Is that like calling Gary Mack Larry Dunkel - didn't like his real name?
I have looked long at the 2 films again, the hour long interview done by the History Channel (2002) and then compared it to the 22 second and 8 second clips found in the 1988 Nova Film at 26:57 and 34:08.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?288318-1/kennedy-assassination-malcolm-summers (History Channel)
(Nova Film)As a key witness of the assassination, the closest person standing to the President when he was shot was the man rolling off into the grass next to the assassination scene.
Exhausted he seemingly laid there for sometime if you look at other videos! Obviously winded from what he had just accomplished in his run by pass! Was there ever an earlier interview of this man? This man and Altgens were the two people that had the closest view to the assassination. Obviously the man rolling into the grass would be the closest person at the scene as he was right at the front.
What reason negated conducting an immediate interview or soon after as they seemingly did with Mary Moorman and Jean Hill and James Altgens? That is very suspicious in itself when you don't find out until 1988 who this man was? It took the release of a Zapruder film in order to begin that investigation?! As far as Malcom Summers goes, he was not required for scene introduction until someone questioned who this man in the actual picture was! What about umbrella man - similar circumstances?
Upon looking at the footage of the History Channel and The Nova Film, I would have to say he is one and the same person. There was considerable aging - aging spots on his temple visible in the History Channel interview 14 years after the Nova clip. The biggest similarity in the two interviews was the mailbag carrier's physical deformity from carrying a mailbag all his life on his shoulder. He worked in the "mailing room department" he said and that fits! He sounded like he had his own business - maybe a subcarrier for the Main Annex Terminal! It looks to me like he had the heavy mail bag slung over his shoulder for an extended period of time which caused the deformity in his posture! (That is my opinion and speculation.)
However, what I have labeled as the "Assassin in the picture" was the guy "someone" began to label in 1988 as Malcom Summers. Again, was this man coached and provides a needed role to fill as was Altgens, Gene Hill and Mary Moorman? His 1988 account when compared to his 2002 History Channel account do not match well and appears to be corroborated from some external influences on his spoken statement. What truths can we discover? He was interviewed by Gary Mack (Larry Dunkel)? Or was it Mr. West as Malcom Summer calls him at 37:10? in the history channel interview?
Malcom Summers did not willfully verify his position as he outset in 1988, 14 years earlier. He carefully avoided or reworded so that it was like a little "white lie". At 7:50, he answered and hesitated when he mentioned that he crossed the "2 islands and ended up on the grassy knoll side of Elm Street" 5 minutes before the assassination. Take note the hesitation in his speech pattern as he added the "Elm Street" after a moment's hesitation when making his statement. Next in that interview, he noted that a policeman dumped his bike, right where he was laying and he said the policeman looked aboveo him as if the assassin was standing behind him on the grassy knoll. We have never heard of or saw a bike laid down on the island side which was quickly dumped and then picked up and sped after the President's limousine as Malcom Summer's noted in the interview. Nor was there ever a hint that any policeman thought that the shot came from the island (the driver's side of roadway). It was always maintained to be the grassy knoll if it wasn't the TSBD building.
Also, there is no elevation at that position so that he could continue to look into the car as he states. None of his testimony adds up between his 22 and 8 from the 1988 Nova FIlm and his second recount statements in the 2002 History Channel interview conducted over an hour long in comparison! This is kind of like when Jean Hill said in her initial interview "that the President was on our side of the street" and then later recanted that they were on the driver's side on one of the islands. Coaching is the word of the day!
At 56:20 of the 2002 History Channel, Malcom Summers does not really acknowledge what the interviewer was trying to "pigeonhole" him in to saying or acknowledging his position statement initially once more. Again, why did the interviewer deem this important to get his placement just perfect as if he didn't like the answer given the first time at 7:50! He asked Malcom if he crossed the street "again" implying that his original position was on the middle island. Summers answered yes but then said he crossed the streets and went back to his Post Office which was located further down the street at the corner of Houston and Commerce streets. Never really acknowledged or recounted his intial pathway! In his interview, I sense a certain change and or denial taking place when you compared what he said in 1988 in those 30 seconds with that stated in 2002. Besides, changing his story, he seems to paint a much clearer picture in 2002. Although how could you compare a lot from 22 second and 8 second blurbs in the Nova Documentary with an hour long interview. Obviously they only used what they wanted for the show and maybe clipped and dubbed in as required. In 1988 he said the shooter was "likely" on the 6th floor although he saw nothing and that he saw a man with a machine gun pistol under his jacket. When you heard the second 1 hour account in 2002, he said 3 shots came in not from same position, the last 2 being very close together. So that should cause more confusion?
