"The Killing of a President" Robert J. Groden, Viking Penguin Books,
ISBN 0-670-85267-8

    This book is a nice collection of many of the more obscure
photographs relating to the assassination. Many of the images are
interpreted by Mr. Groden. Based on his position as Staff
Photographic Consultant to the House Select Committee on
Assassinations, he had access to much information and data most
interested persons have no access to.
    His previous efforts relating to the assassination led me to
think twice about purchasing this book, as his interpretations in
"High Treason" do not present a version of the facts that holds up to
scrutiny.
    Inspecting some of the interpretations in TKOAP, we'll begin with
"Black Dog Man"the "person" seen at the south end of the retaining
wall running from the pergola to Elm. This "person" is said to be one
of the possible shooters, although not credited with any of the 6
shots Groden details.
    The pictures on page 33, 37, 193, are images from the Muchmore
film.  Note the guy on the steps, wearing a brown sweater, hands in
pockets, and wearing a cap.
    Page 56, hustle and bustle on the Grassy Knoll, and this guy is
sitting on the steps after the limo has sped to the hospital.
    Page 195, b/w top of the page, notice the edge of the retaining
wall and the foilage. Same page, color print of Z frame 413. See the
"Black Dog Man's" head.  That is the cap on the head of the person on
the steps from the pergola to Elm. The limo has passed the edge of
the wall as it would be seen from that vantage, but the Zapruder
camera is pointed too high to see the wall.
    A more subtle use of imagery to misdirect could hardly be
demonstrated than the effort on page 195.  The Groden photo at the
top the page is taken directly along the top of the retaining wall
from the pergola to the street.This is necessary to get the light
poles on Elm and Main to assume the same perspective as seen in Z
frame 414 and include the masking effect of the foilage. To get this
image in the film, Zapruder would have had to move from his 'perch'
along the top of the wall connecting that perch to the retaining
wall, while filming.
    The ledge along which this man subject to vertigo would have to
shuffle sideways while filming is about 6" wide at the top and about
10 feet long.
    If you take the image at the bottom of page 194 purporting to
show the field of view of the Zapruder frame and extend the line of
the retaining wall towards Elm, the closest lamp post in Z-414 is
directly in line with the wall. Yet the blue area purporting to be
the field of view of Zapruder's camera at this instant in time is
pointed well to the right of that location. There is no lamp post on
Elm in the area defined by Groden. The Fort Worth Turnpike sign would
be in the middle of that field of view. If you take the blue area and
flip it over on the line from the perch to the street you will see
the actual field of view for that frame.  The edge of the retaining
wall where "BDM" is alleged to have been then moves to the extreme
lower right of the Z-frame. The head in the Z-frame then becomes one
of the three persons standing on the pergola steps, wearing a
baseball cap, leaning to his left and looking down.  The bush in the
Groden photograph is NOT the bush at the end of the retaining wall
that we see in the Z-frame, it's the small tree in the notch between
the perch and the retaining wall close to Zapruder.  For this to be
in his field of view he would have had to squat as well as walk along
the narrow top of the wall towards the pergola. As his secretary was
there to steady him because of vertigo, this manuver is extremely
unlikely to have occurred, as well as no such motion of the cameraman
having been detected over the years.
    The Fort Worth Turnpike Turnpike sign prominent in the Groden
photo doesn't show up in the Zapruder film until frame 418.  (1)

    In the Muchmore film of this time period, the guy in red is
amazed and freezes, while the guy whose head becomes "Black Dog Man"
in TKOAP just stands there, puzzled. The third person runs up the
steps into the Perogla. The other two sit and discuss it for awhile,
as seen in the later still photos.  Unusual for persons whose ears
have just had a high powered rifle fired directly over their heads.
Neither of them even begin to go to the fence where shots are alleged
to have come from, in the HSCA version, or glance toward the
retaining wall where "BDM" was said to have been.

    Fancy doings at the Dal-Tex building:
    In the interpretation of "Figure in the Dal-tex Window"
pp184-185, the two scrap views on page 184 of a photo along Houston
including the person seated on the Dal-tex fire escape are described
"Before the shots, the man sits, apparently calm....After the shots,
the man, startled, looks as if he has lost his balance.."
Certainly there's reason to doubt this interpretation. The man
changes his direction of observation. Period.
    The reconstruction of the image of a shooter in the window
directly beneath the feet of this person sitting on the fire escape
steps is interesting, if imaginary. At the time of this photo,
Altgens 6, TKOAP says there have already been shots fired from this
vantage point. Shot #1 and #4, yet the person sitting on the steps is
unaware of this activity directly beneath his feet.

