Did Oswald know his killer?

First topic message reminder :

I drafted a much longer version of this post but decided to pare it down to the bullet-point essentials and get more directly to the topical question.

• I take the work of (most) every JFKa researcher in good faith. Even those who overreach by extrapolating from their evidence all-encompassing scenarios that seem wildly improbable, or which conflict directly with more solid research or even known facts. 
  
• Even those kinds of researchers generally having something to contribute. Truth arrives in bits and pieces in this case, over time, and it's a shame that gold nuggets get lost in a cloud of speculative malarkey, thus giving the establishment a brush with which to paint the researcher, and the critical community in general, as 'theorists" (to put it politely).
  
• I recently re-read The Men on the Sixth Floor. I don't know how the members here feel about that book, but the gold nugget therein might be the Malcolm Wallace fingerprint found on a box on the sixth floor. I have not come across any good-faith research which discredits that (and please point me to it if you know of any). The proposition of Wallace's involvement, including his presence on the sixth floor at some time, feels credible, though I struggle to believe it got there in the manner presented in tMot6F. The rest of the book, in fact, feels rather fantastic on re-read.
  
• I take particular issue with the idea of Jack Ruby having some active managerial role in the assassination itself. Furthermore, for reasons noted below, I find it hard to believe that he and Oswald knew one another prior to the alleged assassin's arrest.
  

My thinking is this: People are shot with handguns all the time. They don't always die. In fact, they recover pretty often. Considering the close quarters and the massive presence of armed law enforcement in that basement parking garage, it's remarkable that Ruby was able to get off a single shot. Surely no one counted on any more than that. Now, if the assassination was a conspiracy (and it was), and if Ruby was ordered or coerced into shooting Oswald (and he was), it doesn't make sense under these circumstances to send an assassin who is known to the target.

All it would take is a single moment of lucidity, lying on the stretcher in Trauma Room Two, for Oswald to mutter ... "Jaaaaack, why ... whhhhhy, Jack ... ugggggghhhh [death rattle]" and suddenly there is a massive can of worms open. Toothpaste out of the tube, so to speak. It's kind of amazing that nothing of that sort happened (ie, Oswald talking after being shot). The same problem would have arisen, likely worse, if Ruby's attempt had been foiled. 

Now, having stated all the above, I suppose there would have been ways to mitigate this risk. For instance, it doesn't really matter if Ruby knew Oswald (ie, perhaps Ruby had foreknowledge, or at least was not entirely ignorant about the planned assassination). The point is more that Oswald could not have known Ruby. In fact, if we take for granted that Ruby was ordered/coerced into killing the patsy, this feels like more evidence of Oswald's innocence. If Oswald was being silenced to prevent him from spilling what he knows, an assassination attempt is only going to ensure that he is not going to hold his tongue one more second. If he should happen to recover, game over.

On the other hand, if Oswald was, say, an FBI asset (or believed himself to be) who was following along and perhaps even trying to prevent the assassination (maybe even having a Coke just outside the front door of the TSBD as the shots were fired), it makes sense for the mob to send their bagman to eliminate him — not in order to prevent him from giving up the conspiracy, but to prevent him from being able to defend himself, now that the lone-nut scenario and "evidence" was taking shape, and thereby establishing the needed patsy.

In other words, Oswald not only didn't fire shots from the sixth floor, he didn't really know much about the conspiracy. In this scenario, it might (might!) be rational to consider that Oswald knew his killer. I suppose if my hypothetical utterance of "Jack ... why?" had happened before Oswald expired, it could be argued that Oswald was aware of Ruby because Ruby was a local D-list celebrity.

But I see no scenario in which Oswald and Ruby are hangin' at a safehouse prior to the assassination, looking at maps spread on the table and double-checking the parade route. No, no, no. In fact, I find it hard to believe that Oswald was ever in Jack's club. 

Does anyone know of any solid evidence, that is not hearsay, that Oswald and Ruby knew one another? Or, lacking that, are there any two (or more) witnesses who independently corroborate the same claim? 

