Post by Rob Caprio on Oct 8, 2018 22:27:02 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
www.insidehook.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/House_Committee_Assassinations_03_21_19-e1553649529792.jpg
The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) would take a more in-depth look at various films made of President John F. Kennedy’s (JFK) assassination than the Warren Commission (WC) did. One of the films came to the attention of the HSCA near the end of its two-year investigation and has caused controversy ever since regarding what it shows.
jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/bronson-1-full.jpg
The HSCA Says…Charles Bronson.
*****************************************
The importance of Charles Bronson’s film was that it showed the window the WC claimed Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was firing from just minutes before the assassination took place. The HSCA would write the following about the film in their report.
Quote on
The panel examined a motion picture of the southeast corner window of the depository taken a short time prior to the shots. While there is an impression of motion in the film, the panel could not attribute it to the movement of a person or an object and instead attributed the motion to photographic artifacts. The panel's finding were the same with respect to apparent motion in adjacent windows shown in the film.
There is evidence, a motion picture film made by Charles L. Bronson, that some independent researchers believe shows a figure or figures in the sixth floor depository window several minutes before the shooting. The film came to the attention of the committee toward the end of its investigation. Some members of the committee's photographic evidence panel did conduct a preliminary review (without enhancement) of the film. While motion was detected in the window, it was considered more likely to be a random photographic artifact than human movement. Nevertheless, the limited review was not sufficient to determine definitively if the film contained evidence of motion made by human figures. Because of its high quality, it was recommended that the Bronson film be analyzed further. (HSCA Report, p. 49)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0040a.htm
Quote off
What is a photographic artifact? Well, after some reading it appears it has to do with light exposure as too much can cause the appearance of objects that are not there. So basically the photographic panel of the HSCA was saying the light exposure seen on the film (i.e. sunlight) made it appear to show movement when it did not. The examples I was given when I searched the term all related to outdoor photographs so I don’t get how this applies to things seen INSIDE a building. Since this film was received late into the HSCA’s existence one has to wonder how extensively it was studied. From the final sentence in the above quote we have to think NOT much since they recommended it be “analyzed further” due to its “high quality.” What was not said is who was going to do the analysis and to date I don’t think anyone from the world of officialdom has ever done this. If I am incorrect then perhaps someone can post the study results for us.
Another thing that seemed to go with photographic artifact effects was the appearance of a ghost image or what they call a green ray, but it was restricted to one such image. However, the HSCA said the “limited view was not sufficient to determine definitively if the film contained evidence of motion made by human figures” as in plural! Why did they mention “human figures” when they had previously made reference to one person?
It would seem the film was not reviewed by the full photographic panel of the HSCA either as it was not received until December 2, 1978. One has to wonder why this film was not submitted sooner for evaluation. Could it be that it showed TWO human figures where there was supposed only to be one?
Quote on
The question of motion of both sets of windows is similarly raised by the film taken by Charles L. Bronson several minutes before the assassination. Because this film was not made available to the committee until December 2, 1978, it was not reviewed by the full panel. In a preliminary examination of the film by several members of the panel, it was observed that the characteristics of the Bronson film were similar to those of the Hughes film that were examined by the entire panel. The apparent motion in the window seemed to be random and therefore not likely to be caused by human motion. Because of the high quality of the Bronson film, the panel members recommended it be subjected to computer analysis. The committee recommended, in turn, that the Bronson film be subjected to analysis by the Department of Justice. (HSCA Report, p. 86)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0058b.htm
Quote off
As in the case of the Hughes film this rushed examination by the partial panel declared there was no human movement seen in the window that was the alleged site of the shots fired at JFK. If this is correct we have to assume NO one was building the alleged Sniper’s Nest (SN) or that LHO was NOT human if he was the one building the SN as claimed. Why would they expect to see no human movement IF LHO was supposed to be in that area preparing to shoot at JFK as the WC claimed?
Again, when did the Department of Justice (DOJ) ever do this recommended analysis of the Bronson film? I am not aware of them doing this, but if anyone can show they did please post it in this thread. The DOJ can’t say they were not aware of this request by the HSCA either as they included the request in their report!
IV. Recommendations For Further Investigation
A. The Department of Justice should contract for the examination of a film taken by Charles L. Bronson to determine its significance, if any, to the assassination of President Kennedy.
