{"id":33315,"date":"2013-07-25T16:13:07","date_gmt":"2013-07-25T16:13:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/alternativejonestown.com\/?page_id=33315"},"modified":"2014-08-21T17:34:22","modified_gmt":"2014-08-21T17:34:22","slug":"efreinvehicle","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/?page_id=33315","title":{"rendered":"INTRODUCTION TO: The Vehicle Used in the Attack: Part 1, The Tractor and Part 2, The Trailer"},"content":{"rendered":"

Introductory Notes<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Great Mass Blanket Misidentification Snafu:\u00a0 The Assassins<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Great Mass Blanket Misidentification Snafu:\u00a0 The Vehicle Used in the Attack<\/strong><\/p>\n

Notes on Film Quality<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Tractor<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Photographs Used<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Methods to be Used<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Establishing Structure and Contours<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Trailer<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Photographs Used<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Methods to be Used<\/strong><\/p>\n

Instructions to Proceed to Visual Proofs<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

INTRODUCTORY NOTES<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

There are two related areas of misidentification:\u00a0 of the assassins and of the vehicle which transported them, respectively, as confirmed by a combination of on-site NBC film footage (the actual crime scene) and the FBI eyewitness reports (how the assassins and their vehicle were misidentified.)<\/p>\n

Misidentification of the assassins is addressed in \u201cEyewitness Identifications?\u00a0 The FBI Report Versus the NBC On-Site Film Footage\u201d and \u201cEyewitness Identifications?\u00a0 The View from Jonestown.\u201c\u00a0 The present section addresses vehicle misidentifications.\u00a0 However, since the film footage obviously shows assassins and their vehicle together, it may be helpful to cross-check the findings.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

THE GREAT MASS BLANKET MISIDENTIFICATION SNAFU (THE ASSASSINS)<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

As revealed in \u201cEyewitness Identifications?:\u00a0 The FBI Report Versus the NBC On-Site Film Footage,\u201d <\/strong>the assassins were misidentified across the board.\u00a0 That was confirmed using NBC film footage, the FBI eyewitness reports and photographs of accused Temple members, as well as blatant disqualifiers such as that a black man wasn\u2019t white (panel 9<\/a>) and that there was no one at Jonestown seven feet tall (panel 11<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

How could such a shocker happen?\u00a0 Upon reconstructing the crime scene as filmed on-site, it becomes clear that \u201ceyewitness identifications\u201d were based upon Temple men seen earlier<\/em> and perhaps later, not during <\/em>the attack (panel 5<\/a>).\u00a0 We know this because the real Jonestown vehicle was filmed just minutes prior to the attack a stone\u2019s throw away (panel 3<\/a>)– parked and at rest, with the driver sticking up visibly into the air!\u00a0 Indeed, members of the departing party were filmed right in front of that vehicle; so yes, they saw the Temple vehicle and yes, they saw the Temple men. <\/em><\/p>\n

Yet when the sudden, swift (no more than two minutes) brutal attack broke out, the defectors (i.e., the only ones who could identify Temple men) had variously fallen, fled, or had already boarded the plane and had no ground level view.<\/p>\n

Only two eyewitnesses claimed to have seen any specific shooter of any specific person:\u00a0 One saw \u201can unknown individual\u201d (panel 14<\/a>); the other told the FBI that he had first<\/em> fled \u201cfifty yards\u201d and then<\/em> \u201clooked back and observed [various shootings]\u2026 at point blank range\u201d (page 61 of the FBI report, panel 16<\/a> in \u201cEyewitness Identifications?:\u00a0 The FBI Report Versus the NBC On-Site Film Footage.\u201d)<\/p>\n

The latter story was unbelievable on its face; indeed, the alleged shooters have been ruled out using the NBC footage.<\/p>\n

Moreover anyone (at least five eyewitnesses) who claimed to identify the driver said that the attack vehicle was driven by a blond, white, fair-skinned young man when the film footage reveals a dark-skinned black man (see panel 9<\/a>; to boot, the lead assassin was in the vicinity of seven feet tall (i.e., not<\/em> Peoples Temple) and dressed like a walking rain forest — in solid green military camouflage including long sleeves in the tropics, i.e., \u201cimpossible to miss,\u201d yet he was missed by everyone<\/em>.\u00a0 Nor was there anyone in Jonestown of that height.\u00a0 Not anyone.<\/p>\n