If not, then Beverly Oliver is full of it.

The problem with this is case is that it's become a cottage industry for people to try to make a buck off of it. They'll say *anything* to stir up conspiracy and there are more than enough paranoid suckers out there who fall for it.

Beverly Oliver is a fake, just like the other fakers who have latched onto the case and have been invited to "forums" and other bullshit that's happened over the years.

Oswald bled out. I was going to post the autopsy report but it was posted above. There was 600 cc of blood floating around in his cavity when they opened him up. Ruby did the job very well. It's as simple as that.

I don't suck up to anyone who writes about this case, including Greg Parker, but what he wrote above makes the most logical sense to me. I had actually never thought about some of things he mentions but after reading it, it makes the most logical sense. And logical sense is another thing that is surely missing in this case, what with stolen bodies, altered films, Oswald doubles and so on.

The Zapruder film was NOT altered in any way. There's an internal copy of it seen only by the FBI several months after the murder. I found it on YT years ago but I've noticed things have been disappearing on YT a lot about this case. Anyway, the film is like a summary of the murder and to be seen ONLY by the FBI and not the general public. This version of the Z film is in black and white. The point, though, is that the film looks exactly like what we've come to see when the film was later released to the public in the 70s. In other words, no alteration was done to it.

Then there is this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWEXZyMJMtA

Everything matches up perfectly.

We should be grateful and thankful that Zapruder was up there filming that day. The film shows conspiracy - there is simply no way that someone up on the 6th floor using a creaky, misaligned rifle could have pulled off the shots the government claims Oswald did.

And even Castro knew what happened no less.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/news-items/castro-figured-out-the-jfk-case-in-five-days-speech-of-november-27th-1963

EDITED

I'm not terribly interested in debating Z-film alteration theories. As above, I am not invested in any particular theory and can only say at present that I find the evidence of blotting out of the back of the head to be quite believable, not only because of technical feasibility and opportunity but because we know that concealing the damage to the back of the head was of the highest priority. And by highest priority, it is apparent that there was no lengths to which those controlling the situation would not go in order to accomplish that end. Consider that at least two (Humes, Boswell), likely three (including Finck), and probably more military officers who had taken the Hippocratic oath instantly became literal butchers and forgers—compromising the ethics of their profession in the gravest way—creating a lie and then propagating that lie with multiple perjuries across a span of decades, ultimately taking whatever they knew to the grave. That is really something. 

As far as this particular 'theory' (blotting out of the back of the head on the Z-film), it might gain more credibility if and when we are able to see the actual high-res blowups themselves, in sequence, one after another, to get a better look at how this blotting behaves. To the credit of those of you who are skeptical of this, I don't know why these images have not been released since they've been around for more than a decade now. Perhaps it has something to do with the copyright held on the Z-film itself. 

However, on the flip side of this "don't believe everything you read" mindset, I also think it's important to steel one's self against those who are dismissive of solid theorizing. The "paranoid style in American politics" is an accusatory overcorrection (propaganda, frankly) that was pointedly introduced, I believe, as a direct result of public skepticism following the events of 11/22/63. It's kind of amazing that it persists to this very day, after all the conspiracies and coverups we've seen revealed. Nonetheless, persist it does. In the estimation of many people, JFKa 'theorists' are categorized alongside Bigfoot seekers.

Hence we should not be immediately dismissive of any particular theory. Consider that 18 years after the assassination, the concept of swapping JFK's body from one coffin to another, altering his wounds, and secretly delivering his body to the back door of Bethesda sounded absolutely wild. In fact I can't think of anything related to the JFKa that sounds more incredible (well, except maybe that theory that the SS agent driving the limo accidentally shot JFK in the head). And yet the evidence that these things happened is voluminous and overwhelming—a critical mass constituting proof. And beyond matters of evidence, it also explains, in a way that practically nothing else can, a great number of once indecipherable mysteries and discrepancies involving the autopsy and medical evidence.