Toward the end of the committee’s investigation, the existence of a film taken by Charles L. Bronson in Dealey Plaza approximately 5 minutes prior to the assassination was brought to the attention of the committee. It was suggested that the movie, an 8-millimeter film that focused on the area around the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository, showed a figure walking behind the window. The film was forwarded to the committee’s photography panel. The panel was unable to discern a figure, and it was unable to say conclusively whether apparent motion behind windows on the fifth and sixth floors was due to film artifacts or real motion. Nevertheless, because the Bronson film was of a quality superior to that of another motion picture film that the panel had subjected to computer processing, the panel recommended that a similar work be done on the Bronson film. In light of the recommendations of the panel, the committee recommends to the Department of Justice that it contract for appropriate research to be done to determine what, if any significance, the Bronson film may have to the assassination of the President. (HSCA Report, pp. 480-481)
wwwhistorymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0255b.htm
Quote off
In this recommendation we see something different from the proclamation written on page 49 of the report as it says here that the “ [photography] panel was…UNABLE to say conclusively whether apparent motion behind windows on the fifth and sixth floors was due to film artifacts or real motion”, but on page 49 we saw they said the blurring was due to “photographic artifacts.” Also, just a thought, but on the fifth floor there were people moving about (Charles Givens, Norman Jarman and Bonnie Ray Williams) so why wouldn’t you see human movement on that floor? Furthermore, wouldn’t the lack of human movement make the claim of the WC seem impossible since LHO was supposed to be up there moving boxes and taking position to shoot at JFK? I would think so, but given this perplexing issues the DOJ never saw fit to examine this film in greater detail as requested by the HSCA. Why not?
While the HSCA did not seem ready to make a declarative statement about the possibility of human figures being in the sixth floor windows others were. In the book High Treason by Harrison Livingstone and Robert Groden they wrote the following about what others saw that day.
Quote on
John Powell, a prisoner at the Dallas County Jail just across the street from the “assassin’s window,” also on the sixth floor, said that he and many inmates clearly saw two men in the “assassin’s window,” who were adjusting the telescopic sight of the rifle one of them had. One of them appeared to be Latin. (Conspiracy, by Anthony Summers, pp. 74-75.)
The most important point in this, and the Bronson and Hughes films, is the evidence of movement in two windows eight feet apart—including “Oswald’s window,” tending to prove that there had to be two men there. (HSCA VI, pp. 115-121, pp. 308-309; HSCA Report p. 49.) This is backed up by Carolyn Walther, who noticed two men with a gun in a corner window of the bulding. (Conspiracy, by Anthony Summers, p. 74; 24H, p. 522.) She said one of the men was kneeling and pointing the gun downward, and he was resting his arms on the windowsill. Another man was standing beside the kneeling man with a rifle. (High Treason by Harrison Livingstone & Robert Groden, p. 195)
Quote off
The authors would go on to quote Ruby Henderson and Arnold Rowland who also saw a “Latin-looking” man as well. In the case of Ms. Henderson she would also see two men in the window.
In the book by Jim Marrs, Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy, he says the Bronson film was viewed by a FBI agent in 1963 and this agent reported that it “failed to show the building from which the shots were fired,” thus, this film was pretty much considered worthless and buried. Of course this is wrong for several reasons. Firstly, the exact location of where the shots were fired from has never been identified to a certainty. Sure, the claim is that the southeastern sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) was used, but it has NOT been proved to be true. Also, the issue of other locations has NOT been ruled out either as the HSCA concluded that a shot came from the Grassy Knoll (GK) area of DP. Secondly, the FBI agent’s claims is false as the film does show the building and windows in question including the alleged SN window. So why would he claim this when it is not true? My guess would be to make the film appear to be irrelevant and then to bury it as it did show TWO human figures in it which rules out the claim of LHO shooting alone.
Marrs then goes on to quote researcher and HSCA photographic consultant Robert Groden on what the Bronson film shows.
Quote on
There is no question that there is movement. And, I’m sure, given time and money, a computer could probably clarify the images a bit more…You can actually see one figure walking back and forth hurriedly. I think what was happening there is the sniper’s nest was actually being completed just prior to the shots being fired. (Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy, by Jim Marrs, p. 22)
Quote off
It would appear we are left with two options and neither was good for the WC’s conclusion and eventually the HSCA’s (as they too claimed LHO was the assassin as the shot they claimed came from the GK missed) conclusion too. Option one is TWO human figures are captured in the Bronson film. This would mean LHO had an accomplice if you could somehow show LHO was one of them. If not, it would mean LHO was NOT there and completely innocent of shooting JFK. Option two is that we see a photographic artifact as the HSCA’s partial photographic panel said which again means NO human was at the window, thus, LHO, or anyone else, could NOT have shot JFK from the alleged SN window.
The importance of the Bronson film is that it shows either NO one was in the window as claimed by the WC and HSCA or that TWO humans were at the window and one of them was Latin looking based on witness testimony. This means even if the other man was LHO he was NOT acting alone as claimed, and thus, a conspiracy took place in the murder of JFK. No wonder the FBI buried this film and the WC showed no interest in it, huh?