Conclusion:\u00a0 <\/strong>\u201cThe Great Mass Blanket Misidentification Snafu\u201d holds; the eyewitness reports pass no scrutiny.\u00a0 Likewise, if the assassins were not<\/strong> from Peoples Temple, were they not transported in some vehicle other than<\/em> the Temple tractor-trailer?\u00a0 Thus we arrive at the counterpart to misidentification of the assassins; namely, misidentification of the vehicle used in the attack:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

THE GREAT MASS BLANKET MISIDENTIFICATION SNAFU (THE VEHICLE USED IN THE ATTACK)<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Misidentification of the vehicle used in the attack is also verifiable by sight, namely the comparison between NBC film footage of the vehicle used in the attack and on-site photographic extractions of the real Jonestown vehicle that it was supposed to have been.<\/p>\n

Note first that alleged identification of the attack vehicle in the FBI report are inconsistent, variously called a \u201ctractor,\u201d \u201ctrailer,\u201d \u201ctruck\u201d and \u201cwagon.\u201d<\/p>\n

Next, there were plentiful assumptions<\/em> about what vehicle it might be, but no one saw<\/em> the attack vehicle drive from point a <\/em>(where the real Jonestown tractor was parked) to point b<\/em> (the staging point of the attack.\u00a0 See<\/em> panel 7<\/a>, \u201cEyewitness Identifications?:\u00a0 The FBI Report Versus the NBC On-Site Film Footage\u201d).\u00a0 Indeed, both eyewitnesses and the film footage itself confirm that the victims neither saw nor heard the vehicle on its approach (\u201cEyewitness Identifications?:\u00a0 The FBI Report Versus the NBC On-Site Film Footage,\u201d panel 4<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Meaning that no one knew if the vehicle they had seen parked just minutes before and the vehicle used in the attack were the same vehicle at all.\u00a0 <\/em>One reporter did see another, different, unidentified vehicle!; but his testimony was buried and ignored.\u00a0 See <\/em>\u201cEyewitness Identifications?:\u00a0 The FBI Report Versus the NBC On-Site Film Footage,\u201d panel 14<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

The vehicle used in the attack was supposed to have been the tractor-trailer from Jonestown, yet as we will show, it was not even properly a \u201ctractor,\u201d but rather a vehicle never available for public sale nor useable on a farm.<\/p>\n

Also bear in mind why<\/em> the vehicle used in the attack would have been custom-designed:\u00a0 namely, deception<\/em> and camouflage<\/em>.\u00a0 (See<\/em> \u201cIn Plain Sight,\u201d sections \u201cWhy Modify the Attack Vehicle?\u201d and \u201cWho Had Access to the Jonestown Vehicle to Quasi-Duplicate It?\u201d)<\/p>\n

That may fall into place last.\u00a0 First the reader must see that the two vehicles were different;<\/em> then comes \u201cwhy.\u201d\u00a0 However, also note that custom-modifying a vehicle which then appears in a remote locale could have been nothing less than costly and meticulously pre-planned.<\/p>\n

Last, what is perhaps the most shocking is that what the FBI failed to do <\/em>at the time.\u00a0 They had the NBC film footage of the assassination in their possession.\u00a0 Their primary duty was to show it to the survivors to confirm eyewitness identifications.\u00a0 But as I discovered on a trip to Washington D.C. in January, 1980, they were too intent on suppressing the film to be burdened with reviewing it.<\/p>\n

I would also like to add a few notes about assessing film footage worn by age:<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

NOTES ON FILM QUALITY <\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

There are degrees of clarity with photographic work.\u00a0 Here the film is old and subject to such factors.\u00a0 This neither rules out positive identifications nor positive mis<\/strong>-identifications; it just takes knowing what you are looking at.<\/p>\n

There are three degrees of film degradation:\u00a0 blurry, bleeding and pixilation.<\/p>\n

\u201cBlurry\u201d means that there is no distortion of form or contours, just not crystal clarity.\u00a0 Blow-ups may or may not be helpful because whereas an enlargement makes an area easier to spot, it can also make the resolution more fuzzy.<\/p>\n

Then there is \u201cbleeding,\u201d where colors extend out further than they did in real life.<\/p>\n

Bleeding is easy to spot because it can (not necessarily, but can) distort the integrity of forms and shapes.\u00a0 Like if you photograph a human face and the photo \u201cbleeds,\u201d\u00a0 then you might wind up with a mouth wider than it actually was, or streaks across where the eyes should be.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, a bleed is so easy to spot that distortions are easy to match up to bleeds; whereas if there are no<\/em> bleeds, then you might not see a photo as clearly as you would like, but you know that what you are looking at is what was there.<\/p>\n