And so, while few things in this case are more important than evidence, we should refrain from fetishizing it (after all, the official autopsy is evidence that JFK was only hit by two bullets, fired from behind). To do so is the province of the midwit. Logical and critical thinking have a major role, as does an open mind. 

I'm preaching to the choir here. Forgive me. But it's this kind of critical thought (sans evidence) that led me to start this thread about an association between Ruby and Oswald. Granted, the evidence for them knowing one another is poor, but the more I thought about it, it just made no sense. I can still come up with no scenario in which they knew one another in any meaningful way (say, well enough to know each other's name), let alone that they were intimately involved in a conspiracy to murder the President (this holds true even if we view Oswald as someone trying to stop such a plan). In retrospect, it now seems to me paradoxical that Ruby's murder of Oswald led to theories that they were in league with one another—an apperception so persistent that it made its way into a major Hollywood movie (albeit as a hypothetical). More logically, it is evidence of the opposite.

Prayer Man strikes me as another instance wherein an open mind and critical thinking bring more to the table than lowly evidence. After all, we know Oswald bought the rifle and his prints are on it and ballistics show it was used to shoot the President and the Governor and that right there is a heckuva lotta evidence. Except …

… Except evidence can be fabricated. Forged. Manipulated. This is especially easy to do when you are the keeper of the evidence and get to decide what counts as evidence. And we know, beyond any doubt, that this kind of skullduggery happened in this case. Prayer Man, OTOH, is as real as you and me. He's a person (and yes, I think he's a "he"). He has a name, and no one has been able to authoritatively say what that name is. Which is curious, since we have many interviews with some of the other people standing in front of him. Maybe he really is just some rando who wandered in off the street and decided to stand behind some total strangers where he couldn't see a damn thing. This calls for some evidence! But lacking that evidence, logic and critical thinking lead to the only TSBD employee matching that description whom we can't locate at that moment. Interesting, isn't it, how the Prayer Man turns the tables on the evidence pedants? It was critical thinking which deconstructed the longstanding evidence, taken for granted by CTs and LNs alike, that makes Prayer Man possible. The state of evidence has been recontextualized.

LHO standing in front of the TSBD as shots were fired at the President's limo? Doesn't that sound crazy? It sure does. 

Zapruder's film of the assassination being quickly and secretly altered in subtle ways on the weekend of the assassination? Does that sound crazy? Maybe a little. But compared to the almost humorously macabre shuffling around of JFK's body—poking it with some new holes and covering up others, swapping out brains and propping him up for photos like Weekend at freakin' Bernie's—not so much.

There was motivation, means, and opportunity. I don't dismiss Zapruder alteration any more than I dismiss Prayer Man. Let's see what the future brings. Because if we can find a single definitive alteration (and right now, the back-of-the-head blotting looks like the strongest candidate), that opens the door to others. 

Maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps the digitization of the film has smoothed out the pixels, resulting in that uncannily smooth trapezoidal shape on the back of JFK's head. I am no 'expert.'

(By the way, don't trust experts).

On a related side note, I'm fascinated by an old thread over at the EF about the "Other Zapruder film" that several people over the years (including at least one member of that forum) claim to have seen. I think this has credibility because these witnesses all seem to independently describe the same thing. Feels like it's mostly taken for granted that this mysterious film is an "unaltered" version of the Z-film, but I have this instinct that it's more likely a different film altogether, one shot from a very similar viewpoint—hence, when viewing the extant Z-film many years later it's quite easy to believe you've seen two versions of the same thing. We know that there are (were) autopsy photos that went into the Great Memory Hole. Why not films as well?

I'm not terribly interested in debating Z-film alteration theories.


Fair enough but you then went onto add:


As above, I am not invested in any particular theory and can only say at present that I find the evidence of blotting out of the back of the head to be quite believable, not only because of technical feasibility and opportunity but because we know that concealing the damage to the back of the head was of the highest priority. And by highest priority, it is apparent that there was no lengths to which those controlling the situation would not go in order to accomplish that end. Consider that at least two (Humes, Boswell), likely three (including Finck), and probably more military officers who had taken the Hippocratic oath instantly became literal butchers and forgers—compromising the ethics of their profession in the gravest way—creating a lie and then propagating that lie with multiple perjuries across a span of decades, ultimately taking whatever they knew to the grave. That is really something. 

