Jump to content
The Education Forum

The flap on the right side of the head


Recommended Posts

Did you read Mantik clearly, Ron? Here is a quote from MIDP that Mantik wrote ...

"Because film is unavoidably exposed to light when it is loaded into a camera, all developed film should contain loading fog, but none is seen in the motorcade sequence in the extant film."

Did you read Mantik clearly, Bill? You have quoted him incorrectly. Here's what he wrote:

"Because film is unavoidably exposed to light when it is loaded into a camera, all developed film should contain loading fog, but none is seen before the motorcade sequence in the extant film" (emphasis added).

There is a difference, Bill, between "before" and "in."

Now I have run that statement by several researchers and they all said that Mantik has implied that fog should have been seen in the motorcade sequence.

You ran an incorrect statement by those several researchers. You should go back and apologize to them for wasting their time.

Now let me share some more information with you that Mantik didn't feel necessary to tell you. Did you know that film will not always have fog detectable on the first few inches of the reel. . . . So if someone ever assumes that all films should show loading fog - they would be incorrect.

That's good to know.

Now there is a sure fire way that is known to photo analyst to tell if an image has been altered by placing something onto the film that wasn't originally there. The process is called a 3D examination. . . . Gary Mack reminds me that the HSCA photo panel examined the JFK autopsy photos - and possibly the Z film - this same way, according to either the panel's report and/or their public testimony. I believe the term used was "Steroscopy".

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol6_0012b.htm

According to the link, the HSCA used stereoscopy to try to show that JFK and Connally were in the right positions to make the single bullet theory work. It was not used to check for authenticity. You say it can be used for that, but since the HSCA used it to promote utter nonsense I have to wonder.

Unless I am mistaken, didn't Mantik use this same idea when he looked at the autopsy photos so to tell if they had been altered?

I don't know. I haven't read all of Mantik.

The Zapruder film has emulsion grain on it. To alter an image within that small piece of film, one would need to transfer the 8MM film onto 35MM film so to enlarge the image to a point where one could do the alterations. 35MM film also has emulsion grainson it and when the altered image is sent back to 8MM size ... it now has more than double the emulsion grains it had beforehand. This would be another give away to an expert in detecting such things. It certainly would be noticeable to even a laymen had only select frames been altered, while others remained in their original condition.

That sounds like a good point. You don't cite any source and I'm not qualified to agree or disagree. That's the trouble with me and photography. I don't know.

Now in closing, you stated or implied earlier that alterationists deliberately mislead. I will agree with you, at least in that I found what appears to be a case of it in Mantik's article. I'm disappointed that you missed it.

In arguing that Moorman took her photo (as if she took only one) in the street, Mantik quotes this excerpt from an interview:

Moorman: . . . (Jean Hill), as the car approached us, she did holler for the president, “Mr. President, look this way!” And I’d stepped out off the curb into the street to take the picture. And snapped it immediately. And that evidently was the first shot. You know, I could hear the sound. And . . .

Jones: Now when you heard the sound, did you immediately think “rifle shot?”

Moorman: Oh no. A firecracker, maybe. There was another one just immediately following which I still thought was a firecracker. And then I stepped back up on to the grassy area. I guess just, people were falling around us, you know. Knowing something was wrong. I certainly didn’t know what was wrong.

Then Mantik writes, “These are Moorman’s own words—she stepped into the street to take her Polaroid picture.” Now come on, Mantik. She stepped into the street to take a Polaroid picture. Surely Mantik knows that Moorman took more than one photo, and that in the very excerpt he’s quoting she says she stepped back onto the grass after the second shot. The fatal head shot hadn’t been fired yet and she of course wasn’t through taking pictures.

Now that kind of crap doesn’t necessarily mean that Mantik or other alterationists are wrong about everything. But it sure as hell doesn’t enhance their cause or credibility.

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Did you read Mantik clearly, Bill? You have quoted him incorrectly. Here's what he wrote:

"Because film is unavoidably exposed to light when it is loaded into a camera, all developed film should contain loading fog, but none is seen before the motorcade sequence in the extant film" (emphasis added).

There is a difference, Bill, between "before" and "in."

Thanks for the correction, Ron. I had copied and pasted the quote as it was given to me by Royce Bierma for he was giving me excerpts from the book ... I had loaned my copy out long ago and it never found its way back. I guess that it is a moot point whether it was 'during/in or before' considering the motorcade sequence was not within the first couple of inches on the film reel.

