The flap on the right side of the head

[Ron Ecker]

I guess one can say that Jackie could have been talking about holding Connally's hair down, but that is not the case. The avulsion was where the bones were sprung opened on the "REAR" of the head. The bone plate was on the top of the head, which if one flips the bone plate back up and into place it would be on the top of the head.

We're both talking about the top of the head. But you're talking about the middle or front where a flap opens up, and I'm talking about the back of the top where scalp with hair on it is seen jutting out over the avulsion in Z338. Jackie said there was nothing wrong with the front of his head. It sure doesn't look that way in the Z film.

Never have I seen so many things made hard that were basically so easy to follow.

Unless you're following what the government wants you to follow.

What difference does it make who Grossman was with when he saw the bone plate?

It makes a difference because both he and Baxter bring Clark into their stories. Clark is therefore the key. Quoting Ken Hoffman in the Houston Chronicle 11/14/03:

Grossman said he and Clark moved forward, one on each side of the gurney. They lifted Kennedy's head and parted his hair to examine the massive gunshot injury.

They were the first to discover the head wound. The other doctors had only noticed the gaping hole in the president's throat.

"We turned his head and saw the wound. It was obvious that he would not survive," Grossman said.

And here's Baxter (who perjured himself by reading aloud his own words "temporal and occipital" as "temporal and parietal," unless the WC made him a perjurer by changing the transcript) to Arlen Specter:

The only wound that I actually saw--Dr. Clark examined this above the manubrium of the sternum, the sternal notch. This wound was in temporal parietal plate of bone laid outward to the side.

Baxter is saying Clark saw this, "Clark examined this," Clark had to see this bone plate laid outward to the side that Baxter says was there. So having heard from Baxter and Grossman on Clark, let's let Clark speak for himself:

“I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed” (WC testimony).

It is worth noting that Specter changes Clark's testimony before him (it seems everyone tries to speak for Clark) by saying, "Now, you described the massive wound at the top of the President's head, with the brain protruding; did you observe any other hole or wound on the President's head?"

Clark had described no such thing, but let's Specter get away with it by saying, "No, sir, I did not." Clark is saying he saw only the one head wound that he described. And comes back later to set the record straight despite the despicable Specter. Referring to the back wound, Clark says, "Such a wound could have easily been overlooked in the presence of the much larger wound in the right occipital region of the President's skull" (emphasis added).

It's the same bone plate that Bill Newman saw flip over in less that 2/18s of a second which made him think JFK's ear flew off.

Has Newman said that he saw this bone plate flip over? I'd like to see that quote. It's easy to see why he thought the "ear flew off" when he saw JFK hit in the side of the head, with blood and gore immediately flying forwards and backwards (in the case of backwards, faster than a camera can see).

Actually it was Gary L. Aguilar, MD who quoted Greer because it supported what the other witnesses stated. I can see that you are a selective reader and missed where Greer confirmed for Specter that he was talkng about the' top and right rear side' of the head

I haven't read Aguilar yet, so I didn't selectively read it. But I have read Greer's Gomer Pyle WC testimony, and I don't believe a word that came out of his mouth about anything. How this xxxx and/or borderline idiot got a job with the Secret Service is mindboggling. BTW where was Greer during LBJ's swearing-in? Everyone who is said to have been there is accounted for in the Stoughton photos of the swearing-in on AF1 except William Greer. Where was he on the plane and what was he doing? More on this in a separate thread.

Ron

Edited April 21, 2006 by Ron Ecker

[Allan Eaglesham]

I might add that the skull flap wound did not go totally unnoticed by all the Parkland doctors...

Bill[/b]

Did not go totally unnoticed??

The fundamental point here is that the Z-film shows a huge wound that would be impossible to ignore -- not one that might or might not be noticed.

[Ron Ecker]

Nurse Diane Bowron:

"When we prepared the body for the coffin, we washed the face and closed the eyes. There was no damage to the face, there was no flap of scalp on the right, neither was there a laceration pointing toward the right eyebrow from the scalp. . . .

"When we prepared the body, I washed as much blood as I could from the hair; while doing this, I did not see any other wound either in the temples or in other parts of the head" (Killing the Truth, p. 183)

[Bill Miller]

We're both talking about the top of the head. But you're talking about the middle or front where a flap opens up, and I'm talking about the back of the top where scalp with hair on it is seen jutting out over the avulsion in Z338. Jackie said there was nothing wrong with the front of his head. It sure doesn't look that way in the Z film.

