Jump to content
The Education Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Past hour
  2. There are some details of what happens in the Zapruder film headshot sequence that are very difficult to see, even when watching the segment cropped down to the Kennedys in slow motion. To solve that problem I took some stills from the 1998 MPI Images of an Assassination copy of the Zapruder film (struck directly from the extant "original" Zapruder film in the National Archives, thus making it a FIRST GENERATION product), and highlighted the difficult to see key features: After doing so, I could barely believe my own eyes. What the extant "original" Zapruder film is depicting is a huge cavernous crater in JFK's forehead that is the size of a cantaloupe, and by the time JFK is sitting up again in approximately the same position he was in before the headshot at Z-313, we are seeing his face and forehead blown away such that we are seeing Jackie's pink shoulder pad where JFK's face should be: Damage to JFK's head that extensive was not reported at Parkland Hospital or at the Bethesda autopsy, and is not present in the autopsy photographs. The implications are so profound that more often than not when I bring it to the attention of others I am met with denial, claims of optical illusions and so on. But I am by no means the first to make such observations. Harrison Livingstone made similar observations when viewing the Zapruder film in the early 1990's: Harrison Livingstone writes: "If the [Zapruder] film shows a huge wound to the right side of the face, as it does, then all the witnesses who saw the dying or dead President and all the autopsy photographs are wrong. Common sense tells us they can't all be wrong (Livingstone, High Treason 2, 362).... "Common sense, therefore, tells us that the film is wrong. That it is a fake." (Ibid.).... He continues, "I have long wondered about a large apparent effusion of brain matter or flesh that spills from the right side of the face and temple region just after the President receives a shot to the head. . . . The material spewing forth from the head appears to stick out several inches and be about half a foot wide. It is spread all across the face. One would assume that it is an exploded face or brain, and it cannot be an optical illusion from reflections of sunlight off Jackie's hat and from the small flap of bone that evidently opens up at that point, as Groden has led us to believe. . . . (Ibid.).... "We see a small flap of bone with scalp attached on the right side of the head in some of the autopsy photographs but not in others. Trouble with the flap is, it changes orientation in relation to the rest of the head as the camera moves around the head. And it does not exist at all in the autopsy photograph of the right side of the head. There is a bat-wing-shaped structure on the head in the general area, but much too large to be the flap, and in the wrong place (Ibid.).... "Groden claims that Mrs. Kennedy closed up the alleged flap on the way to the hospital, where it was not seen. But the autopsy staff say the flap we see in the picture is not in the right place either, or did not exist at all" (Ibid., 363-65).... Livingstone quotes Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman: ". . . I saw nothing in his face to indicate an injury, whether the shot had come through or not. He was clear" (Ibid., 365, citing 2 H 82).... Livingstone goes on, "There are many other statements that there was no damage at all to any part of the President's face, and none to the contrary" (Ibid.). He is correct: From Dealey Plaza to Parkland to Bethesda to the White House, where family members privately viewed the body, not a single person noted any damage to the face except a cracked supraorbital ridge, which caused the right eye to protrude slightly.... "Corresponding to the gigantic wound in the right front of the face and forehead-temple area is a total loss of bone in the X-ray alleged to be of President Kennedy's head. We know that this would be impossible without the face being blown away, if it represents a shot from behind. If the bone had fallen in during transport to Bethesda, it would show somewhere in the X-rays. It does not. If it had fallen in, the face would have fallen in with the body on its back, and there is no sign of the bone anywhere in the skull. The face shows no sign of being unsupported by bone, and in fact looks perfectly undamaged. No doctor I have spoken to said that a face would remain normal if the underlying bone was gone (Ibid.).... "The missing bone in the skull X-rays has to represent a blow-out of the face, which did not in fact happen (Ibid.).... If the exit wound was in the rear of the head, where most eyewitnesses place it, or at the top or side of the head, as the autopsy photographs would indicate, then we should see "the blob coming out there if the [Zapruder] film was on the up and up, and not on the face, as we now see it in the film (Ibid.).... "It is my opinion, therefore, that the Zapruder film has some animated special effects: The large effusion we see sticking out from the head is painted in for those few frames before the head falls into Jackie's