You ran an incorrect statement by those several researchers. You should go back and apologize to them for wasting their time.

I accept the responsibility for the allowing the wrong word to get into the quote for even if I got it that way from anopther researcher, I still am responsible in a way for its accuracy. However, it was an error that didn't make any difference because before could mean in the frame(s) just before the motorcade sequence and either way, Mantik is incorrect. He was also incorrect to assume that all film is loaded in light. I also found out through my inquiry that labs will often times remove the fog frames when they slit the film. That is not to say that is what happen in this case, but it was wrong for Mantik to have assumed that it should always be seen on a film.

According to the link, the HSCA used stereoscopy to try to show that JFK and Connally were in the right positions to make the single bullet theory work. It was not used to check for authenticity. You say it can be used for that, but since the HSCA used it to promote utter nonsense I have to wonder.

I will have to speak to Groden about that for it was he who told me that he DID use stereoscoping on the autopsy photos in 1978 while with the HSCA.. As you pointed out however, the process was used to determine other factors, as well.

Unless I am mistaken, didn't Mantik use this same idea when he looked at the autopsy photos so to tell if they had been altered?

I don't know. I haven't read all of Mantik.

Maybe someone can help here - for I specfically recall Mantik talking about his work on the autopsy photos by way of stereoscoping ... it was on a show I watched. Did he discuss the head wounds in the latter MWKK episodes?

The Zapruder film has emulsion grain on it. To alter an image within that small piece of film, one would need to transfer the 8MM film onto 35MM film so to enlarge the image to a point where one could do the alterations. 35MM film also has emulsion grainson it and when the altered image is sent back to 8MM size ... it now has more than double the emulsion grains it had beforehand. This would be another give away to an expert in detecting such things. It certainly would be noticeable to even a laymen had only select frames been altered, while others remained in their original condition.

That sounds like a good point. You don't cite any source and I'm not qualified to agree or disagree. That's the trouble with me and photography. I don't know.

A simple search on Google under the name "emulsion" will give you all the information you want on the subject. I don't know if you recall my going back and forth with Duncan one time about his assertion that the alleged floating cop torso at the fence line had been washed out. I told him that alike colors will look the same on a B&W photo ... for instance, Jackie's pink suit in Moorman's photo matched the color of the sky, the wall, and other things that were known to be a different color in the real world. In that discussion I had made enlargements of cropped areas from within Moorman's photo. Those enlargements showed little dots all over the photograph ... that was the emulsion grain. Different size films will have diferen emulsion grain patterns and when two images are supperimposed onto one another - their emulsion grains are also multiplied and this would be noticeable under extreme magnification when compared to other film frames that were still in their original condition. If I come across my Moorman drum scan - I will illustrate this for everyone.

Now in closing, you stated or implied earlier that alterationists deliberately mislead. I will agree with you, at least in that I found what appears to be a case of it in Mantik's article. I'm disappointed that you missed it.

In arguing that Moorman took her photo (as if she took only one) in the street, Mantik quotes this excerpt from an interview:

Moorman: . . . (Jean Hill), as the car approached us, she did holler for the president, “Mr. President, look this way!” And I’d stepped out off the curb into the street to take the picture. And snapped it immediately. And that evidently was the first shot. You know, I could hear the sound. And . . .

Jones: Now when you heard the sound, did you immediately think “rifle shot?”

Moorman: Oh no. A firecracker, maybe. There was another one just immediately following which I still thought was a firecracker. And then I stepped back up on to the grassy area. I guess just, people were falling around us, you know. Knowing something was wrong. I certainly didn’t know what was wrong.

Then Mantik writes, “These are Moorman’s own words—she stepped into the street to take her Polaroid picture.” Now come on, Mantik. She stepped into the street to take a Polaroid picture. Surely Mantik knows that Moorman took more than one photo, and that in the very excerpt he’s quoting she says she stepped back onto the grass after the second shot. The fatal head shot hadn’t been fired yet and she of course wasn’t through taking pictures.

Now that kind of crap doesn’t necessarily mean that Mantik or other alterationists are wrong about everything. But it sure as hell doesn’t enhance their cause or credibility.