This is only my feelings on the matter - Like I said ... I have never seen something so easy to follow made so hard by someone like yourself. I don't think Jackie was trying to split hairs anymore than I am interested in doing so. The frame I posted shows where the hair was missing on the top of JFK's head. The size of that bone plate tells me that the wound continued up over the head and towards the back of the skull ... The Zframe only allows us to have a quick view from Zapruder's angle where the missing hair starts.

Never have I seen so many things made hard that were basically so easy to follow.

Unless you're following what the government wants you to follow.

I'm follwing the photographical record, combined with what the witnesses had to say ... Bill Newman whom had no CIA or Government ties that I am aware of, saw the overturned bone plate and thought he was looking into the side of JFK's skull. JFK was leaning forward which made a bone plate from the top of his head hang towards the front, but it still came from the top of his skull just as the witnesses had said.

What difference does it make who Grossman was with when he saw the bone plate?

It makes a difference because both he and Baxter bring Clark into their stories. Clark is therefore the key. Quoting Ken Hoffman in the Houston Chronicle 11/14/03:

Grossman said he and Clark moved forward, one on each side of the gurney. They lifted Kennedy's head and parted his hair to examine the massive gunshot injury.

They were the first to discover the head wound. The other doctors had only noticed the gaping hole in the president's throat.

"We turned his head and saw the wound. It was obvious that he would not survive," Grossman said.

And here's Baxter (who perjured himself by reading aloud his own words "temporal and occipital" as "temporal and parietal," unless the WC made him a perjurer by changing the transcript) to Arlen Specter:

The only wound that I actually saw--Dr. Clark examined this above the manubrium of the sternum, the sternal notch. This wound was in temporal parietal plate of bone laid outward to the side.

Baxter is saying Clark saw this, "Clark examined this," Clark had to see this bone plate laid outward to the side that Baxter says was there. So having heard from Baxter and Grossman on Clark, let's let Clark speak for himself:

“I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed” (WC testimony).

It is worth noting that Specter changes Clark's testimony before him (it seems everyone tries to speak for Clark) by saying, "Now, you described the massive wound at the top of the President's head, with the brain protruding; did you observe any other hole or wound on the President's head?"

Clark had described no such thing, but let's Specter get away with it by saying, "No, sir, I did not." Clark is saying he saw only the one head wound that he described. And comes back later to set the record straight despite the despicable Specter. Referring to the back wound, Clark says, "Such a wound could have easily been overlooked in the presence of the much larger wound in the right occipital region of the President's skull" (emphasis added).

I recall a Parkland doctor saying that the alleged bullet entrance wound on the back of JFK's head could have been overlooked in the presence of the larger opening in the skull. I think Specter purposely tried to leave the doctor's statements a bit unclear, but it makes no sense that Grossman would be trying to cover one thing up while mentioning the large wound on the back of JFK's head. So regardless of whether someone tried to change their story or not ... it doesn't mean the wound was not visible - seen by some witnesses who took the time to examine the head more closely - and was on the top of the head while entending into the temporial parietal regions of the skull.

It's the same bone plate that Bill Newman saw flip over in less that 2/18s of a second which made him think JFK's ear flew off.

Has Newman said that he saw this bone plate flip over? I'd like to see that quote. It's easy to see why he thought the "ear flew off" when he saw JFK hit in the side of the head, with blood and gore immediately flying forwards and backwards (in the case of backwards, faster than a camera can see).

I don't think you are paying attention ... the bone plate flipped over so fast that it made Newman think JFK's ear had been shot off. We know JFK's ear wasn't blown off, so is it that hard to understand that Newman was looking at the undeside of the bone plate and thinking he was looking into JFK's skull where the ear would have been? BTW, Newman has seen the Zapruder film many times over his life ... have you ever heard him say that the bone plate flipping over wasn't what made him think the side of JFK's head had opened up ... of course not!

Actually it was Gary L. Aguilar, MD who quoted Greer because it supported what the other witnesses stated. I can see that you are a selective reader and missed where Greer confirmed for Specter that he was talkng about the' top and right rear side' of the head

I haven't read Aguilar yet, so I didn't selectively read it. But I have read Greer's Gomer Pyle WC testimony, and I don't believe a word that came out of his mouth about anything. How this xxxx and/or borderline idiot got a job with the Secret Service is mindboggling. BTW where was Greer during LBJ's swearing-in? Everyone who is said to have been there is accounted for in the Stoughton photos of the swearing-in on AF1 except William Greer. Where was he on the plane and what was he doing? More on this in a separate thread.