lap" (Ibid., pp. 365-66). (He later clarified that he didn't mean it was painted *directly* onto the film [Livingstone, Killing Kennedy, 159]).... ". . . We see the strange blob for more than twenty-five frames, far too long for it to be any sort of defect in the film. . . . it cannot be an artifact, because it is quite clear and distinctive for those twenty-five frames (High Treason 2, 366).... "What is not clear and distinctive is the President's head, which seems to disintegrate and disappear by the time it is drawn into Jackie's lap. In one frame there is no face or head at all to the right of the line extending upward from the President's ear, and I see Jackie clearly to the right of and beyond the ears, where the rest of the head should be" (Ibid.).... Not one frame -- two: 335 and 337, cf. color photo insert in High Treason 2; or Groden's The Killing of a President, pp. 38-39 and 188-89.... Livingstone speculates that "the purpose of this special effect is to encourage the idea in Earl Warren's head that the President was shot from behind" (High Treason 2, 366).... Look closely at color reproductions of frames 335 and 337 (it's nearly impossible to discern in black and white unless you already know what you're looking for). Page 38 of The Killing of a President has a gigantic blow-up of 337. Mentally draw a line straight up from the middle of Kennedy's ear; on the left is the back of his head; on the right is the pink sleeve of Jacqueline Kennedy's left arm where JFK's face should be. The "blob" also obscures the entire lower right of his face. Same thing for 335. Look closely -- is that John F. Kennedy's face's? IS there a face in these frames? Or is there only a shadow across the front of Jackie's dress, curving along a contour that almost approximates the shape of a face?.... And it's not just those two frames -- those are just the only two *clear* frames. All of the surrounding frames, however blurry, show that the President's face -- the entire front half of his head -- is missing. The edge of the front half also sometimes appears to be strangely blacked out.... Was the President's face actually blown away? Not only is this contrary to every single word of the eyewitness testimony; not only is it contrary to every other piece of photographic evidence (and I would not exclude the autopsy X-rays); not only is it contrary to any and all conclusions the government has put forth -- neither the autopsy report, the Warren Commission, the HSCA, nor anyone has concluded that the entire front half of Kennedy's head was blown off.... Not a single witness of the dozens and dozens who saw JFK's body in between Dealey Plaza and the time he was buried reported anything seriously wrong with the face -- much less that it was gone, as it appears in these frames.... ZAPRUDER FRAME 335 ZAPRUDER FRAME 337
  3. Today
  4. DENISE HAZELWOOD WROTE: I think that what Abraham Zapruder was reporting was that he saw the bullet impact JFK's forehead, to which he made a quick gesture during his 11/22/1963 television interview: Bill Newman was more specific in his account of the headshot during his 11/23/1963 television interview, saying that he saw the gunshot "hit in the side of the temple," and demonstrated by pointing to his own temple (note that he points to the left side of his head with his left hand because the reporter is on his right side blocking his ability to gesture with his right hand): So despite the efforts of lone nutters and limited hangouters (like Pat Speer) to claim that Zapruder and the Newmans stand for the proposition that the large avulsive head wound was in the side or on the top of JFK's head, they instead provide further corroboration of a frontal shot which left an entry wound in JFK's hairline that was so small that it was not identified at Parkland Hospital (and if it had instead been the large wound that Speer and confederates claim, the Parkland trauma team surely would not have missed that). The entry wound in the right temple was however specifically reported at Parkland Hospital by Dr. George Burkley (through acting White House Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff): And though the fraudulent autopsy protocol and corresponding fraudulent supporting evidence do not reflect it, Bethesda autopsy techs Dennis David, Jerrol Custer, Paul O'Connor and James Jenkins have all reported to researchers that they saw the right temple wound: And as for "wiggle room" about the exact dimensions of the large avulsive wound in JFK's posterior cranium, I think it is instructive that when Dr. Robert McClelland sketched the head wound with his own hand in 1988 on TMWKK, he drew the wound as being much higher on the back of the head than the drawing commonly attributed to him which first appeared in Josiah Thompson's Six Seconds in Dallas, with the lower margin appearing low on the head: DENISE HAZELWOOD WROTE: And as the work of Dr. Gary Aguilar makes so clear, there were many Bethesda autopsy witnesses who attested to the existence of the large avulsive wound in the posterior skull, but their interviews and sketches were withheld by the HSCA from the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, and from