I am just glad that Hoffman or Greer didn't get caught doing it. You are also correct about Moorman taking other pictures. Remember, it was I who told White, Fetzer, and Mantik that Moorman's camera height was above the cycles in her famous photo. They gave Moorman around a 54" lens height and the cycles stood 58" tall to the tops of their windshields. Moorman's camera is looking over the tops of those cycles windshields passing by her. That one major point was overlooked by White, Fetzer, and Mantik and I have yet to hear one of hem acknowledge its relevancy. Mary either stood on a box in the street or was standing back up over he curb as all the assassination films and photos show.The one photo that Moorman did take from within the street was the McBride photo. In that photo we see that her camera is looking at the people across the street through the cycles windshields and not over the top of them as the number 5 photo shows.

ALTGENS PHOTO SHOWING BREHM, HILL, AND MOORMAN'S SHADOWS BEING CAST ONTO THE CURB AND STREET

post-1084-1145911778_thumb.jpg

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could someone explain to me about emulsion, please?

The way I understand it is: (I am not in any way a photographic experts, a happy rubbernecking snapper perhaps)

The film is coated with a light sensitive substance. This I presume is either a solution or an emulsion.

An emulsion is a substance suspended in a non reactive medium*. This is applied to a clear where it adheses, dries (whatever).

This is then placed in a 'darkroom', like a camera body for example. Photons of light strikes this medium and it reacts by changing its visual qualities.

The photons are many, not even electron microscopic, very small in other words. And thsy are bunched up real tight as they travel in a straight line (unless acted on by, say a meduium like a glass lens whereby the speed drops and the waveform changes direction and it exits the lens changes direction again and hits the emulsion.)

In order to get a sharp record of the qualities of the photons that strike the particles of the emulsion in a moment in time (which then becomes what represented the visual qualities of the 'scene' that sent the photons in the lens direction.) the component of the emulsion that 'captures' the photon qualities should be as fine grained and densely packed as possible.

What is the size of this grain. How closely are they packed.

Can they be seen by a magnifying glass. by a microscope (what power?)

*(non reactive to the substance at lest)

_________

Depending on what the answers are, I would then consider the pixel as opposed to grain. How well can a pixel represent a grain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John...your "grain" questions are far too simple. The answers are far too complex.

Are you referring to...

Paper grain? Panchromatic? Orthochromatic? Speed?

Film grain? Type of film? B/W? Color? Reversal? Transparency? Color negative?

Color print? Size? Lens used? Lighting? Fine grain film? Developer? Image size?

Dyes? Filters? Temperature? Stopbath? Washwater? ASA rating? Film speed?

Reticulation? etcetcetc.

The short answer to your question is that there is NO particular grain size without

knowing EVERY consideration. Virtually all grain size is a function of development, and

most grain is formed during development or as a characteristic of the film. For instance

TRI-X is grainier than Panatomic-X, and Ektachrome is grainer than Kodachrome.

If temperatures are not precisely controlled during development, the grain will be

affected. Development can be "pushed" in certain instances where needed, but will

produce a grainer image.

In short...there are no answers for your questions, without specifics.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John...your "grain" questions are far too simple. The answers are far too complex.

Are you referring to...

Paper grain? Panchromatic? Orthochromatic? Speed?

Film grain? Type of film? B/W? Color? Reversal? Transparency? Color negative?

Color print? Size? Lens used? Lighting? Fine grain film? Developer? Image size?

Dyes? Filters? Temperature? Stopbath? Washwater? ASA rating? Film speed?

Reticulation? etcetcetc.

The short answer to your question is that there is NO particular grain size without

knowing EVERY consideration. Virtually all grain size is a function of development, and

most grain is formed during development or as a characteristic of the film. For instance

TRI-X is grainier than Panatomic-X, and Ektachrome is grainer than Kodachrome.

If temperatures are not precisely controlled during development, the grain will be

affected. Development can be "pushed" in certain instances where needed, but will

produce a grainer image.

In short...there are no answers for your questions, without specifics.

Jack

That's great, thank's Jack. That's an answer in itself. Partly, my understanding now is that the process of development in itself is a factor in the final 'production'.

OK, with regards to the Zfilm then. Same questions? Can do? Is it answerable? An understanding would probably help in deciding what of that which one can see on the computerscreen is real and what is a compression or summary of a group of 'reals'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John...your "grain" questions are far too simple. The answers are far too complex.

Are you referring to...

Paper grain? Panchromatic? Orthochromatic? Speed?