Regardless if Greer is a xxxx in your mind ... he still described something indepentently of other witnesses concerning the wound to the top of the President's head and is why Gary cited it.

Bill

Edited April 21, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Ron Ecker]

it makes no sense that Grossman would be trying to cover one thing up while mentioning the large wound on the back of JFK's head.

The large wound in the back of the head that Grossman mentioned, the one that he claimed that he and Clark saw together and that Clark has clearly described, is what Grossman later turned into a small puncture wound of entry. I don't know if he was covering up or what, but it certainly seems like it, because otherwise I agree with you that this transformation of the wound, this blatant self-contradiction by Grossman, doesn't make any sense.

is it that hard to understand that Newman was looking at the undeside of the bone plate and thinking he was looking into JFK's skull where the ear would have been? BTW, Newman has seen the Zapruder film many times over his life ... have you ever heard him say that the bone plate flipping over wasn't what made him think the side of JFK's head had opened up ... of course not!

I've never heard Newman say anything about the flap in the Z film. If he has, I wish you would quote it. He told the sheriff's office that he saw JFK "hit in the side of the head." The FBI report two days later says that he "saw flesh fly from the President's head." He didn't see flesh flop or flap, he saw it fly. Similarly in the Shaw trial he testified that "it hit him in the side of the head right above the ear and his ear come off. . . . I observed his ear flying off." Again he is talking about something flying off, and we know as a fact that watery matter, brains and blood flew back and hit Hargis and others. Newman told the Texas Monthly that "the side of his head blew off." Similarly he described to Larry Sneed "seeing the side of his head come off." He saw JFK hit in the side of the head, the question is did he associate that with all the debris blasted out of JFK's head, thus the impression that the debris he saw was the side of the head and not what so horribly came out of the back and front of the head.

He told Sneed "I can remember seeing a white mass, and then just a mass of red." The "white mass" could be the flap, though it was actually flesh-colored, and it stays that way and does not turn red in the Z film, at least as far as I recall. His wife also saw something white, but it was not the flap. She told the Texas Monthly "you could see the white matter coming out of his head, then red." The white matter did not flop over on his head, it came out of it. She seems to be talking about flying debris, probably bone, along with blood, thus white and red, as her husband saw.

I'd be perfectly willing to go along with the "white mass" being the flesh-colored flap, if it were not for all the other evidence that there was no such massive flap on JFK's head. The weight of the evidence is that the body left Dallas with a massive exit wound in the rear of the head, and an entry wound somewhere in the temple area, where Newman saw him hit but that was small enough to be missed in JFK's hair since no one at Parkland looked for it.

I'm basing all I say here on evidence, not to be argumentative or to advance any agenda. The case for authenticity could be helped, perhaps even closed, if there is evidence of a massive flap opening up in Nix, Muchmore, or any other film besides the Z film. Is there?

Edited April 21, 2006 by Ron Ecker

[Bill Miller]

I'm basing all I say here on evidence, not to be argumentative or to advance any agenda. The case for authenticity could be helped, perhaps even closed, if there is evidence of a massive flap opening up in Nix, Muchmore, or any other film besides the Z film. Is there?

As you must surely know ... Zapruder was the only person filming from the same side of the street that the bone plate was hanging down from. The 'white' that the Newman's saw had to be the flash of the bone plate being overturned and with the moisture of the watery substance on its underside as the sunlight would have glared off of it. The key that you seem to be missing is that Newman thought JFK's ear had been shot off ... now why do you think that is??? It's because in less than 2/18s of a single second - Newman went from looking at JFK's dark hair and ear to seeing a large flesh colored area that he thought was a hole when in reality it was the bone plate hanging over the President's right ear.

Bill

[Ron Ecker]

Regardless if Greer is a xxxx in your mind ... he still described something indepentently of other witnesses concerning the wound to the top of the President's head and is why Gary cited it.

