Friday, February 26, 2021

Much progress has been made on my next movie, The Pro Bono Watchman, starring Mike Gassaway. We have cast the very important role of 6 year old Bonnie, and she is going to be played by Kariana Karhu, who is a very up and coming child actress. She has acted in two films, and she even appeared in a Super Bowl commercial. 

I mentioned a while back that I needed to write a song for the film. And I mentioned how daunting it is to sit down at the piano with a blank piece of paper and a pencil and try to come up with something. 

And that blank piece of paper is about as daunting as looking up at Mt. Everest. And I'll tell you honestly that to me, the most curious and intriguing kind of genius that there is is the genius of musical composition. That's the kind of genius that I wish I had and which fascinates me the most. In other words, Einstein, sure, he was no slacker, but I'm much more interested in knowing what endowed George Gershwin and Irving Berlin with their talents than Albert Einstein.

But, in just that manner, with a blank piece of paper and a pencil, I did come up with a song for The Pro Bono Watchman. And in the movie, 6 year old Bonnie is going to to dance to the song for her father. It's title is: You're Loving Me Lately.

To my longstanding enemies who issue dislikes to everything I do, please restrain yourselves this time because it involves a young girl who is pouring herself into learning an elegant dance for this song. This one time, please, just don't do it. And I thank you.

Here now, after gargantuan effort, is You're Loving Me Lately. The image is that of our wonderful vocalist, Christy Mims.

Tuesday, February 23, 2021

 I mentioned that LIFE magazine did not include the infamous Frame 313 of the Zapruder film in its display on November 29, 1963: the fatal head shot. But, the fact is: they also did not mention the fatal head shot. Their narrative said that JFK was hit behind the sign, and then Connally was hit with a separate shot after that. And that's all they said about the shots. They mentioned nothing about JFK being shot again after an interval of time. They just said that after a while he collapsed into his wife. 

And in the frames they published- in the way they published them- it's hard to tell that anything else happened to him. And it was obviously their intent to avoid stating or implying that he was shot again.

Now, why did they do that? Was it because they were afraid they would run out of shots? They knew already that there were just 3 bullet cartridges on the 6th floor. So, they knew that the total number of shots could not exceed three. They only mentioned two, and I think that at that stage, they didn't want to commit themselves about the third shot. They wanted to leave their options open. They wanted to wait and see how the rest of the story was going to evolve. 

And I think it attests to that red splotch of 313 not being there. Because: if it were there, they would have known that a shot happened, and it would be futile to deny it. So, they would have admitted it and published it. 

Another weird thing is that they mentioned that the film shows that JFK was smiling and waving at the crowd before he passed behind the sign and got shot. But, they didn't publish any frame of him smiling and waving at the crowd.  Not a one. So, why the heck not?

It's because they had it, but it wasn't in the right form for them to use. It took a while to make it suitable. It was a picture in which he was smiling and waving high on the hill, and then he stopped smiling and waving- before he got to the sign. They didn't want that to be the story. They wanted it that he smiled and waved until he got to the sign, and then everything happened behind the sign. But, by October 1964, they had the frame reconditioned to represent what they wanted. 

So, this is the frame they published in October 1964. They didn't publish it in November 1963 because it took a long time to build this from disparate elements, rather like Mr. Potato Man. And this really is a ridiculous image. That's the top of the hill there. Those people at the top of the frame are on Houston  Street. This has got everything compacted. It's all squeezed together. There is no way that sign would intrude on an image of the top of Dealey Plaza.  They messed with this severely, but they didn't do it in November 1963. But, they had it ready by October 1964, and in it went. 

Monday, February 22, 2021

I now have the November 29, 1963 LIFE magazine with many frames from the Zapruder film, and it confirms what I have been saying. 

It contains 31 frames from the film, but they left out the most important ones- the most incriminating ones. There are two huge gaps in which they skipped over portions of the film. The first gap goes from frame 162 to 217. Note that they published grainy black and white frames in the magazine. 