Film grain? Type of film? B/W? Color? Reversal? Transparency? Color negative?

Color print? Size? Lens used? Lighting? Fine grain film? Developer? Image size?

Dyes? Filters? Temperature? Stopbath? Washwater? ASA rating? Film speed?

Reticulation? etcetcetc.

The short answer to your question is that there is NO particular grain size without

knowing EVERY consideration. Virtually all grain size is a function of development, and

most grain is formed during development or as a characteristic of the film. For instance

TRI-X is grainier than Panatomic-X, and Ektachrome is grainer than Kodachrome.

If temperatures are not precisely controlled during development, the grain will be

affected. Development can be "pushed" in certain instances where needed, but will

produce a grainer image.

In short...there are no answers for your questions, without specifics.

Jack

That's great, thank's Jack. That's an answer in itself. Partly, my understanding now is that the process of development in itself is a factor in the final 'production'.

OK, with regards to the Zfilm then. Same questions? Can do? Is it answerable? An understanding would probably help in deciding what of that which one can see on the computerscreen is real and what is a compression or summary of a group of 'reals'.

John...I cannot provide TECHNICAL answers. The extant Zfilm is alleged to be Kodachrome,

the finest grain color film...that is, the grain at projection size should not be noticeable. I

cannot say how this translates on a small computer screeen, but my guess is that any

digitized Kodachrome image would be much degraded from the original. Another guess is that

Kodachrome "grain" (if detected) would be MUCH SMALLER than a pixel on the order of

hundreds (such as 1000 grains = one pixel), but that is just a guess. I am not a technical

expert. You have to understand that COLOR FILMS are three layered dyes; dyes are grainless,

but may have the grain characteristics of the reversal emulsion used to capture the image.

It is too complicated for me to explain, even if I understood it.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John...your "grain" questions are far too simple. The answers are far too complex.

Are you referring to...

Paper grain? Panchromatic? Orthochromatic? Speed?

Film grain? Type of film? B/W? Color? Reversal? Transparency? Color negative?

Color print? Size? Lens used? Lighting? Fine grain film? Developer? Image size?

Dyes? Filters? Temperature? Stopbath? Washwater? ASA rating? Film speed?

Reticulation? etcetcetc.

The short answer to your question is that there is NO particular grain size without

knowing EVERY consideration. Virtually all grain size is a function of development, and

most grain is formed during development or as a characteristic of the film. For instance

TRI-X is grainier than Panatomic-X, and Ektachrome is grainer than Kodachrome.

If temperatures are not precisely controlled during development, the grain will be

affected. Development can be "pushed" in certain instances where needed, but will

produce a grainer image.

In short...there are no answers for your questions, without specifics.

Jack

That's great, thank's Jack. That's an answer in itself. Partly, my understanding now is that the process of development in itself is a factor in the final 'production'.

OK, with regards to the Zfilm then. Same questions? Can do? Is it answerable? An understanding would probably help in deciding what of that which one can see on the computerscreen is real and what is a compression or summary of a group of 'reals'.

John...I cannot provide TECHNICAL answers. The extant Zfilm is alleged to be Kodachrome,

the finest grain color film...that is, the grain at projection size should not be noticeable. I

cannot say how this translates on a small computer screeen, but my guess is that any

digitized Kodachrome image would be much degraded from the original. Another guess is that

Kodachrome "grain" (if detected) would be MUCH SMALLER than a pixel on the order of

hundreds (such as 1000 grains = one pixel), but that is just a guess. I am not a technical

expert. You have to understand that COLOR FILMS are three layered dyes; dyes are grainless,

but may have the grain characteristics of the reversal emulsion used to capture the image.

It is too complicated for me to explain, even if I understood it.

Jack

OK, Thank's for this. I suspect your guess about grainsize is correct about the order.

The COLOR FILM as dye is another thing then. The socalled exposed film is then dyed according to the info contained in the negative. The negative is not 'converted' in some way but dyed?

So theres a change there in what the info that the photos were impressing to the emulsion in the first place. A significant degradation?

I find your explanations (if I understand them correctly) simple and clear at this point. Thank you Jack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John...your "grain" questions are far too simple. The answers are far too complex.

Are you referring to...

Paper grain? Panchromatic? Orthochromatic? Speed?

Film grain? Type of film? B/W? Color? Reversal? Transparency? Color negative?