On that basis, he becomes more like the umbrella man brought forward as well in the 1988 Nova Film to firm up the storyline. That man staked a claim to be the umbrella man in the Zapruder Film and they made fun of the umbrella as being a gun in disguise in front of the hearing - "careful where you point that thing!". That man too is a self-appointed witness introduced many years after the fact! You could even compare him again to the Jean Hill and Mary Moorman - heavily coached by someone and found to
"plug the dike hole" by putting your finger in it. The stories never introduced until many years after 1963 - time has a habit of allowing things to get swept under the carpet without question.
I would like to see a Lightbox rendition of Frame Z356 as this shows the best facial shot of "my assassination man" in question. That man appeared to be "built"! Frames such as Lightbox Z347 have his head totally scratched out and faded into the grass. Was there a deliberate action on the part of someone to hide the identity of this man? Even "Altgens" head shows up clearly in Z347. To me, blending his head into the grass raises serious ethical questions and clearly makes him unidentifiable and a very serious suspect as a result of a deliberate attempt to hide his identity. Who would want to do such a thing. Mere coincidence I suppose just as Camerman Altgens failed to produce an image as he waited to click the shutter for that close up - never flinched either and oblivious to the man rolling beside him! Again, how many copies of the Zapruder Film are there? Five? Is there not any others that survived in the archives somewhere? Somethings like this are really too valuable to destroy or go missing unless it is an intentional act and on purpose. Compare 2 or 3 copies of the 5! Can't seem to find them buried under all that bureaucracy! What a sham!
To me, it is still clear that the headshot was at Z329 as after the blur, the editor's pretty well cut the head right out of the frames. It is at about Z335 that Jacqueline reacts in a very real reaction to the shot at Z329, not something supposed to occur 1 second earlier. She decides to bail as she could be next! Remember, JFK's head magically reappeared for a number of frames after Z312 - the supposed "death blow" shot. They left his ear in position for much of the remainder frames at they cut and pasted obscurement. The editors also pasted in a facsimile for Connally's head over those frames to make sure the obvious frontal head shot would have had to come through the windshield and pass through his body - an obvious impossible shot! It is also very obvious on lightbox frames as photo alterations are very difficult to hide.
Looks like serious frame editing done (square cuts) when looking at the lightbox frames when you zoom in on them and blow them up! Nice dark/light lines visible and obvious brilliant sunlight used to its max as required for touchup. Obvious blacking in over Nellie's dress on Lightbox Frame Z335 to make it look like Connally was still there! He was under the yellow flowers (maybe stetson?) in reality. You can't help but notice the "brush strokes" around the black blob as if it was only blur! Well, it wasn't, look at the semi-circular pattern all the way up the back side. Note I am talking about the "black" feathering, not the "fur/blur" you see when compared to Altgen's suit external to this pattern!
https://1b65352e-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/lightboxzframes/lightbox/z300-z349/z335.jpg?attachauth=ANoY7cphxMOHCLZampRksZBVMhQmqd6yUkMhOU1Y2hdVK18P7wfiSZwDw-mkCv6b8CioBdKWNG9dw0iXe-ghLSKRV-0XpM9enQaGDRdI0QVHCS_LKd3vuovPm_-G3AIIt9GkXyzq-Z1ueW5hrh0Tio5KdPhDwcYqvpSsFYp_mq4--naSPTLuVULVCLvB_x_bod5XM3B-IH72L9oUcPc0EpHq-P6ztKNve3yLSstNlTe-OWl4zhSCfIY%3D&attredirects=0
