ANOTHER LOOK

by

Stephen Peterson*

Aug 16, 1992

The 8mm film that amateur photographer Abraham Zapruder took of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963 is undoubtedly one of the most closely examined films in history. Although every facet of select frames1 has been the subject of much discourse over the intervening twenty-nine years, some frames have been relatively "silent". The observation of some of these frames are presented here for discussion and critical review. And while the examination of individual frames is necessary, their context with surrounding frames must be maintained to understand the flow of continuous motion.

These observations center on Texas Governor John B. Connally seated directly in front of the President in the open limousine. Throughout his wounding, the governor held a white Western-style hat which provides a visual aid in the study of his right hand and arm movements. An additional observation raises the possible 'discovery' of another face in the knoll area.

Observation #1

The Warren Commission Report states that all of Governor Connally's wounds were sustained coincident with the President's back and neck wound and by the same bullet, at or about frame 2102. Ballistics tests were conducted at the U.S. Army's Edgewood Arsenal in 19643, to measure the performance of the alleged murder weapon's 6.5 mm ammunition. Tests were set up using the distances from the alleged shooting position in the Texas School Book Depository to points of impact along the motorcade route on Elm Street. Various materials were used as targets to simulate the tissue and mass of the physical wound locations in the two victims. Bullet velocities were measured at the individual wound sites and recorded.

The bullet entrance velocity for the simulated Kennedy back wound was 1,904 feet per second, with a 125 feet per second loss of velocity upon exiting the President's neck4. This would leave a resulting velocity of 1,779 feet per second to traverse the 3 foot distance to Connally's back. Thus the approximate time between the President's back hit and the Connally back hit would be less than 0.002 seconds apart5. Keep this figure in mind as we review the pertinent frames.

As the limousine emerges from behind the Stemmons highway sign, we observe the following-

Frame 223- Kennedy still hidden behind the sign.

Connally seemingly unaffected, sitting upright, with	his right hand and hat out of view, presumably resting	on his lap.

Frame 224- Kennedy now becomes visible, his arm already rising in	reaction.

The area of Connally's right side jacket lapel appears	to jump outward away from his body, evidenced by the	significant reduction of visible white shirt between

the jacket lapels.

Frame 226- Connally's right arm and hat are now visible in the	midst of a rapid and upward 'jerk'.

Frame 227- blurred by camera motion.

Frame 228- the hat is at it's highest point in the film, being	held by the right hand in a near vertical position in	the right front quadrant opposite Connally's face.

Frame 229- the hat is rotated downward, pivoted at the wrist.

Frame 230- the hat was snapped an additional 40 degrees from	vertical and is held inverted nearly horizontal.

Analysis and discussion-

Observing the hat and hand in front of the Governor's face was a surprise, not only because it was such an extreme movement, but also because of the speed at which it moved. The elapsed time from one frame to the next is approximately 0.055 seconds (18.3 frames per second6). The time from the visible start of the rising Connally arm jerk (frame 226) to the point where the decending vertical motion stopped (frame 229) is 0.16 seconds. This extreme and rapid movement suggests that it was an involuntary reaction to some immediate physical trauma. Additionally, there was no reaction or sudden movement from the other occupants of the vehicle during this time, as one would expect in a shared experience, such as a fright response to a loud noise.

Starting at the point when the Connally arm reaction is first visible in frame 226, I then proceeded backward in time (lower frame numbers), looking for evidence or indication as to the cause of this reaction. Each individual frame was photographed and/or digitized and zoomed. It was at this time that the sudden jacket closing between frames 223 and 224 was noticed. Referring to the sketch of Connally's jacket made by Agent Frazier in the F.B.I. laboratory report7 revealed a notation of "#1 Hole" and an arrow pointing to the right front area of the jacket. This is precisely the area that appears to be suddenly displaced in frame 224, and thus provides a basis for this hypotheis that it was caused by the exiting bullet and tissue material from Connally's chest wound.

The time from this alleged point of impact to Connally in frame 224, to the point that his hat/hand reaches it's highest point (frame 228) is approximately 0.2 seconds. I believe that this immediate and involuntary movement is in reaction to, and consistent with, a hit in frame 224 of the posterior armpit area, with a corresponding chest exit.

It is probably prudent to accept the government's position that the President was first shot while Mr. Zapruder's camera view was obstructed by the highway sign, since we see the President already reacting as he emerges from behind it. For lack of opposing video evidence, we will even accept that the shot occurred in frame 210 as the government postulates. The time difference between frame 210 and the point that we see a physical material strike to Connally in frame 224 is 0.765 seconds. Contrast this figure with the single bullet figure of 0.002 seconds developed earlier, and it should be apparent that the two victims could not be hit by the same bullet. Nor could they be inflicted by the alleged murder weapon alone, as the government states that "...at least 2.3 seconds were required between shots."8

This case for two separate and distinct shots is consistent with all the actions viewed in the pertinent area of this film.

Observation #2

This observation addresses the frame 237-238 shoulder 'dip'. This popular scenario gives the impression that the right shoulder of Gov. Connally was in a relatively static position in frame 237 then within one frame, is driven rapidly downward several inches as the bullet slams into the posterior armpit area.