Color print? Size? Lens used? Lighting? Fine grain film? Developer? Image size?

Dyes? Filters? Temperature? Stopbath? Washwater? ASA rating? Film speed?

Reticulation? etcetcetc.

The short answer to your question is that there is NO particular grain size without

knowing EVERY consideration. Virtually all grain size is a function of development, and

most grain is formed during development or as a characteristic of the film. For instance

TRI-X is grainier than Panatomic-X, and Ektachrome is grainer than Kodachrome.

If temperatures are not precisely controlled during development, the grain will be

affected. Development can be "pushed" in certain instances where needed, but will

produce a grainer image.

In short...there are no answers for your questions, without specifics.

Jack

That's great, thank's Jack. That's an answer in itself. Partly, my understanding now is that the process of development in itself is a factor in the final 'production'.

OK, with regards to the Zfilm then. Same questions? Can do? Is it answerable? An understanding would probably help in deciding what of that which one can see on the computerscreen is real and what is a compression or summary of a group of 'reals'.

John...I cannot provide TECHNICAL answers. The extant Zfilm is alleged to be Kodachrome,

the finest grain color film...that is, the grain at projection size should not be noticeable. I

cannot say how this translates on a small computer screeen, but my guess is that any

digitized Kodachrome image would be much degraded from the original. Another guess is that

Kodachrome "grain" (if detected) would be MUCH SMALLER than a pixel on the order of

hundreds (such as 1000 grains = one pixel), but that is just a guess. I am not a technical

expert. You have to understand that COLOR FILMS are three layered dyes; dyes are grainless,

but may have the grain characteristics of the reversal emulsion used to capture the image.

It is too complicated for me to explain, even if I understood it.

Jack

OK, Thank's for this. I suspect your guess about grainsize is correct about the order.

The COLOR FILM as dye is another thing then. The socalled exposed film is then dyed according to the info contained in the negative. The negative is not 'converted' in some way but dyed?

So theres a change there in what the info that the photos were impressing to the emulsion in the first place. A significant degradation?

I find your explanations (if I understand them correctly) simple and clear at this point. Thank you Jack.

This diagram might help. Most transparency film is COLOR REVERSAL. It has

several layers on thin acetate...three layers of dye (yellow, magenta, cyan) and

a layer of silver halide. After exposure of the silver layer, it is developed

(forming a negative image), and then the film is exposed to light to transfer

the image to the dyes; then a chemical bath removes the silver negative

image, leaving only the images on the three dye layers, which have been

reversed to a positive. With the silver removed, the result is a color transparency.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An enlarged look at the emulsion on the Moorman photo ....

post-1084-1145994965_thumb.jpg

That's great Bill, (and Jack). Bill What is the exact size of that crop in real life? I know the Moorman was small, like only a couple of incehes square or something like that.

And could you mention or mark what on that crop is emulsion, or one grain? Please.

______the same on the Zfilm emulsion would be great too.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"That's great Bill, (and Jack). Bill What is the exact size of that crop in real life? I know the Moorman was small, like only a couple of incehes square or something like that."

Here is a image I saved from Moorman's photo that shows emulsion grain ........

post-1084-1146022145_thumb.jpg post-1084-1146022212_thumb.jpg

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 years later...
On 4/19/2006 at 8:54 PM, Ron Ecker said:

I have grown suspicious of the big flap that opens up on JFK's head after Z313. Ditto the blackened-out back of JFK's head with nary a trace of all the brain matter that shot out the back and hit those riding behind.

I know the argument that Jackie must have closed the flap on the way to the hospital, but she doesn't say she did, she says (as best I can interpret her words) that she was trying to hold his hair down over the hole in back, and when she said she saw a piece of his skull and it was flesh-colored and not bloody, she may have been talking about a piece that flew from his head (perhaps the piece she tried to fetch on the trunk) and not the flap.

I know the argument that the back of JFK's head is in shadow and that we don't see the debris shooting out the back because it was too fast for the camera, but I intuitively question there not being the slightest fleeting trace of it, particularly when we have no trouble at all seeing all the blood and debris that comes out of the front.

I did not question the authenticity of this episode in the film until I recently began looking harder at the medical evidence, and I have trouble understanding how the Parkland doctors failed to see such a massive wound in the side of the head even if Jackie closed it as best she could. Not even when nurses Bowron and Hinchcliffe washed JFK's hair did they see one trace of this wound that was open so graphically in the Z film.