To review, we have crystal clear<\/em> images, like let\u2019s say modern HD.\u00a0 Then there is blurring<\/em> which maintains form and contours, just fuzzier to make out.\u00a0 Then we have bleeding<\/em> which may not necessarily rule out positive identifications but can make them more uncertain.<\/p>\n

If the bleeding is more extreme, it could go into pixilation,<\/em> which can look like boxes, which may even obscure contours and forms.<\/p>\n

Pixilation may make positive i.d.\u2019s prohibitive.\u00a0 However on the other hand, lack<\/em> of pixilation, moreover not even bleeding, keeps form in tact; if smooth continuous contours, all the better.<\/p>\n

In other words, if there is no pixilation, not even bleeding, and if contours are traceable, then you are simply looking at how the object appeared in real life even if the outlines may be blurred.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Now that we have addressed the integrity of the photographic extractions from the NBC film footage, we can proceed to address the photographic proofs for the tractor and same for the trailer separately.<\/em>\u00a0 Unlike, let\u2019s say, an ordinary automobile in one piece, this was a vehicle in two parts with two sets of structural characteristics.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

THE TRACTOR<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

THE PHOTOGRAPHS USED <\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The real Jonestown tractor is verified by photographs taken both at Jonestown and at the Port Kaituma airstrip.\u00a0 It\u00a0 was a Massey Ferguson 178, a popular tractor manufactured circa<\/em> 1970.\u00a0 A crystal-clear photo of that tractor was extracted from an internet site as the baseline for comparison (see picture 1<\/a><\/em> )<\/p>\n

It\u2019s not the same as the Jonestown tractor exactly but the differences are cosmetic, not structural, like a black exhaust pipe instead of a white one.\u00a0 But since the \u201cMassey Ferguson\u201d and \u201c178\u201d insignias are clearly discernible, this was chosen as a good baseline against the Jonestown vehicle, which vehicle is an exact duplicate in form, structure and contours.<\/p>\n

Pictures 2-4 <\/em>are of the real Jonestown tractor taken respectively from a Peoples Temple Agricultural Project brochure (picture 2<\/a> <\/em>);<\/em> the Port Kaituma airstrip for the Congressman\u2019s arrival on November 17, 1978 (picture 3<\/a> <\/em>);<\/em> and at the airstrip for the Congressman\u2019s would-be departure on November 18, 1978 (picture 4<\/a> <\/em>.)<\/em><\/p>\n

Three photos were selected to verify in multiple settings that this was indeed \u201cthe real Jonestown tractor.\u201d\u00a0 Picture 2<\/a><\/em> is the least blurry of the Jonestown tractor pictures but at a distance.\u00a0 Picture 3<\/a><\/em> is blurry but close up so that the structure, design and contours are unmistakable.\u00a0 Picture 4<\/a><\/em> is blurry at the distance but still quite verifiable as the Massey Ferguson 178; its inclusion is essential as eyewitnesses spotted that very tractor at the edge of the airstrip just prior to the shootings, which is exactly when and where it is shown on film.<\/p>\n

Pictures 3 and 4<\/em> taken together verify that this was the vehicle used to transport people between the airstrip and the community; and more especially, for the arrival and would-be departure of the Congressman\u2019s party, respectively.<\/p>\n

Picture 5<\/a><\/em> is extracted from the NBC film footage of the beginning of the assassination.\u00a0 At issue is was it the same or different vehicle as pictures 2-4, the real Jonestown tractor; or even the same make\/model tractor as shown in picture 1.\u00a0 To which we also add:\u00a0 Was it a \u201ctractor\u201d at all; if not, how and why was it custom-modified?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

THE METHODS TO BE USED<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Pictures 1-5<\/em> are the photographic extractions to be used in comparing the original Massey Ferguson 178, the real Jonestown tractor, with the vehicle used in the attack.<\/p>\n

Some additional photographic extractions are used as needed when they highlight specific features being examined, such as a clear unobstructed view of the exhaust pipe or successive frames of the vehicle rotating.<\/p>\n

Comparison of the real Jonestown trailer with the trailer used in the attack will be done separately, using the best available photos.<\/p>\n