As far as this particular 'theory' (blotting out of the back of the head on the Z-film), it might gain more credibility if and when we are able to see the actual high-res blowups themselves, in sequence, one after another, to get a better look at how this blotting behaves. To the credit of those of you who are skeptical of this, I don't know why these images have not been released since they've been around for more than a decade now. Perhaps it has something to do with the copyright held on the Z-film itself. 



Maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps the digitization of the film has smoothed out the pixels, resulting in that uncannily smooth trapezoidal shape on the back of JFK's head. I am no 'expert.'


On a related side note, I'm fascinated by an old thread over at the EF about the "Other Zapruder film" that several people over the years (including at least one member of that forum) claim to have seen. I think this has credibility because these witnesses all seem to independently describe the same thing. Feels like it's mostly taken for granted that this mysterious film is an "unaltered" version of the Z-film, but I have this instinct that it's more likely a different film altogether, one shot from a very similar viewpoint—hence, when viewing the extant Z-film many years later it's quite easy to believe you've seen two versions of the same thing. We know that there are (were) autopsy photos that went into the Great Memory Hole. Why not films as well?


At a glance I'd say you are definitely interested in debating  the Z film alteration theory. 


And I apologise for engaging this discussion for more than one or two posts as it's way off topic.

Oswald bled out. I was going to post the autopsy report but it was posted above. There was 600 cc of blood floating around in his cavity when they opened him up. Ruby did the job very well. It's as simple as that.


Yes, it is that simple. Those injuries were never going to sustain life. The interesting part about that is the angle of the trajectory of the missile from the gun which killed him.
Either Ruby was an extremely lucky shot or he knew exactly how to position the weapon at point blank range. If the gun doesn't point upward he shoots through and through, possibly taking out a cop as well. To push the tip of the barrel into Oswald's gut facing upward was the clincher to Oswald's fate in my opinion. Now did Ruby have experience with the use of firearms? Fascinating thread this one.

According to Doug Horne (regarding the second NIPC briefing board production using the supposedly altered Z-film),

“According to Homer McMahon, Bill Smith came to NPIC in Washington, D.C., having already examined the home movie, expressing the opinion that only three (3) shots had been fired at the occupants of President Kennedy’s limousine on Elm Street, and that they had all been fired from the Texas School Book Depository by Lee Harvey Oswald.  Homer McMahon, who had been a trick-shot artist as a child, and a champion in NRA shooting competitions as a teenager, felt otherwise, and told Jeremy Gunn and me during our interview of him, on July 14th, 1997, that he believed 6 to 8 shots had hit President Kennedy, and that they had been fired from at least three directions.”

https://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/


So it would appear that the film alteration actions were for nought.


Why would the original Z-film be sent to NPIC (for the preparation of briefing boards by Dino Brugioni) if there was thought to be a need to alter it?


I found this history of BRIDGEHEAD which was the code name of the photo reconnaissance processing activities at the Hawkeyeworks. I have not read it in detail but it does give details of equipment they used/invented over the course of the program between the late 1950s and the early 2000s.


While color film was not used in satellite reconnaissance until the mid 1960s, Appendix 7 does list equipment denoted as “Ragdoll” that had the capability of producing color slides for briefing boards. Which raises the question of why was the NPIC needed to make the briefing boards for the Z-film(s)? 


[url=https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/history/csnr/programs/docs/Bridgehead Eastman Kodak]https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/history/csnr/programs/docs/Bridgehead%20Eastman%20Kodak%20Company.pdf?ver=2019-03-29-103653-233&timestamp=1553870223588[/url]

Interesting post absinthe. 

You touch upon some fundamental issues ; confronting several controversial highly divisive issues,  articulating frustrations I ( and probably others) can relate to. 