So, that's the last frame they show before the limo is on the other side of the sign. But, in the film we have today, he waves at the spectators before he passes behind the sign. So, why didn't they include that? You know that I'm a screenwriter, and that wave at the crowd is a fantastic story element. Nobody would leave that out if they had it. They showed it in October '64. So, why didn't they show it in November '63? It's the most important frame prior to him disappearing behind the sign. I'm thinking that perhaps they didn't have it in November, that they had to fabricate it. 

What comes next in the existing film is JFK puts his hand over his face. Nobody talks about it, but that's what's there. 

The above isn't real. JFK didn't do that. He must have had a distraught look on his face. He was shot in the back although just with an ice dart. But, he was definitely not having a good time, so they covered up his face with that hand. I can understand why they didn't publish it- with or without a hand. The next frame they published was Z-217.

You notice that this frame doesn't show anything. They might as well have waited until we could see JFK or at least Connally. So, they probably published this just to reduce the size of the span that they were leaving out. 

The other big gap occurs from  Z-270 to Z-322.

That's right; it goes from one to the other. And that means they left out Brehm and his son, plus Jean Hill and Mary Moorman, and most importantly, they left out the fatal head shot. 

Now, why would they leave all that out? And if they had frame 313 as we know it today with the splotch of blood over the side of his face at the instant of impact, why wouldn't they include it? It must be that they didn't have it.  As I have been saying, that must have been concocted. 

All the rest of what they published shows Jackie climbing onto the back of the limo. The final published frame shows Clint Hill just starting to climb aboard. So, it's mostly just Jackie on the back of the limo. 10 published frames of Jackie on the back of the limo. 

They never mentioned Zapruder or anything about the source of the film. In their narrative, they mention JFK waving at the crowd until he disappeared behind the sign, but again, they didn't show it. Their writing about it shows that they wanted to sell it. So again, their not publishing any frames of him waving suggests strongly that they didn't have them yet. Either that, or his waving came much earlier, long before he reached the sign, which they cut out, and they had to do some very complicated film surgery, but after November 29.   

I have said many times that they did not do all the alterations to the Zapruder film in a weekend or a week. By October '64, they had a frame of JFK waving. They also had a frame that included Brehm. And they also published Z-313 with the red splotch in October '64. That should tell you that they didn't have that frame in November '63. If they could publish it in October '64, why couldn't they publish it in November '63?

So, they left out two huge swaths of the film that we have today. But, I'm sure they already did a lot of work to it. JFK still gets to the freeway sign too soon. So, that was a swath they cut out for good. It was never coming back. 

This is a great find because it shows their criminal intent to manipulate their readers and edit the story of what actually happened. And it also proves that other alterations were made after this. 

Friday, February 19, 2021

Oswald supposedly shot a single bullet that traversed the bodies of two men,  going through 15 inches of human tissue,  bursting 2 bones, and going through through 7 layers of clothing and 5 layers of skin. Yet, this guy shot a wild hog in the head with it using the same make and model rifle at only 40 yards, and it didn't even go through the hog's head. Tells you why they never tested the Single Bullet Theory using carcasses, which they easily could have done.  

Thursday, February 18, 2021

I don't know exactly where the Zapruder film was altered. Some say it was at a secret CIA photo lab in Rochester NY, but it may have been at multiple places, and over a period of years. But, it was surely a top-down operation. The CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center was a euphemism. They were just as bent on photographic manipulation as interpretation. And the work that was done at this level, and with so much at stake, surely went to the top. Do you really think that CIA artists were working on the Zapruder film in Rochester without the approval of Arthur Lundahl, who was Dino Brugioni's boss at the NPIC? That Lundahl and Brugioni were bamboozled along with everyone else? The CIA is a quasi-military organization. 

So even if the work was done in Rochester, it was done under the auspices of Lundahl and Brugioni. The existence of the Zapruder film was a national security emergency, and responsibility for what to do about it had to go to the top. It wasn't done by CIA "renegades" who tricked their bosses. 

I'll draw a parallel to my research on the Moorman photo, and on that I had a physicist helping me; one with a specialty in Optics, who lectured other physicists on Optics. And he determined that the Moorman photo was taken at a diagonal angle from behind. Mary always claimed and demonstrated that she took her photo when the Kennedys were right across from her. So, photographically, her angle was perpendicular, not diagonal from behind. 