the American public, by classifying them "top secret" for fifty years. The following link is to Dr. Aguilar's most recent published article (1/2024) in which he writes about this HSCA fraud: https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-what-the-doctors-saw-an-important-addition-and-a-missed-opportunity Though all of the "official" Bethesda autopsy materials omit the occipital-parietal wound, when the ARRB had pathologist J. Thornton Boswell sketch a diagram of the wound, the dimensions went into the occipital region of JFK's skull (and in my view, the frontal region area encompassed by the sketch was probably the result of the pre-autopsy clandestine craniotomy performed by pathologist Humes): DENISE HAZELWOOD WROTE: Also worthy of mention as to the fraudulent photographic materials is Dr. David Mantik's stereoscopic testing of the back-of-the-head autopsy photographs at the National Archives which showed that there is a matte has been inserted over the posterior skull wound: DENISE HAZELWOOD WROTE: Exactly, unlike lone nutters and limited hangouters such as Pat Speer who would have us believe that Jackie Kennedy was feeling the dimensions of a shadow in the below segment of the Zapruder film, rather than the margins of the occipital-parietal wound. Sorry Pat, but though some of us may have been born at night, it wasn't last night: DENISE HAZELWOOD WROTE: That seems straightforward enough to most of us, but in relation to the four Parkland doctors who modified their views when confronted with the autopsy photographs in PBS Nova's 1988 "Who shot President Kennedy," it seems to be a bridge too far for the lone nutters and limited hangouters. Could it be the following rather than mere matters of intelligence that accounts for these differences? DENISE HAZELWOOD WROTE: Yes, indeed...
  5. "While the absence of any recordings of the 2:18pm Perry-Clark press conference is disappointing, there is information that explains why. First...I learned there were NO live cameras in that room. Here's why: 1) KRLD's two remote cameras were still at the Trade Mart as late as 1:35pm, when technicians started the long process of packing it all up and moving over to Parkland. This would have taken at least an hour. One camera was put in place in time for Dr. Robert Shaw's conference, which started around 3:30pm (that time is off the top of my head, but it was quite some time AFTER Perry & Clark finished.) 2) WFAA's cameras and remote truck were enroute back to the studio after having been in place at Love Field for the 11:35am landing and live broadcast. Their plans were originally to provide live pool coverage of JFK's return flight. At some point, their truck was sent to Parkland and had just arrived in time to catch the hearse with JFK leaving for Love Field. The other camera, I recall from some other source, was still being unloaded to bring inside the hospital. It would be virtually impossible to have it set up and available until at least 2:30-2:45 or later. They may very well have been waiting for Clark-Perry to finish to get into the room. 3) WBAP's remote truck sat in east Fort Worth at the side of the turnpike (now I-30) with a blown engine and no back up. Eventually, it was towed to Dallas City Hall and sat on Commerce Street the rest of the weekend. 4) KTVT, which offered its remote truck to WBAP in exchange for permission to carry NBC programming (the station was an independent in those days and had only a small news department), headed to Parkland from east Fort Worth, arriving just before 2pm. Their only live camera was poking up through the truck's roof and was turned on and recording as they arrived. Just a few minutes later, the hearse left the hospital with JFK and that scene was recorded. Again, it would have taken 30-45 minutes or more to get that camera moved out of the truck, into the hospital and set up. In short, none of the stations had video equipment in place to capture the press conference. As for TV news film cameras, there is a series of still photographs taken by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram of the Perry-Clark conference. The one in Lifton's book was taken early in that sequence. Many of the 30-40 images were shot from the back of the room and show a large, relatively empty classroom with only a few reporters present. Not one microphone or news film photographer are anywhere to be seen! What this means is that, despite Dr. Malcolm Perry's later explanation to the Warren Commission that there were microphones present, no recordings were made and only a handful of reporters covered it. This may not make sense to everyone, but TV news was equipment-challenged in those days. The best example is that of WBAP, then and now the NBC affiliate (today known as KXAS), which was far and away the #1 station in the entire Dallas-Fort Worth market in 1963. TV sound film cameras were cumbersome and generally not used for "spot" (breaking) news stories. So little use was made of sound in those days that the station only owned two sound cameras -- one was assigned to the Fort Worth office and one to Dallas. The Dallas camera that day was held by the station's Bob Welch, who filmed the only