What are you thoughts on the Bronson film? I think it by itself shows us the conclusions of the WC and HSCA are incorrect.
www.insidehook.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/House_Committee_Assassinations_03_21_19-e1553649529792.jpg
The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) would take a more in-depth look at various films made of President John F. Kennedy’s (JFK) assassination than the Warren Commission (WC) did. One of the films came to the attention of the HSCA near the end of its two-year investigation and has caused controversy ever since regarding what it shows.
jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/bronson-1-full.jpg
The HSCA Says…Charles Bronson.
*****************************************
The importance of Charles Bronson’s film was that it showed the window the WC claimed Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was firing from just minutes before the assassination took place. The HSCA would write the following about the film in their report.
Quote on
The panel examined a motion picture of the southeast corner window of the depository taken a short time prior to the shots. While there is an impression of motion in the film, the panel could not attribute it to the movement of a person or an object and instead attributed the motion to photographic artifacts. The panel's finding were the same with respect to apparent motion in adjacent windows shown in the film.
There is evidence, a motion picture film made by Charles L. Bronson, that some independent researchers believe shows a figure or figures in the sixth floor depository window several minutes before the shooting. The film came to the attention of the committee toward the end of its investigation. Some members of the committee's photographic evidence panel did conduct a preliminary review (without enhancement) of the film. While motion was detected in the window, it was considered more likely to be a random photographic artifact than human movement. Nevertheless, the limited review was not sufficient to determine definitively if the film contained evidence of motion made by human figures. Because of its high quality, it was recommended that the Bronson film be analyzed further. (HSCA Report, p. 49)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0040a.htm
Quote off
What is a photographic artifact? Well, after some reading it appears it has to do with light exposure as too much can cause the appearance of objects that are not there. So basically the photographic panel of the HSCA was saying the light exposure seen on the film (i.e. sunlight) made it appear to show movement when it did not. The examples I was given when I searched the term all related to outdoor photographs so I don’t get how this applies to things seen INSIDE a building. Since this film was received late into the HSCA’s existence one has to wonder how extensively it was studied. From the final sentence in the above quote we have to think NOT much since they recommended it be “analyzed further” due to its “high quality.” What was not said is who was going to do the analysis and to date I don’t think anyone from the world of officialdom has ever done this. If I am incorrect then perhaps someone can post the study results for us.
Another thing that seemed to go with photographic artifact effects was the appearance of a ghost image or what they call a green ray, but it was restricted to one such image. However, the HSCA said the “limited view was not sufficient to determine definitively if the film contained evidence of motion made by human figures” as in plural! Why did they mention “human figures” when they had previously made reference to one person?
It would seem the film was not reviewed by the full photographic panel of the HSCA either as it was not received until December 2, 1978. One has to wonder why this film was not submitted sooner for evaluation. Could it be that it showed TWO human figures where there was supposed only to be one?
Quote on
The question of motion of both sets of windows is similarly raised by the film taken by Charles L. Bronson several minutes before the assassination. Because this film was not made available to the committee until December 2, 1978, it was not reviewed by the full panel. In a preliminary examination of the film by several members of the panel, it was observed that the characteristics of the Bronson film were similar to those of the Hughes film that were examined by the entire panel. The apparent motion in the window seemed to be random and therefore not likely to be caused by human motion. Because of the high quality of the Bronson film, the panel members recommended it be subjected to computer analysis. The committee recommended, in turn, that the Bronson film be subjected to analysis by the Department of Justice. (HSCA Report, p. 86)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0058b.htm
Quote off
As in the case of the Hughes film this rushed examination by the partial panel declared there was no human movement seen in the window that was the alleged site of the shots fired at JFK. If this is correct we have to assume NO one was building the alleged Sniper’s Nest (SN) or that LHO was NOT human if he was the one building the SN as claimed. Why would they expect to see no human movement IF LHO was supposed to be in that area preparing to shoot at JFK as the WC claimed?
Again, when did the Department of Justice (DOJ) ever do this recommended analysis of the Bronson film? I am not aware of them doing this, but if anyone can show they did please post it in this thread. The DOJ can’t say they were not aware of this request by the HSCA either as they included the request in their report!
IV. Recommendations For Further Investigation
A. The Department of Justice should contract for the examination of a film taken by Charles L. Bronson to determine its significance, if any, to the assassination of President Kennedy.