As regards Z film alteration,  I remain deeply sceptical. The " black patch " obscuring  the avulsive " blow out " wound to the back of the head seems plausible. However,  some of the more fanciful claims: travelling mattes,  storyboarding,  fake Zapruders,  not to mention the hapless attempts to impugn by anomaly,quickly descended into  low rent  farce. Especially the latter  ;a process that introduced the JFK assassination research community to esoteric marvels, such as The Giant Housewife of Dallas, the curious case of the one legged dwarf spectator, magical hand clapping apron wearing assassin man, the Phantom Bridal Party of Dealey Plaza,  and more vanishing girls and women than Whitechapel circa autumn 1888, in fact,  the Great Zapruder Film Hoax had more in common with medieval bestiaries than the result of a serious research project...

Aside from the myriad technical issues and the bitter internecine feuding it's caused, the theory itself seems,  imho at least,  not only counter productive but counter intuitive. 

Why seek to impugn the single most potent piece of pro conspiracy evidence? Using such amateurish,  sometimes bumbling,  almost laughable methods and highly questionable " experts "?

Healy, their go to technical guy, fucked up the very basics. Unaware of the daytime loading procedure,  the film stock, making a series of embarrassingly clumsy blunders. 

If I thought they were actually serious,  looking for the truth,  whatever the consequences,  I would applaud them,  but I think their motivations were far less high minded. Fetzer, beneath his bloated sluglike proto academic exterior, was nothing more than a grubby tabloid sensation monger and self styled iconoclastic enfant terrible. 

This case has been wildly over complicated and made virtually unsolvable by decades worth of obfuscation,  deception and a seemingly never ending conveyor belt of fake witnesses,  hucksters and purveyors of snake oil,  touting their miraculous solutions. 

I avoid the medical evidence because : A I don't possess the requisite professional qualifications B because it has been turned into a toxic waste dump . 

Best Evidence,  imho, was the JFK assassination revamped to fit snugly into the prevailing pop culture zeitgeist: slasher films, blood and gore video nasties and hack authors,  peddlers of dreadful shlockfests,  barely worth a penny,  recast as auteurs ( the late Mr Lifton should have thought about suing Channel 4, as Garth Marengi 's Dark Place,  a wonderfully note perfect pastiche of 70s/ 80s style horror was a visual homage to Best Evidence,  I could so easily have pictured Lifton,  complete with a natty medallion/ chunky sweater combo beneath his scrubs,  a vulpine gleam in his tinted bifocals and his ACME Bookhout 63 Assassins Choice toupee shimmering,  battling with waves of zombie Secret Service agents,  hiding in the paper mache forest,  newly sprouted round the Hellmouth beneath Ward 10, as his ravishing blonde permanently waved PA, Miss Vary ( c'mon, who else?) looks on admiringly,  imagining her fingers running through the carefully trimmed merkin she picked up from the dry cleaners yesterday)

A macabre fantasia,  turned into a full blown symphony of horror by his acolyte, Horne. 

Imho Prayerman has the potential to finish the job the Z film started. 

I applaud the cautious circumspect evidence based approach. The careful accumulation of complementary evidence. And the integrity and the honesty to admit, that,  until definitive scans emerge,  an element of doubt remains. 

Caveats and disclaimers aside,  surely the only serious responsible approach,  remaining fully cognizant of the potentially paradigm shifting ramifications,  when footage appears to show the accused assassin standing in the shadows when the shots were being fired, is to concentrate on getting the first generation prints released 

It seems like an absolute no brainer 

And the ultimate antidote to the decades of deception,  showboating and speculating. 

As JFK Case rightly says upstream the case has spawned a grisly subculture,  supporting not just one, but several competing cottage industries. 

Each one dedicated to selling us all their particular version of the truth 

Anyone interested in buying a book of James Files ' poetry? 

Ode to A Picket Fence 

I had a gun in a bag
I smoked a fag
Standing in the mud
Aimed at his spud
Saw Chuckies hit
And Jackie's tits
Before I shot
I got very hot


Or how about some of Chauncey Holt's paintings?