Understandably, this researcher had to work backwards, using what appears in the film footage to then extrapolate why<\/em> duplications and modifications were made.\u00a0 As outlined in \u201cIn Plain Sight,\u201d duplication served the purpose of deception<\/em> and modification served the purpose of camouflage<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In other words, if you wanted to deceive an onlooker into thinking that men from Jonestown committed the assassination, you would use the same make\/model vehicle as they customarily used to transport visitors back and forth to deceive the eyewitnesses into a snap mis-<\/em>identification.\u00a0 However, were characteristically open areas of that vehicle not camouflaged<\/em>, it would risk having non<\/strong>-Temple shooters spotted as such upon approach.<\/p>\n

Supporting this is that a) the gunmen (once they emerged from concealment) were visibly not<\/em> from Peoples Temple; b) they in no way matched up with the \u201ceyewitness identifications\u201d cited in the FBI report; and as seen in the current section \u201cThe Vehicle Used in the Attack,\u201d c) the real Jonestown vehicle was verified as a standard, open tractor on the NBC film footage whereas the vehicle used in the attack was not.<\/em><\/p>\n

It was the NBC film footage and the FBI eyewitness reports themselves that dictated an approach of duplication <\/em>versus modification<\/em> upon visual inspection, with deception <\/em>and camouflage<\/em> as the respective intents.<\/p>\n

A \u201cQuick Spotting Guide\u201d<\/a><\/strong> has been compiled so the reader can \u201cchunk\u201d the different respective areas of real Jonestown vehicle and the vehicle used in the attack.\u00a0 Once the eye spots whole sections of the respective vehicles as \u201csame\u201d and \u201cdifferent,\u201d the individual respective features can be more readily isolated.<\/p>\n

Special attention goes to THE DRIVER\u2019S INSET<\/strong>, a visibly wide open area of the real Jonestown tractor, sealed off in the vehicle used in the attack.\u00a0 This was the most glaring modification<\/em> for the purpose of camouflage.<\/em><\/p>\n

There are also separate pictures showing factors of coloration, texture, light, contours and structure so readers can spot for themselves same versus different; continuous versus broken; open versus closed. <\/em><\/p>\n

Separate sections will address other visibly different features and how a vehicle with a driver with no apparent line of vision and no visible steering wheel might have steered this suspect vehicle.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

ESTABLISHING STRUCTURE AND CONTOURS<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>So shocking are these findings, especially at late date, that many may not do any feature-by-feature comparison until they are convinced that the respective vehicles were indeed different<\/em>.<\/p>\n

This is established through structure and contour.\u00a0 In other words, let\u2019s say the real Jonestown vehicle and the vehicle used in the attack were two individuals.\u00a0 You would not say they were different people because they were dressed differently, but if you had, let\u2019s say, skeletal x-rays that were visibly different, that would confirm that they were different people.<\/p>\n

Structure<\/em> with a tractor, is how the metal hull was constructed:\u00a0 how long were its component pieces, where cut off, where extended, the shapes of its interlinking parts, how they were assembled.\u00a0 Contours<\/em> is how the surfaces appear visually:\u00a0 continuity of lines, shapes, coloration, texture, even light.\u00a0 When the contours are smooth, continuous, broken, even-textured, they reveal continuous structure, at least that structure closest to the surface.\u00a0 Likewise, when contours are broken or cut, the underlying structure would be different as well.<\/p>\n

Like we all know the difference between a wall and a door.\u00a0 We know the difference between open and shut.\u00a0 We know the difference between horizontal and vertical.\u00a0 We can keep it that basic and distinguish same <\/em>from different<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Different structures <\/em>also serve different functions;<\/em> and function can give the reason<\/em> why a structural design may have been altered.\u00a0 With a military action like an assassination, of course, that reason would have to do with logistics.<\/p>\n

As we shall see, the structure of the real Jonestown tractor versus the vehicle used for the attack was markedly different; the former a farm vehicle, the latter designed for use in an assassination.\u00a0 However, the part of the vehicle that was not<\/em> modified was in fact duplicated.<\/p>\n

As detailed in \u201cIn Plain Sight,\u201c under \u201cWhy Modify the Attack Vehicle?\u201c and \u201cWho Had Access to the Jonestown Vehicle to Quasi-Duplicate It?,\u201d the \u201ctractor\u201d used in the attack was like a hybrid:\u00a0 the front duplicating the Massey Ferguson 178 at Jonestown to deceive onlookers into thinking that it was the Jonestown vehicle upon approach (= deception); <\/em>and the back modified to conceal its occupants (= camouflage.)<\/em><\/p>\n