        "The Backyard Photos", pp 168-171
    In the interpretations of the backyard photos, we see more
misdirection and misinformation.
    Notice the nose shadow in the yellow surrounded photograph with
the circles and arrows describing each one. (Sorry, Arlo.) Take the
chin shadow, falling diagonally across the neck. Let's say that this
is a real shadow. The sun is to Lee's left, he's actually looking
southwest in the afternoon. Now look at the nose shadow. Imagine that
prominent -tapered- nose being illuminated from the left as the chin
shadow might indicate. Noses ARE TAPERED, base to tip. They cast
tapered shadows. If the sun were directly on Lee's center, it would
indeed cast a shadow like the one we see.  But ALSO, because of the
shape of -that- nose, when the sun is where is it was that day,the
shadow will ALSO be tapered, and fall towards the center of his upper
lip, as we see.  Every shadow in those pictures shows the same
orientation of the sun. No fakery. The HSCA photo analysts arrived at
this same conclusion. (3)
    And as long as page 171 is open, just cast your glance to page
170, and see blatant trickery right in front of your very eyes!  When
you use a flash on a camera outside, it is used to provide a "fill
light" to soften the sun shadows. When used in a shady situation as
in the backyard recreation photos taken by DPD, the flash will add a
shadow to the photo.
    With the flash mounted on the right side of the camera, the
shadows it creates fall to the right of the foreground images. As we
see it leaves a shadow behind a person such as we see in the upper
right photograph on page 170. This shadow is claimed to be a result
of compositing, instead of a real effect of the orientation of the
camera, flash and subject. All the items in that photograph are
similarly edged by a shadow from the flash on the camera.
This is not compositing. Claiming it "could be" is less than honest.

         "Behavior of the Single Bullet",pp 125-139
    This section presents two erroneous versions of the Single Bullet
Theory, and creates a non-problem with some of the evidence.
CE 543, the empty cartridge found at the sniper's nest, in a damaged
condition.  The ding in the lip of a cartridge as displayed in TKOAP
and the HSCA documentation results from the empty cartridge's lip
rubbing against the aperture in the action that the bolt closes off
when forward. As the cartridge is withdrawn by the action of rotating
and pulling the bolt to the rear, the extractor claw in the bolt
pulls the cartridge out of the chamber.  This extractor is purpose
designed to remove the spent shell and at the extreme rear motion of
the bolt, the ejector built into the action will flip the shell away
from the base of the bolt to the rifle's right side.  If the
procedure is done in haste, the upper right side of the shell's lip
can be forced against the inside of the chamber aperture and bent
inward because the extractor is trying to flip it out to the side,
but there's interference with the action. This is the damage seen on
the cartridge from the 6th floor, and the test cartridge.  CE-543 and
Figure 2, HSCA.
    It is damage due to extraction.
    It is said to be damaged by a rapid forward motion of the bolt in
TKOAP.  When the bolt is moved forward to chamber a new round, the
spent round is not retained by the bolt/extractor mechanism. The
spent round is on the ground,near the other spent rounds. If by some
mischance the spent round is NOT released by the bolt/extractor, and
remains in the mechanism when the bolt is pressed forward, the damage
to the shell will be quite different than what we see. The gun will
in truth "jam" and in the process the spent shell will be damaged
around the base.  It will take some effort to clear, and if the bolt
is then seated without another full rearward cycling, the chamber
will be empty. And there will be a spent round with exterior damage
to the outsides of the shell.  Cycling the bolt of such a rifle is
typically a violent pull to the rearward extreme of the motion
possible in the bolt mechanism.
    In the M-C the ejector is a collared pin positioned over and
inside the sear spring. It extends upward thru a hole in the
receiver. A long tapering groove cut in the front half of the bolt
permits the ejector to rise as the bolt is opened and contact the
head of the case and push it out to the right of the rifle. Neither
case entered into evidence demonstrates any damage except that due to
extraction. Nor was the rifle noted for any type of 'jamming' in the
testing that resulted in the damage equivalent to CE-543.