Mary said that after she went home with her photo late that Friday night, and well after dark, that they kept coming back to her to "borrow" her photo. Why did they do that, when they not only made copies, but made a negative of it? So, what did they need her original for, again and again? They needed it in order to alter it. And finally, they gave up on it and replaced it with a crop of one that was taken at a diagonal angle from behind by Babushka Lady. 

And that's when the white thumbprint went on. You don't believe the story that that was a mishap, do you? 

But, the point is that it happened over time, we need to stop thinking that the Zapruder film was edited within days. It may have begun within days; easy stuff, like removing frames to hide the slowing and near-stopping of the limo. But, when you consider the totality of what was done to the film, there is no way they did that within days. There were probably aspects of film manipulation that didn't exist, the development of which were spurred by the needs that they had. For instance, they moved the Croft people, who were African-American, who were down the hill past the Obelisk, up almost all the way to the corner.

Look at this frame 21. You see the short, AA woman in the blue dress, right? I put an arrow to her.. She is the same woman as in Croft. Look how close she is to the corner.

But, they are in different locations. In Zapruder, she is at the top of the hill, close to the intersection. In Croft, she is down below the Obelisk. Croft is the one that is accurate. But, Croft was highly manipulated too. JFK was hit in the back a split-second before Croft was taken. If you watch the Z-film closely, you can see that JFK stopped waving before he reached the freeway sign. And the Z-film shows him putting his hand over his face, which nobody ever said he did. 

But, notice that he's not waving in Croft either. And he isn't waving in the Betzner or Willis photos either, and the limo was moving. So, for all that distance, JFK had stopped waving. He was a politician on a political outing, so why would he stop waving? Because: he was shot in the back. That happened high on the hill, and the Z-film showed it, thus destroying the SBT. Hence, they had to do Frankenstinian surgery on that film. It wasn't done in a week or a month or even a year. 

This is a lot to serve-up at one time, so I'm going to quit. But, everything I have said here is rock-solid. The biggest alteration to the Zapruder film was cutting out a huge swath of JFK riding down that hill shot in the back. The area of the plat in red is the part that they cut out of the Zapruder film, which they did because it showed him reacting to being shot in the back, where he stopped smiling and waving and acquired that "quizzical" look on his face that Jackie described.  

This is the infamous frame 313 from the Zapruder film, supposedly the split-second the fatal head shot impacted his head, but I don't believe in the authenticity of this image, and neither should you. 

So, what exactly is that supposed to be? It can't be the moment of impact because a full metal jacket bullet would enter the head cleanly. There certainly would not be an explosion at the site of entry. If anything, there would be an explosion at the site of exit. So, is that what we are supposed to be seeing? But, look at the location, It's centered on the right temple area. And if JFK had an exit explosion there, how could his autopsy photo look like it does? That area is intact. 

Witnesses did say that his head "exploded." They used that word. But, they didn't say it exploded there. Officer Cheyney said that he was splattered with JFK's brain matter from the blow-out in back. I think the word he used was "soaked." But, he was behind JFK on the left side. So how could there be an explosion at the right front? 

That red splotch isn't real. That has to be paint; paint that is still on the original Zapruder film, to this day, if it still exists. But, there's no paint on the copies. And that explains why the National Archives was willing to send copies out to anyone the Zapruders designated, but when the family finally asked for the film back, that's when they found out that they didn't own it at all.  

But, what story were they trying to tell when they painted that red splotch on the frame? And I think that, most likely, "they" were  Dino Brugioni and his team at the CIA's "National Photographic Interpretation Center."  Just think: he wrote a book called Photographic Fakery, which I have and have read twice, in which he shows all these examples of photographic fakery starting with the Civil War, but then when he gets to the JFK assassination and the Zapruder film, he went on, at length, about why all those images are real and authentic. Methinks he defended it too much. 

But, why did they do it this way, giving us this dramatic red splotch? And the red has to be blood, right? It isn't muzzle flash, not when the gun was so far away. And, it was followed by the infamous "back and to the left" movement of JFK's head, that we heard Kevin Costner, as Jim Garrison, say over and over in JFK the movie. 