Toward the end of the committee’s investigation, the existence of a film taken by Charles L. Bronson in Dealey Plaza approximately 5 minutes prior to the assassination was brought to the attention of the committee. It was suggested that the movie, an 8-millimeter film that focused on the area around the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository, showed a figure walking behind the window. The film was forwarded to the committee’s photography panel. The panel was unable to discern a figure, and it was unable to say conclusively whether apparent motion behind windows on the fifth and sixth floors was due to film artifacts or real motion. Nevertheless, because the Bronson film was of a quality superior to that of another motion picture film that the panel had subjected to computer processing, the panel recommended that a similar work be done on the Bronson film. In light of the recommendations of the panel, the committee recommends to the Department of Justice that it contract for appropriate research to be done to determine what, if any significance, the Bronson film may have to the assassination of the President. (HSCA Report, pp. 480-481)
wwwhistorymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0255b.htm
Quote off
In this recommendation we see something different from the proclamation written on page 49 of the report as it says here that the “ [photography] panel was…UNABLE to say conclusively whether apparent motion behind windows on the fifth and sixth floors was due to film artifacts or real motion”, but on page 49 we saw they said the blurring was due to “photographic artifacts.” Also, just a thought, but on the fifth floor there were people moving about (Charles Givens, Norman Jarman and Bonnie Ray Williams) so why wouldn’t you see human movement on that floor? Furthermore, wouldn’t the lack of human movement make the claim of the WC seem impossible since LHO was supposed to be up there moving boxes and taking position to shoot at JFK? I would think so, but given this perplexing issues the DOJ never saw fit to examine this film in greater detail as requested by the HSCA. Why not?
While the HSCA did not seem ready to make a declarative statement about the possibility of human figures being in the sixth floor windows others were. In the book High Treason by Harrison Livingstone and Robert Groden they wrote the following about what others saw that day.
Quote on
John Powell, a prisoner at the Dallas County Jail just across the street from the “assassin’s window,” also on the sixth floor, said that he and many inmates clearly saw two men in the “assassin’s window,” who were adjusting the telescopic sight of the rifle one of them had. One of them appeared to be Latin. (Conspiracy, by Anthony Summers, pp. 74-75.)
The most important point in this, and the Bronson and Hughes films, is the evidence of movement in two windows eight feet apart—including “Oswald’s window,” tending to prove that there had to be two men there. (HSCA VI, pp. 115-121, pp. 308-309; HSCA Report p. 49.) This is backed up by Carolyn Walther, who noticed two men with a gun in a corner window of the bulding. (Conspiracy, by Anthony Summers, p. 74; 24H, p. 522.) She said one of the men was kneeling and pointing the gun downward, and he was resting his arms on the windowsill. Another man was standing beside the kneeling man with a rifle. (High Treason by Harrison Livingstone & Robert Groden, p. 195)
Quote off
The authors would go on to quote Ruby Henderson and Arnold Rowland who also saw a “Latin-looking” man as well. In the case of Ms. Henderson she would also see two men in the window.
In the book by Jim Marrs, Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy, he says the Bronson film was viewed by a FBI agent in 1963 and this agent reported that it “failed to show the building from which the shots were fired,” thus, this film was pretty much considered worthless and buried. Of course this is wrong for several reasons. Firstly, the exact location of where the shots were fired from has never been identified to a certainty. Sure, the claim is that the southeastern sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) was used, but it has NOT been proved to be true. Also, the issue of other locations has NOT been ruled out either as the HSCA concluded that a shot came from the Grassy Knoll (GK) area of DP. Secondly, the FBI agent’s claims is false as the film does show the building and windows in question including the alleged SN window. So why would he claim this when it is not true? My guess would be to make the film appear to be irrelevant and then to bury it as it did show TWO human figures in it which rules out the claim of LHO shooting alone.
Marrs then goes on to quote researcher and HSCA photographic consultant Robert Groden on what the Bronson film shows.
Quote on
There is no question that there is movement. And, I’m sure, given time and money, a computer could probably clarify the images a bit more…You can actually see one figure walking back and forth hurriedly. I think what was happening there is the sniper’s nest was actually being completed just prior to the shots being fired. (Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy, by Jim Marrs, p. 22)
Quote off
It would appear we are left with two options and neither was good for the WC’s conclusion and eventually the HSCA’s (as they too claimed LHO was the assassin as the shot they claimed came from the GK missed) conclusion too. Option one is TWO human figures are captured in the Bronson film. This would mean LHO had an accomplice if you could somehow show LHO was one of them. If not, it would mean LHO was NOT there and completely innocent of shooting JFK. Option two is that we see a photographic artifact as the HSCA’s partial photographic panel said which again means NO human was at the window, thus, LHO, or anyone else, could NOT have shot JFK from the alleged SN window.
The importance of the Bronson film is that it shows either NO one was in the window as claimed by the WC and HSCA or that TWO humans were at the window and one of them was Latin looking based on witness testimony. This means even if the other man was LHO he was NOT acting alone as claimed, and thus, a conspiracy took place in the murder of JFK. No wonder the FBI buried this film and the WC showed no interest in it, huh?
What are you thoughts on the Bronson film? I think it by itself shows us the conclusions of the WC and HSCA are incorrect.