To answer absinthe's original question,  personally I can't imagine Oswald knowing Ruby.  Of course,  it's most certainly possible,  but now,  60 years later,  having to peel away the decades worth of bullshit,  what Armstrong in particular did, playing games with the evidence,  butchering the facts, misquoting witnesses,  Dorothy Marcum remains one of the most egregious examples,  was deplorable,  I think the question is now all but unanswerable. 

Prayerman isn't some magical panacea,  if the footage never existed Oswald would be no less innocent,  but it does have the potential,  the unique potential,  to nudge the arc of the universe a little further towards justice. 

Having the power ( perhaps) to answer one key question definitively. 

Will this breach cause the walls to come tumbling down? Or will a limited hangout be hung up? Replacing Oswald's face on one of the banners,  floating ominously above the sharp,  jagged turrets of the Dark Tower 

Only the benevolent Lord Armstrong,  in all his omnipotence and his wisdom knows ...

RUBY DISCLAIMS KNOWING OSWALD.

https://www.nytimes.com/1964/01/22/archives/ruby-disclaims-knowing-oswald-tells-of-trip-to-cubadrops-request.html



DALLAS, Jan. 21 — Jack Ruby denied today that he had ever met Lee H. Oswald before killing him.
Ruby spoke distraughtly as he appeared at a bail hearing, which ended when his attorneys withdrew their request that he be released on bond.
At an impromptu news conference Ruby also denied that he went to Cuba five years ago to sell supplies to the Government of Fidel Castro.
He said he went there early in 1959 for a brief vacation. His plan to export goods to Cuba collapsed earlier for lack of financing, he explained.
He termed details of his trip, as presented by the prosecution, “fabrications.”
Ruby's description of the Cuban episode was jumbled and difficult to follow. He was posing for photographers before the hearing, when reporters questioned him.


The attorney at his side, Joe H. Tonahill, made no attempt to stop him from answering. Pale and agitated, Ruby recalled that the United States was on harmonious terms with Cuba at his visit. Jack Paar, the television performer, and other entertainment figures were in Cuba about that time, he said.

Knowing that Cuba was “a new country opening up,” he said, he previously tried to communicate with a Houston businessman about exporting such products as fertilizer and jeeps to the island, “but I never got to first base.”



“I wanted to get out of the beer business, to be honest with you,” the 52‐year‐old night club proprietor added.

He said he had gone to Cuba by way of New Orleans. In Havana, he said, he stayed at the apartment of a friend, L. J. McWillie.

He said the Cuban police had questioned him extensively —“they have a little Gestapo there.”

Asked about any previous contacts with Oswald, the accused assassin of President Kennedy, Ruby declared: “I never spoke to Lee Oswald in my life. I never saw him or knew of him.”





Reports suggesting that Ruby knew Oswald before the shooting last Nov. 21 have been circulated in Dallas. Ruby, who is charged with first‐degree murder. became more nervous and excited as he spoke. Unexpectedly, he said:“The word angry is not in my vocabulary. I was more remorseful than angry.”




Asked what he had meant. he said that after the assassination of President Kennedy he had often been described as angry. Ruby was swallowing repeatedly; he had become pale and was trembling; tears came to his eyes.

He replied in a high, choked voice: “I can't understand how a great man like that can be lost.” Mr. Tonahill cut off further questions.

The defense was understood to have expected that Judge Joe B. Brown would deny the re—quest for bond. The lawyers withdrew the petition to avoid beginning the case with a setback that would have implied, under Texas law, that Ruby might receive the death penalty. As the hearing ended they filed a brief requesting that the trial be moved outside Dallas.



“Rightfully or wrongfully,” the defense argued, “the Dallas community has been blamed for the assassination of the President. Rightfully or wrongfully, the Dallas community has been blamed for allowing the shooting of the assassin.



“Representatives of the Dallas community have expressed self ‐ recrimination feelings. Within Dallas County it is the Dallas community, not Jack Ruby, that is on trial.”