sound record of Malcolm Kilduff's announcement of JFK's death at 1:30. Bob then left the hospital and headed to downtown Dallas where there was more important news to cover. I do not know much about the other stations, other than WFAA had a silent camera there, but it only caught a few seconds of Perry's entrance into the room, suggesting that the photographer may have been sent by the station to another location and was, therefore, absent when the pictures were taken. As for the radio stations, the photographs show no microphones or audio tape machines in the room. I have heard original and first-generation copies of the radio station tapes, some of which have been in private hands, and there was no live radio broadcast on either KLIF, WFAA, KRLD, KBOX, WBAP, or any other major station, with the possible exception of WRR. Their tapes, or copies, are at the National Archives, but since indexes exist and there's no mention of such a broadcast, perhaps WRR wasn't there. The station was, and remains, owned by the city of Dallas (a highly unusual situation) and did not have much of a news department at all. So what does all this mean? I have to think, with some first-hand understanding of the business in those days, that only minimal coverage was done. Those kinds of stories are generally routine in nature and can be covered by the newer reporters or the wire services. The big story was what was happening at the TSBD, in Oak Cliff and at the police station, so that's where most reporters went. Others went to Love Field and were there from about 1:45 or 2pm until nearly 3pm. With breaking stories happening in four different parts of the city, Parkland was left virtually unattended." -- Gary Mack; December 22, 1999
  6. An essential read with Gary Mack and David Lifton: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/bRJ690ZcAUg/m/NgC6NPEDpUEJ?pli=1
  7. Of course, the transcript of the Perry/Clark conference at Parkland does exist (see link below). But having an audio version of it would, indeed, be nice (should it actually exist). http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/10/parkland-press-conference-11-22-63.html
  8. ALSO Gochenaur only later added the detail about Elmer Moore showing him Kennedy autopsy photographs. Gochenaur, in a 11/4/1970 letter to Harold Weisberg describing his interactions with Secret Service agent Elmer Moore, wrote “...Then he said something that did surprise me to no end. He said he and others studied the photos of President Kennedy's head wounds and that nothing was out of the ordinary?!? He told me that the photos could not prove anything worthwhile. I asked him about having competent medico-legal personnel take a look at the photos. again, he said something to the effect, "It wouldn't prove anything". I believe that agent Moore was either lying to me or that the Warren Report statements are a fraud as to the status of the autopsy photos. Could you make a comment on this?” (Link). In another letter from Gochenaur to Weisberg, dated 12/11/1970, it reads “After talking for some time on the value of the Mooreman Photo with Moore I asked Him why no one was allowed to view the autopsy photographs. Mr. Moore said, "I did." The following paragraph is an attempt at what Moore followed this remark with verbatum. "Lots of people saw em. Look, let me ask you something, what would prints prove anyway. They couldn't give you angles or anything like that. We looked over that rail yard, or bullets, nothing. If there were others shooting at him, where did they go? Do you know Garrison? Well, he thinks a guy popped up and hit him with a 45 from a sewer. Look, I must have seen the zapruter film a thousand times---nothing, nothing at all. We saw several movies, lots of photos, and there just isn't anything to prove from them. Pictures can't tell you as much as you seem to think."” (Link [link 2]). In 2021, James Gochenaur claimed that Elmer Moore actually showed him an autopsy photograph (Black Op Radio, show #1071, 12/2/2021 [audio, 31:33]; JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, 2022 book by James DiEugenio) – as opposed to his earlier statements where he described just being told of the pictures by Moore. When interviewed by James DiEugenio, Gochenaur said “...And then he showed me—another shock—he showed me a color photograph, 8 x 10, of President Kennedy in autopsy I assume. It was different from Mr. Groden’s pictures in that this side of the face, the right side of the face, the eye was swollen. And it was black and blue”. When DiEugenio replied “I don’t remember ever seeing an autopsy photo like that, that you described”, Gochenaur said “I don’t like to talk about it. I’ll talk about it with you” (JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, 2022 book by James DiEugenio). There doesn’t seem to be any known prior instance of Gochenaur claiming that Moore showed him an autopsy photo – and in a 5/10/1971 letter to Weisberg, Gochenaur gave a detailed list of materials that he said Elmer Moore showed him, and autopsy images were not mentioned (Harold Weisberg Archive, jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/G Disk/Gochenauer James/Item 12 [link 2]).