If you believe that the fatal head shot came from behind the fence on the Grassy Knoll, as many do, including me, then the location of the red splotch does correspond approximately to where he was hit, and the movement of his head does correspond to the movement that followed. You can read Head Shot, by naval physicist G,. Paul Chambers, who explains why, according to Physics, that has to be true.

But, the question is: why did they leave all that in the Zapruder film if they were going to claim that the fatal head shot came from the rear?

I believe they left it in to authenticate the whole film. They knew, in advance, that once it went public that conspiracy researchers and the general public would think that the shot came from the front. They knew that they would use the film to vouch for that. And that is what happened. Remember, the HSCA was formed in response to the public outcry that followed the airing of the Zapruder film. So, why did Dino and them do it that way? If they were going to spend years altering the Zapruder film, why do it that way?

They did it that way because they knew that that is what would attract focus and attention. And they had a plan for it. They were going to claim that even though his head moved back and to the left, that he was still shot from the rear, from the 6th floor window, that under some circumstances, a shot from the rear can do that to an object, such as a head. It's no more absurd than NIST telling us that "office fires" can cause a steel-framed building to collapse. But, they decided that they would rather deal with that, and the fallout from that, if it would authenticate the film, and keep people from focusing on what they cut out, which was JFK getting shot in the back high on the hill. 

Look: they figured that people can be bamboozled about Physics because that's over their head. It's too complex; too brainy. But simple Arithmetic is something that anyone can do, even a moron. So, people can count, and if they knew that there was a shot that missed that grazed James Tague in the cheek, and a shot that hit Kennedy in the back high on the hill, and then another shot that hit Kennedy behind the sign, and even if they said that that shot also hit Connally and did all the damage to him, that you have to leave one more shot to account for the fatal head shot, and that means 4 shots. And they knew that Oswald could not possibly have gotten off 4 shots, even theoretically. 

So, the bottom line is that they would rather argue with researchers about the Physics of it than the simple Arithmetic of it. They had to get rid of that shot to the back. There was no room for it in the count. So, they did major surgery on the Zapruder film, moving the sign up so that JFK got to it right away. The limo rounded the corner, passed the Depository, and then right away it got to the sign, and JFK disappeared behind it: unhurt. And he emerged from it: hurt. That is the story they wanted to tell. It's the story they needed to tell. 

So, they left the back and to the left in to keep the conspiracy crowd preoccupied, to keep them away from noticing what they did earlier in the film to shorten the distance to the sign, but why did they add the red splotch? It's because the red splotch covers up what was actually shown. It's like a curtain. Apparently, the raw film really showed that the shot came from behind the fence on the Grassy Knoll. Even though the red splotch looks bad, apparently, the raw film looked worse- from their perspective. 

So, it was all very calculated. After much consideration, they realized it was their best recourse to do what they did. At least, it saved the Single Bullet Theory, and they knew damn well that they were f_cked without that. 




Wednesday, February 17, 2021

I just learned that Robert David Steele, the former CIA officer, whom I have talked to about Oswald, is an advocate for something I have been saying a long time: that Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. was murdered. You can read about it here:

Steele emphasizes that it just so happened that Elliot Roosevelt, the son of the President, was flying the follow-up plane?  When you think about how vast the U.S. Military was during WW2, for that juxtaposition of famous names to just happen seems unlikely. And I didn't care for Roosevelt's remark afterwards, that "they must have tripped a wife."  Seems rather flippant, doesn't it? But, the fact is that no official cause of the disaster was ever determined- or even sought. Does that bother you? It bothers me. 

And if it's true that Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. was murdered, then think about what it means. It means that the idea of killing Kennedys existed long before JFK became President. And since JFK did exactly what his older brother intended to do: run for Congress, did they consider killing JFK then? Don't brush it off. They may have considered it. But, they may have decided that it was just too risky, that it might generate renewed interest in what happened to his brother.   

Let's face it: if both brothers died in a freak accident, it's got to make you wonder if they were accidents.

But, by 1963, enough time had passed, and the "lone nut assassin" was so very different, that they thought no one would associate the two, and they were right.

And if you have reluctance about this, just remember that the facts in this case stink. We're not talking about reopening an investigation; we're talking about opening it.