JFK’s head was all bloody. So what? No one disputes that. But tell me how Greer saw any flap or any wound in the top of the head when they took the body from the limo, when no one else present at the scene saw any such thing. In fact, isn’t it your position that Jackie had held down the flap so that it was back in place and the wound was virtually unnoticeable? So did Greer have x-ray vision? Too bad his eyes weren’t that good in Dealey Plaza. The Z film shows him looking straight back at JFK when this flap appears in the film, but he told the WC that he couldn’t even see JFK, he just glanced back upon hearing shots and hit that gas pedal.

Newman went from looking at JFK's dark hair and ear to seeing a large flesh colored area that he thought was a hole when in reality it was the bone plate hanging over the President's right ear.

So you have stated. Repetition doesn't strengthen an argument. This hanging bone plate that you assume Newman saw (and I agree it all fits IF that's what he saw, but remember that Newman himself has said his memory has possibly been influenced over the years by what he has seen and read) – this flap seemed to disappear faster than you can go through an underpass. It was not to be seen again, except allegedly by two doctors, one of whom told two different stories (Grossman) and one of whom flat-out lied to the WC (Baxter) – IOW two doctors who were to impeach their own credibility. And there’s the intern Salyer, who like Greer didn’t mention any flap, he said “I came in on the left side of him and noticed that his major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area.” What did this intern do, move right in and crane his neck over JFK to look at the right side while doctors were trying to save him? I’d like to know why Specter ended his session with Salyer so abruptly.

As I recall, this flap was not even seen at Bethesda. What they saw at Bethesda was a big hole in the side of JFK's head. Where did the massive flap go? Could it be that it was only a Z film invention, being concocted that very night, too late to carve out a matching flap on the body, which had already been mutilated and thrown into a shipping casket to beat the Dallas group to Bethesda?

That’s what I’m suspecting at present, based on the weight of evidence.

[Bill Miller]

So you have stated. Repetition doesn't strengthen an argument. This hanging bone plate that you assume Newman saw (and I agree it all fits IF that's what he saw, but remember that Newman himself has said his memory has possibly been influenced over the years by what he has seen and read) – this flap seemed to disappear faster than you can go through an underpass.

Yeh - that is about how long it took for Jackie to put it back into place. Do you remember Ed Hoffman saying that when the car passed below him that the top of the head was open and that it wiggled like jello? Do you recall him placing his hand on the top right side of the head in TMWKK to show where the large opening was that he saw? I remember it!

Bill

[Ron Ecker]

Do you remember Ed Hoffman saying that when the car passed below him that the top of the head was open and that it wiggled like jello? Do you recall him placing his hand on the top right side of the head in TMWKK to show where the large opening was that he saw? I remember it!

Hoffman told his story twice to the FBI, in 1967 and 1977. There were serious communication problems the first time because of the fact that Hoffman was a deaf mute, so for the second interview Hoffman took a letter with him telling his story. It is basically the same story that Hoffman told Bill Sloan in 1992 through a professional interpreter: that the gunman who fired at JFK from behind the fence tossed the rifle to a railroad worker and ran north into the railroad yards; the railroad worker dismantled the rifle, put it in a suitcase, and started running too.

The account in Sloan's book Breaking the Silence is quoted at length in Mark Panlener's online article Struggling with Silence. Amazingly Panlener concludes that "Hoffman's story has stayed the same through the years whether it is true or not." I say "amazingly" not only because Panlener's seemingly fair article is on John McAdams's website, but because Panlener completely ignores what I consider to be a major inconsistency in Hoffman's story, which in my view seriously damages his credibility.

In TMWKK Hoffman personally demonstrates what he says he observed behind the fence. He acts out the gunman tossing the rifle to another man, then he demonstrates how the gunman turned and walked casually away along the fence. The man dressed as a railroad worker also walked casually away after dismantling the rifle. This same version of Hoffman's story, the version in which the two men walk casually away, is also told in the Spring 1992 edition of Dateline:Dallas, published by the JFK Assassination Information Center, the article entitled Behind the Picket Fence, As Told by Eyewitness Virgil "Ed" Hoffman.

So Hoffman told the FBI, in a letter in 1977, and Bill Sloan through a professional interpreter in 1992, that the two men ran away. Yet Hoffman demonstrated in TMWKK (which I believe was produced in the late 1980s), and told Dateline:Dallas in 1992, that the two men walked casually away. Which was it?