The brief also cited a “general animosity” against Ruby, “incited and aided by adverse publicity.” as a reason that he could not receive a fair trial in Dallas County.

Twenty‐one other reasons were given, including “antiSemitism against Ruby, sparked by publicity that his name had been changed from Rubenstein,” and “adverse local press stories carrying innuendos of conspiracy between Ruby, Oswald and Communists.”



After a consultation with Henry Wade, Dallas District Attorney, and Melvin M. Belli. Ruby's chief defense attorney. Judge Brown said he would consider the petition for a change of venue Feb. 10. The opening of the trial was set for Feb. 17.

Mr. Belli said the bail nearing had enabled him to draw out some of the prosecution's evidence and to make public medical and mental reports on Ruby.



“We were able to show that there was no premeditation,” he contended.

The six witnesses called by the defense today included four members of the Dallas Police Department, an assistant district attorney and a rabbi of Ruby's congregation.

The rabbi, Dr. Hillel Silverman, testified that before the shooting of Oswald he believed Ruby needed psychiatric attention, but had not recommended it.

William Alexander, who is prosecuting the case with Mr. Wade, was called by the defense. He testified that he knew Ruby 12 years.

He said he did not consider the defendant emotional or unstable.

If tests on Ruby before the trial indicate physical brain damage, he said, he will change his evaluation of the case.

For those who like to look at the Z film, here is every single frame as individual files and then the ZIP file you can download. I've put the frames onto a timeline and played around with them. As I've mentioned here and elsewhere, I just don't see anything fake in the film.

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/

What I see is simply, he looks over sharply to his right and then waves when those women yelled out to him ("over here"; I think this is backed up in the record too somewhere); car continues on and first shot is right after he appears from the sign - to me, looks like frontal throat shot hits and then right after that, back shot (if you watch it, you can see force of that bullet pushing him forward like a hand is on his back pushing him); then Connolly is hit and it really matches up with JBC's statement; then nothing until head shot(s); and on to the hospital.

Gerda Dunkel made an interesting video (I think it's still on YT) of someone rising up from the car seat during the final stages of the movie. I'm guessing it was JBC. Doesn't mean anything but kind of oddly interesting.

As I've also mentioned, the film shows conspiracy - at least for me. The supposed gun on the 6th floor, which I think was never fired that day, was misaligned and never test fired before the murder. From what I read, you're supposed to test fire a gun when you assemble it. Anyway, as Castro said in above link, one person pulling off championship-calibre shooting like this is impossible with what the film shows. The smart move would have been to have multiple shooters to make sure the deed was done.

JFK_Case wrote:For those who like to look at the Z film, here is every single frame as individual files and then the ZIP file you can download. I've put the frames onto a timeline and played around with them. As I've mentioned here and elsewhere, I just don't see anything fake in the film.

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/

What I see is simply, he looks over sharply to his right and then waves when those women yelled out to him ("over here"; I think this is backed up in the record too somewhere); car continues on and first shot is right after he appears from the sign - to me, looks like frontal throat shot hits and then right after that, back shot (if you watch it, you can see force of that bullet pushing him forward like a hand is on his back pushing him); then Connolly is hit and it really matches up with JBC's statement; then nothing until head shot(s); and on to the hospital.

Gerda Dunkel made an interesting video (I think it's still on YT) of someone rising up from the car seat during the final stages of the movie. I'm guessing it was JBC. Doesn't mean anything but kind of oddly interesting.

As I've also mentioned, the film shows conspiracy - at least for me. The supposed gun on the 6th floor, which I think was never fired that day, was misaligned and never test fired before the murder. From what I read, you're supposed to test fire a gun when you assemble it. Anyway, as Castro said in above link, one person pulling off championship-calibre shooting like this is impossible with what the film shows. The smart move would have been to have multiple shooters to make sure the deed was done.

If the throat shot was from the front, where do you think it originated and where did it end up (did it exit the back, stop in the body where it remains or get removed prior to the autopsy)?

Fully agree that the medical evidence is a mess which I generally stay away from.