  9. I appreciate how hard the moderators work. Thanks.
  10. I'm sorry but why shouldn't I strongly suspect that Gochenaur was trash? Gochenaur claimed that Elmer Moore told him about the time he spoke to Dr. Perry, discussing with Perry the details from the official autopsy protocol, among other things. Moore allegedly said that he questioned Perry regarding his confidence in whether the throat wound was an entry or exit. Moore was quoted as saying that he was ordered to do this (Church Committee report on 6/6/1975 interview with Gochenaur; HSCA 180-10086-10438, HSCA interview of James Gochenaur, 5/10/1977 [text] [link 3]; Grassyknoll.us, The Jim Gochenaur Interviews, 2020; JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, 2021 film; JFK: Destiny Betrayed, 2021 series; Black Op Radio, show #1071, 12/2/2021; JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, 2022 book by James DiEugenio). Beginning in 1970, James Gochenaur exchanged letters with Harold Weisberg (Archive.org, Weisberg Collection on the JFK Assassination, Gochenauer James; Harold Weisberg Archive, jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/G Disk/Gochenauer James). In a letter to dated 5/10/1971, Gochenaur wrote a list of details on when he says Elmer Moore showed him his personal briefcase of pictures and documents on the assassination, which included “Rough handwritten notes on interviews” with, among others, Dr. Perry and Dr. Humes. Humes’ name has an asterisk after it, noted as “means he wouldn't let me read them” Gochenaur wrote of Moore meeting Perry “A. No date on notes: (Moore said it was the 28th or 29th of Nov.) B. Moore brought with him Humes report. C. Moore told me several times he did not "twist Perry's arm", which leads me to believe he might have. D. Perry said he did not see a back wound. E. Perry did not observe a hole near the top, front of right ear. F ) Moore drew "rough renderings" of discription of head wounds”, then on the letter is a drawing of a right-profile view of a head with a large circular wound above the ear, with an arrow pointed to it labeled “missing area”, as well as small wounds in the lower back of the head, upper back, throat, as well as a spot on the forehead pointed at by an arrow labeled “"wound" near left eye. Right eye swollen”. Below the drawing it reads “Moore showed Perry drawings and "other visual aids" the back wound from Humes work. Moore wrote up a long memo to the Commission. The basic summary of which was: 1. The wound can not indicate conclusively the angles of the shots. 2. The direction of the shots are above and behind. 3. The photos of wounds likewise can not conclusively give angles - (he left out direction). according to Moore, Warren told him that its best just not to talk conspiracy: we just don't have anything”... “Moore doesn't know, of course, I'm writing to you. His motives for letting me peek into his horror chest is unknown. I sense a guilt thing"” (Harold Weisberg Archive, jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/G Disk/Gochenauer James/Item 12 [link 2]). No mention of Elmer Moore flashing a gun to him in any of his early letters or official statements, unless you can find something I can't. His Church Committee testimony is lost, but his Church Committee interview report isn't, and neither is his HSCA testimony. I wish I could've gone to the Pittsburgh conference to try and ask him about this.
  11. This book is about the murder of Anna Mae Pictou-Aquash, but also cross references to the topics of Leonard Peltier, Legal Hermeneutics, and Postmodern law.