Analysis and discussion-

By observing the position, attitude and state of the governor's 'body language' in frames prior to frame 238, it is apparent that the governor had been subjected to trauma at a much earlier point in time. Frames 235 or 236 provides a good example.

On close examination, the dropping of the shoulder is part of a continuous reactive movement to an event that occurred many frames earlier. In relation to static points of reference, the frame 238 dip isn't remarkable when compared to corresponding motion in surrounding frames. The displacement of the dip in this frame, appears large due to the moving background behind and slightly above Connally's right shoulder. Mrs. Kennedy's lightly colored right arm was moving upward behind the governor's shoulder as she reached out toward her husband. This caused the illusion of a large downward movement of the shoulder between these two frames.

If you examine Mrs. Kennedy's right arm in frames 237, 238 and 239, this point becomes obvious.

Additionally, the declination angle of the posterior entrance wound to the anterior exit wound in Connally's torso was given as 25 degrees9. If there was any motion in the shoulder caused by the transfer of momentum from the bullet, the direction would be predominantly toward the front horizontally, with a much smaller downward component. But since the bullet passed through the body, even considering the smashing of a rib, there was probably insufficient transfer of momentum imparted to the body to drive the shoulder visibly in any direction.

Observation #3

Paraphrasing the medical report included in the Warren Commission Report10, "the governor's right radius bone was broken close to the wrist, with collateral severing of tendon and nerve."

Connally is seen holding his hat with his right hand in frame 230. This observation is commonly cited as proof that his wrist hasn't been hit yet.

However in frames 320-330, Connally is continuing to grasp the hat in his right hand. By extension, does this now prove that the wrist still hasn't been hit?

Analysis and discussion-

How do we square this observation with the belief that this severed tendon would preclude the grasping of an object? The following possibilities must be considered-

1. This severed tendon does not preclude grasping.

2. This severed tendon does preclude some grasping but wasn't	needed to grasp this object (i.e. palm/finger grip in lieu of finger/thumb or vice versa).

3. This tendon was not severed or otherwise rendered non-	functional.

4. This tendon was transected and would prevent grasping an	object in the same manner as exhibited in frames 320-330.

In cases 1 through 3, the evidence of Connally holding the hat in the 'later' frames 320-330 is inconsequential, and no inference can be drawn from it.

In case 4, logical extension would suggest that Connally didn't suffer a right wrist wound until after frame 330.

At the present time, I cannot determine any point of impact to the governor's wrist, or reaction from the governor to this wound, from this film.

Observation #4

This observation is of a face that I've named "Glassman" in frame 405. This is the only frame with three street lamp posts focused and roughly aligned in one frame. The face is observable in this one frame only, which is approximately 8 frames before the infamous "man in bush with rifle" (aka "bushman") frames. The image appears on the extreme bottom of the frame just to the left of the no parking sign attached to the closest lamp post. The mouth and chin are cut off by the bottom border of the frame and the face is in shadow. "He" appears to be wearing eyeglasses and a hat, looking downward and to the viewers' left. The small size and darkness of this image, even zoomed, renders it very difficult to discern, thus open to interpretation.

Analysis and discussion-

Perhaps this is one of the other bystanders in the vicinity of Emmett Hudson on the steps of the knoll. A size analysis of the head would be helpful in determining if the head size is consistent with possible bystander locations, and to approximate the distance of this figure from the camera. Perhaps researchers with access to commercial or professional grade video or photographic equipment can offer further insight and comment on these observations. I would be happy to assist in any way.

Conclusion

We are all susceptible to accepting easy "proofs" of evidence regarding various aspects of this case.

One of these is the shoulder "dip" of frames 237/238. Can we look at frame 236 and not believe that Connally was already reacting to trauma?

Can we emphatically state that the injury to Connally's wrist would not allow him to hold his hat in frame 230, then ignore his continued holding of the hat 100 frames later?

There is still much work to do, not the least of which is to determine precisely the extent and degree of any alterations that may have taken place on this film, which could impact past, present, and future observations.

I hope that this discussion will stimulate a continued examination of what is probably, even flawed as it is, our best evidence.

*1835 Newport Blvd., Suite G 182-184, Costa Mesa, CA 92627

Notes

1. Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964), p. 98. Cited hereafter as WCR. The individual film	frames were numbered.

2. WCR, p. 112.

3. Wound Ballistics of 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition, CRDL 3264 (U.S. Army Edgewood Arsenal, March 1964) Cited as AEAR.

4. AEAR, p. 13.

5. 3 feet/1,779 feet per second=0.001686 seconds.

6. WCR, p. 97, 1 frame/18.3 frames per second=0.05464 seconds.

7. Neutron Activation Analysis/JFK Assassination, Laboratory Work Sheet- Connally, (Federal Bureau of Investigation, April 1964), file copy p. 7.

8. WCR, p. 97.

9. WCR, p. 93.

10. WCR, p. 533, Commission Exhibit 392.