Granted, a couple of Parkland doctors allowed as how the head wound had somehow moved around toward the front, though the others did not see it do so, but they allowed this only after being brow-beaten by an SS agent who came from Washington to show them autopsy material, or until they had seen the dubious material in the archives.

McClelland has described looking down into a hole while JFK was on his back, and after several readings I still don't know what he's talking about, since the others didn't see such a wound to look down into, and McClelland drew a picture showing nothing but a hole in the back of the head, which he was in no position to look into while standing over JFK's face.

The other factor contributing to my doubt of the flap's authenticity is the strength of the body alteration theory (two documented casket entries at Bethesda plus a third attested to by witnesses), which involves the wound in the back of the head at autopsy moving around to become parietal and temporal and not just occipital. It is possible that at the same time it was decided to create such a wound, by taking a hammer to JFK's head or whatever, it was decided to put a corresponding wound in the Z film, and hence this massive flap that even Clint Hill didn't see when he was right there over the president on the ride to Parkland, nor was it seen by doctors attending him.

Which brings me to the question of when or if there was in fact any opportunity for the Z film to be altered to include this flap. I believe that some say yea and some say nay. I have not yet had time to look into that question. But if there is one thing in the film that does look artificial and inconsistent to me, it is the flap in the side of the head.

If anyone can straighten me out on this, feel free.

Ron,  I am wondering how your thoughts have evolved on this after 12 years. I have avoided the subject because photo-analism gets so contentious. From what I see in the Z Film, there is a massive blowout in front of the right ear, and I see nothing else.

Have you resolved any of this, inasmuch as it conflicts with testimony, to your satisfaction?  Have you accepted photo-alteration? 

Cheers,

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Ron,  I am wondering how your thoughts have evolved on this after 12 years. I have avoided the subject because photo-analism gets so contentious. From what I see in the Z Film, there is a massive blowout in front of the right ear, and I see nothing else.

Have you resolved any of this, inasmuch as it conflicts with testimony, to your satisfaction?  Have you accepted photo-alteration? 

Cheers,

Michael

I haven't thought much more about it. For one thing, I'm not qualified to discuss the technicalities of photography re Z film alteration, or what the CIA was or was not capable of doing with the film in 1963.

I've wondered, if the film was altered, why they didn't remove the most obvious indication of conspiracy, the backward head snap. I assume it would be because it would be impossible to remove the head snap without alteration being obvious.

As I recall, Sherry Gutierrez postulated that a shot from the south end of the overpass or from the south knoll area cleared the windshield, hit JFK in the right temple as his head was turned, blew out the flap in passing and exited the rear of the head. That sounds like perhaps the most likely scenario, with Jackie then holding the flap down in place on the way to the hospital and it going unnoticed by the busy doctors.

We know there was a conspiracy whether the Z film was altered or not. But if it was altered, the question of who had the means and opportunity to do so certainly narrows the field as to who was involved in the conspiracy.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

I haven't thought much more about it. For one thing, I'm not qualified to discuss the technicalities of photography re Z film alteration, or what the CIA was or was not capable of doing with the film in 1963.

I've wondered, if the film was altered, why they didn't remove the most obvious indication of conspiracy, the backward head snap. I assume it would be because it would be impossible to remove the head snap without alteration being obvious.

As I recall, Sherry Gutierrez postulated that a shot from the south end of the overpass or from the south knoll area cleared the windshield, hit JFK in the right temple as his head was turned, blew out the flap in passing and exited the rear of the head. That sounds like perhaps the most likely scenario, with Jackie then holding the flap down in place on the way to the hospital and it going unnoticed by the busy doctors.

We know there was a conspiracy whether the Z film was altered or not. But if it was altered, the question of who had the means and opportunity to do so certainly narrows the field as to who was involved in the conspiracy.

 

 

 

 

Thanks Ron, I have not been able to accept an alteration theory because it does not help the WC cover-up at all, as far as I can see.

Thanks for the reply,

Cheers,

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Thanks Ron, I have not been able to accept an alteration theory because it does not help the WC cover-up at all, as far as I can see.

Thanks for the reply,

Cheers,

Michael

I do have one other thing to say about it. See the thread I just posted on the JFK Assassination Information Center and the Z film.

 

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...