  12. From Bales’ reports, it’s clear he recorded at Parkland. Doesn’t matter if the government acknowledges the recording or not. https://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2018/02/whca-after-action-reports-112263.html? m=1&fbclid=IwAR3ouyWoxZE4YlnJCUZ6veg21CxecJf1lNb2J46iKDQTAF7Xhw4Y_z9ITZQ_aem_AYW8LiGvPLvGWHtoCpxRuP3Kvnbs4ipSitBiK1FvF-fdZ7dbcqdGk8-_SnJauwsejnw What recording exactly that disappeared in the government’s hands?
  13. For another perspective on Tom O'Neill's book and others, I write about this in the newest issue (016) of garrison: https://www.lulu.com/shop/midnuight-writer-news-publications/garrison-the-journal-of-history-deep-politics-issue-016/paperback/product-2mvrd2v.html?page=1&pageSize=4
  14. How is the audio of the Parkland doctors' press conference going to be available soon? Has the U.S. Government even acknowledged that such a recording exists? The last time the government got its hands on such recordings, such as the TV films, they disappeared never to be found again.
  15. No one "retires" from those liaisons—retirement documents in the intelligence community are just pieces of paper. There is no shedding of uniforms after a certain rank and time-in-service is accomplished—too much programming has taken place once you reach Colonel and above.
  16. https://www.nytimes.com/1972/06/23/archives/cuban-veterans-group-linked-to-raid-on-democratic-office-cuban.html
  17. Denis!!! Thank GOD for JFK research like this. You Linda and Alex deserve huge Kudos!
  18. W- Stone's inane and clueless fawning over Putin and Trump threaten to destroy his once-lauded legacy, which would be a sad end to his story.
  19. I love real data. Beats unscientific polling every time "Joe Biden's Fundraising is Blowing Donald Trump Out of the Water" https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-donald-trump-fundraising-compared-1880405
  20. Yes. But three moderators reading all the posts on the forum is impossible. We currently have several reported content complaints that have not been personally addressed, they do not go unnoted. While a few are frivolous we, or I for the moment appreciate the input and regret we can't respond to every one.
  21. Not hardly. JV is a distraction. Don't you remember? It was rehearsed in Executive Action in a canyon in Mexico, on H. L. Hunt's ranch. Change my mind, or Mark or Sandy's.
  22. I agree that the political discussion in this thread is better suited for the Political Discussions forum. But, I think Trump's alleged statement that prompted this thread is pertinent to this forum, and I would prefer folks go to the Political Discussions forum to make their political comments. I prefer the moderators a) discourage political discussion in this forum but b) NOT move threads that devolve into politics. Can specific comments simply be deleted?
  23. Having been to Dealey Plaza twice and having stood in each location, both sites were definitely deliberate diversions. I am not 100% convinced that shots were fired from the “Oswald window”. Can anyone answer whether or not there would be any detectible scent of gunpowder on the 6th floor when reporters and police got up there? How long could the scent of gunpowder linger inside if a rifle had been fired?
  24. But, Matt, to reiterate, I believe that Oliver Stone's efforts to inform the public about the crimes of the CIA and U.S. military-- at home and abroad-- are extremely important and worthy of praise. JFK and JFK Revisited are probably the best examples, but Salvador and The Untold History of the United States are also important. It pained me to watch that final Putin interview by Oliver Stone, precisely because I really respect the man. Surely, he must have some awareness that Putin is nefarious-- a mass murderer of civilians. I'm also pained by Stone's claim that, "the charges against Trump are ridiculous"-- at least in the cases of the J6 seditious conspiracy and classified records theft. Trump's J6 conspiracy was an extremely serious Presidential crime-- an attempt to remain in power and subvert American democracy.
  25. Worthy of note. Thanks, @Sean Coleman Others have also mentioned that they see more of a similarity between Roscoe's squareish chin and the chin in the backyard photo than Oswald's more pointed chin in other photos. Of course it's well known that among the people who argue the backyard photos were faked that there is an apparent faint line just below the mouth. I've seen discussions where people have remarked about Oswald's odd leaning in the backyard photo. I had never really considered it unusual, but I guess it is distinctive with almost all his weight on the right leg like that. And there's no doubt the stance in the Roscoe beach photo is the same.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...