     "Front Entry Wound" pp 80-83,179
    Groden goes into great detail explaining the retouching of the
Fox photos hiding the real injuries.
There is a color image of the rear head wound in TKOAP, page 81. If
you lay a scale on the overexposed image of the scale in the photo,
measure down .35 inches and to the right .25", that pinkish oblong IS
the rear wound.  The object to the right of the autopsists thumb is
the bone flap attached to the scalp that is directly in front of
JFK's ear in the Z-frame on the facing page. The claim is made that
the head in the Fox color photo is totally intact. The autopsist has
his fingers IN the head wound, to hold it for the camera.
HSCA specifically points to the area mentioned as the rear wound of
entrance.
    The b/w photo on page 81 of the skull shows the 'semi-circular
notch' HSCA determined to be part of the exit wound. The orientation
of that photo is very difficult to determine. It may be flopped in
printing. The Fox photo on page 83 also shows the entrance wound.
Measuring 2.3 inches from the lower left corner and .1 inch up shows
the wound.
    Again a very puzzling description for this image, where the bone
flap is said to be "laid back along the head in a closed position"
when it is obviously dangling outside by the scalp skin as it is in
the photo on page 81.
    The photos and drawings on page 179 show the rear wound again.
The color photo is taken from a different angle to the rear of the
head than the photo on page 81. The drawing on page 179 is a direct
tracing of the photo on page 81 not the photo on page 179. The text
notes the difference between the two images on page 179 claiming the
differences indicate forgery of the photo, and an "added" head wound
to the drawing. This is the worst kind of misdirection.

    The Harper fragment is presented on page 83 as coming from the
occipital area, when HSCA determined it is parietal bone from the
upper part of the skull.  (2)

    The Z-frame on page 81 (Z337) is claimed to show a "volcano
shaped exit wound in the rear of the skull". This is obviously
incorrect as no such wound can be seen in ANY Zapruder frame, nor was
one found at the autopsy.

    Looking at page 25 in the "Shot #2" sequence, The Umbrella Man is
shown holding his umbrella.  The text states "Since the umbrella is a
blur, we can deduce that it is moving rapidly moving vertically."
What is REALLY in that picture as in easily seen in the vertical
"motions" of all the overexposed highlights in the photo is the
CAMERA moved during the exposure. Surely the limo didn't leap up or
down a foot at that time.
    The "blur" on the umbrella is produced by the motion of the
camera moving the point that the image of the umbrella appears on the
film.  As it does with all the similar areas of underexposure, this
creates a false shadow effect which can be misinterpreted as being
the result of the object's motion.  The umbrella is NOT in motion in
that photograph.

    In the Garrison section a positive identification of Shaw with
LHO is made by pointing to a doorway as proof of Shaw's
identification.  Certainly an odd method of doing that.

    "The Right Wing Keeps Watch", pp-196-197 states that Joseph
Milteer was in Dealey Plaza, with several photos of Milteer and an
eyeglass wearing person. Milteer was 5'4" tall. The eyeglass wearer
is quite taller, HSCA determining his height to be at least 5'10"
tall. Dallas is not noted for a large collection of shorter than
average persons which the photo at the top of page 197 would indicate
if Milteer was almost the tallest person in the photo.

    Page 199 presents a Dox drawing of the HSCA wound path thru JFK's
head. The statement is made that "..the official version of the
trajectory is completely wrong, or the head shot could not have come
from the depository."
    What is not presented at ALL is the orientation of the
president's head at the time of the shot, rotated and tilted to the
left as wecan see in the Z-film, so that the bullet does impact near
the center of the skull, but because of the actual orientation of the
head exits to the right of center.  Nothing mysterious or
conspiratorial at all.  A misrepresentation of the HSCA and WCR
findings at the very least.

    Looking at the picture of the gouge in the manhole cover, page
70, the large sign across Elm in the background dates that photo as
photo as post-1963, and was taken probably in 1988. The grass on the
infield had NEVER been mowed, and the mower had NEVER scratched
that cover, in all the intervening years.

    It is quite improper to use photos or any evidence seperated from
the event by the passage of tens of years as if that information was
contemporary with the event.

    All in all, TKOAP is a splendid collection of the photographs
everyone should have, to discuss the assassination.
    As a document of factual presentation of the information in those
photographs, it is a failure.
    Myths long debunked by investigative bodies are re-presented as
if there were reason to believe in them.
    Obvious misinterpretations of the information in the photographs
occurs for most of the photographic analysis.
    Some of it blatantly wrong, and as I pointed out, in some cases
subtle, but still wrong. The book is worth having for the images, but
the interpretive text is of no value whatsoever.
    As Groden participated in the HSCA investigation, his use of
myths that body discounted long after the conclusions of HSCA were
published is exceedingly strange, at the very least.

Paul J. Burke  74656,2333 04/28/94

  references:
 (1) ZF414.gif lib 12 shows a wide angle view of the environment forZ
frame 414.
 (2) HARPER.gif lib 12 for the placements per HSCA.
 (3) BYARD1-6.gifs lib 12 show the backyard photograph parameters,
     including the error in the HSCA conclusions.