight, and here I’ll just mention in part here “the follow on study performed with the assistance of Jim Fetzer and David Mantik was described in detail at Fetzer’s conference in May of 2003, and is described in writing, with illustrations, on pages 88-92 of “The Great Zapruder Film Hoax”. Two excellent articles on “the Mary Moorman problem” written by Jack White and by John Costella were published in Fetzer’s 2003 anthology “The Great Zapruder Film Hoax,” “Was Mary Standing in the Street?” by Jack White and “Mary Moorman and her Polaroids,” by John Costella. Jack White has decades of practical experience in photography and graphic arts, and John Costella is an Australian with a PhD in physics (electromagnetism, I add is his specialization) who has an intimate theoritical understanding of the mathmatics of optics. These scientific proofs - based on line of sight studies - that Mary Moorman must have been standing in the street when she took her Polaroid picture, constitute additional dispositive evidence that the Zapruder film, which shows Mary Moorman in the grass has been altered.”There is more, but for now that is enough. Doug?Horne - Yeah. I mean Thompson’s point that if you alter one film you have to alter the other ones or you give away the store is correct. And the store has been given away. You know, Jim, if this wasn’t such a serious subject this whole cover-up of the JFK assassination would be laughable. It’s almost like a Keystone Cops operation it was so badly done. But, when you don’t have a trial and the investigators only present a prosecutorial brief, and then you compartmentalize the evidence, and you don’t let witnesses speak to each other, you don’t let the autopsy witnesses speak to the Dallas doctors, that’s how you get away with something like this. So this film, this issue of films not matching each other it is symptomatic of the whole case.

[dankbaar]

Thom, have it your way. I rest my case. Wim

[kenmurray]

Zapruder film and other films of the assassination. Basic facts. A good interesting link here:http://www.io.com/~o_m/jfkaos/z-film_text.htm

[ThomZajac]

dankbaar wrote:Thom, have it your way. I rest my case. WimAn interesting conversation, Wim. I will say again, that I think you've done great work regarding james Files and that he may very well be essentially telling the truth as he knows it. In my view, the Zapruder film having been altered does not undermine Files. Granted, it places in question some of the Zapruder evidence supporting Files' claims, but it does not present any obvious or clear contradictions as far as I can tell. I'll have to look things over again, but did the question of the limosuine braking/slowing down/ stopping ever come up with him? I am curious though, why you continue to refuse to answer my question: Do you believe that JFK's body was unaltered by the conspirators between its leaving Parkland's emergency room and its arrival on the autopsy table at Bethesda?Simple question. Why the refusal to answer it?

[Dealey Joe]

kenmurray wrote:Zapruder film and other films of the assassination. Basic facts. A good interesting link here:http://www.io.com/~o_m/jfkaos/z-film_text.htmGreat information Ken, ThanksAny questions about the film should be answered here.

[Bob]

I agree with Wim on about 95% of the information we have studied regarding the JFK assassination, especially the Jimmy Files story. It was Wim and the information on this site that started that epiphany. I studied and researched the Files story on my own and could not find a hole in his story. I also got to know Bruce very well, which helped my understanding of Files immensely. This site also made me re-think my perception of the Bu$h family. I always thought they were a "patriotic" family, based on the minimum amount of knowledge I had about their background. However, this site and by researching other avenues, I soon found out that the Bu$h family is the exact opposite of "patriotic", as they are instead a family that has been involved in 4 generations of treason. It started with Samuel Bu$h when he sold arms to the Germans in WWI while the U.S. was in that conflict. Then Prescott Bu$h was involved in a failed coup to remove FDR, and then was charged with trading with the enemy in 1942 because of his support of the Hitler war machine in WWII. Poppy Bu$h followed and he was first involved in the Bay of Pigs episode as a member of the CIA, became a recruiter for Operation 40 (an assassination group), was a conspirator in the JFK assassination and was involved in other episodes that were nefarious like Mena, Iran/Contra and the first Gulf War. Plus, as Poppy was VP, Ronald Reagan was almost assassinated as President just two months into his first term by a Bu$h family friend in a clear Manchurian candidate episode. Then after stealing an election, Dumbya Bu$h allowed the events of 9/11 to happen, and invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq, places that are key to the Bu$h family modus operandi. These places allow for war profiteering, massive drug running and the manipulation of large amounts of oil.Now, Wim and I disagree on three points. One, I believe David Atlee Phillips was at Lee Harvey Oswald's midnight press conference. Two, I belive Bill Greer was definitely involved in the conspiracy, along with Roy Kellerman and others in the Secret Service. Finally, I do believe that the Zapruder film was altered. The book by Douglas Horne has convinced me of that fact, while he also shows that Greer and especially Kellerman were involved in the charade that went on at Bethesda.Bottom line, debate is good, and thanks to Wim and this forum, it continues.

[tom jeffers]

its nice to have everyone give their two cents worth and then agree with me on everything!just kidding guys/gals!