Once the reader can see how peculiar and inexplicable that was, s\/he might be open to explanations.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

THE TRAILER<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

THE PHOTOGRAPHS USED<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

All of the photographs used for the Jonestown trailer were filmed right on the Port Kaituma airstrip by NBC on November 17, 1978 at the arrival of the Congressman\u2019s party.\u00a0 The photo of the trailer used in the attack was of course also taken from the NBC film footage.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

THE METHODS TO BE USED<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Altering the vehicle\u2019s structure for camouflage, so critical for the tractor, is not at play with the trailer.\u00a0 This trailer was enclosed with side panels with the assassins not visible until they disembarked.<\/p>\n

However, please note again <\/em>that one newsman at the airstrip spotted another, different tractor-trailer than the (real Jonestown) tractor-trailer parked under the wing flap of the smaller plane.\u00a0 (See<\/em> \u201cEyewitness Identifications?:\u00a0 The FBI Report Versus the NBC Film Footage,\u201d panel 14<\/a> ).\u00a0 Notably, the newsman reported that that different, other trailer was covered with a canvas, <\/em>a tarpaulin.\u00a0 That would have prevented anyone from looking over the side panels and spotting anyone not<\/strong> from Peoples Temple there.<\/p>\n

In this respect, the logistics were the same <\/em>for the tractor and the trailer, i.e., the need to camouflage the occupants.\u00a0 It did not require the trailer to be structurally different, just covered up when at rest; but the need for camouflage was parallel.<\/p>\n

Once the vehicle began moving towards the attack point, of course, there was no longer any canvas and the occupants simply hid behind the side panels until they disembarked.\u00a0 There were other structural factors to consider, however, as follows:<\/p>\n

Namely, as we will demonstrate with a full rotation of the real Jonestown trailer, this was a wide vehicle with moreover, no front panels, only side panels.\u00a0 Moreover, given that there were two wheels, left and right at the back of the trailer, but none<\/em> at the front, this vehicle was inherently wobbly, neither suited for speed nor short stops.<\/p>\n

As we will see with the real trailer, a second hitch <\/strong>was installed to stabilize <\/em>that vehicle, the type of improvisation oftentimes done on a farm.\u00a0 Whether that second hitch was already installed two months earlier when the suspect party (one Joseph Mazor) was into Jonestown with a camera. we cannot know.\u00a0 Whether the parties who duplicated the trailer thought it an unimportant detail or simply did not expect their creation to be preserved on film, we cannot know either.<\/p>\n

What we do know is that clear as day, broadside, in bright sunlight, in plain sight, there was no<\/strong> second hitch on the trailer used in the attack; whereas there just as clearly was <\/em>a second hitch on the real Jonestown trailer.<\/p>\n

We will also view the real Jonestown trailer in complete rotation and see that there were no front panels on that vehicle.\u00a0 And although we cannot view the attack trailer in full rotation, just at one angle, we see enough of the right front corner to verify that either a) the front of that vehicle was closed off with panels.\u00a0 (Extra camouflage precaution?\u00a0 Better stabilization?\u00a0 Would make sense.)\u00a0 Or b) even if its front was open, like the real vehicle, the coloration is different.<\/p>\n

We can also see clearly that the coloration of the real trailer and the duped trailer as a whole was opposite<\/em>:\u00a0 the real trailer dark green on the top, reddish pink on the bottom; the duped trailer reddish pink on the top, dark green on the bottom.<\/p>\n

Between the opposite coloration of the two trailers as whole; the visibly different respective front right panels; and the clear visible presence of a second hitch <\/em>on the real vehicle versus the clear visible absence of a second hitch <\/em>on the duped vehicle, we do know for certain that the two vehicles were different<\/strong>.\u00a0 Case established.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

INSTRUCTIONS TO PROCEED TO VISUAL PROOFS<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Please click on Part 1: The Tractor<\/a>, and Part 2: The Trailer, separately<\/a>, to view the complete sets of photographic proofs.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Introductory Notes The Great Mass Blanket Misidentification Snafu:\u00a0 The Assassins The Great Mass Blanket Misidentification Snafu:\u00a0 The Vehicle Used in the Attack Notes on Film Quality The Tractor \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Photographs Used \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Methods to be Used \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Establishing Structure and Contours The Trailer \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Photographs Used \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Methods to be Used […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"parent":33311,"menu_order":9,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-33315","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/33315","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=33315"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/33315\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":51141,"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/33315\/revisions\/51141"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/33311"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=33315"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}