I would add that it makes no sense to me that the railroad man would run away as Hoffman told Sloan and the FBI. The man is dressed like a railroad worker presumably not to draw attention to himself. So what does he do? He starts running, which would naturally draw attention to himself.

I would like to believe everything Hoffman said that he saw (including his description of JFK's head), because by all accounts he was responsible, hard-working, likeable family man. But like Dr. Grossman with his drastically changing head wound, Hoffman can't have what he saw both ways.

[Bill Miller]

So Hoffman told the FBI, in a letter in 1977, and Bill Sloan through a professional interpreter in 1992, that the two men ran away. Yet Hoffman demonstrated in TMWKK (which I believe was produced in the late 1980s), and told Dateline:Dallas in 1992, that the two men walked casually away. Which was it?

I would add that it makes no sense to me that the railroad man would run away as Hoffman told Sloan and the FBI. The man is dressed like a railroad worker presumably not to draw attention to himself. So what does he do? He starts running, which would naturally draw attention to himself.

I would like to believe everything Hoffman said that he saw (including his description of JFK's head), because by all accounts he was responsible, hard-working, likeable family man. But like Dr. Grossman with his drastically changing head wound, Hoffman can't have what he saw both ways.

Ron, you apparently think you know all about Hoffman, which you do not ... and it seems you are going to make exuses to the point of splitting hairs to hang on to what I believe is an absurd theory based on a poor understanding of the facts. I personally walked with Ed, while having us filmed, as he told me everything that happened. His interpreter was his daughter who knows Ed better than anyone. What most people do not know is that Ed has a poor understanding of the English language. By this I mean ... Ed knows what he is trying to say, but uses incorrect words in describing what he saw. I even heard his daughter and him going back and forth on what Ed was trying to say at times because Ed didn't feel as though he was getting his message out correctly. So it's not because Ed is telling various stories, but rather his interpreter hears Ed use a word that he or she believes means one thing while Ed thinks he said another. This is why Turner, just as I did, had Ed act out the movments he saw going on behind the fence (often using words that Ed doesn't see a difference in their useage) right down to the speed at which these individuals were moving. But regardless of all this crap about whether Ed said to someone that the guy walked fast - ran slow - hurried - ran - walked - or what ever, he was telling his story to his family and friends from the very beginning and those who know him claim he has never wavierd. Out of frustration, Ed had even wanted to take a polygraph and was told that as a deaf mute that he could not be tested. When I heard this and told him this wasn't so, he again wanted to be tested so to prove himself honest because it was important for him to do so. I started the process and when it was discovered that Ed takes a certain heart medication ... his chances of being tested acccurately became an issue, thus the institution said they would not conduct the test under the current circumstances. I can tell you this ... one of the questions was to concern Ed seeing JFK's head as he dscribed it on TMWKK interview. The Zapruder film had not been publicly shown until 1978 and Ed had told of seeing the Prsident's head wound from day one according to his family. One might ask themselves how else could he have described what the Zfilm shows and what other witnesses had seen if he hadn't really seen it first hand. I think when one selectively picks at certain things that have been written concerning Ed, then they can spread doubt about his credibility. However, when one takes the time to learn more of the facts so to apply them to better descern fact from fiction .... they will probably concluded that Ed saw the opened skull just as he claimed.

Bill

Edited April 22, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Ron Ecker]

Robin, you apparently think you know all about Hoffman, which you do not ...

My name is Ron, and I don't know all about anything. If you think I'm arrogant enough to think that I do, and I come across to you as a know-it-all, that's your problem, about which I really don't care.

and it seems you are going to make exuses to the point of splitting hairs to hang on to what I believe is an absurd theory based on a poor understanding of the facts.

What I'm after is facts, like Joe Friday. If facts don't bear out the hypothesis I'm exploring, I'll drop it, in which case it will never become a "theory." I like to fancy that I'm following the scientific method.

it's not because Ed is telling various stories, but rather his interpreter hears Ed use a word that he or she believes means one thing while Ed thinks he said another.

Once he had acted out exactly what happened for TMWKK, you would think he would have worked things out well enough by 1992 that he could make clear through a professional interpreter that he meant walk, moving in a relatively slow and casual fashion, and not run (as he had told the FBI in a letter) as if making a getaway. This would not be very hard, I would think, one could even sort of demonstrate walking to an interpreter and the listener, just as he did for TMWKK. Yet in 1992 Hoffman has the assassins running again for Sloan and the interpreter, and walking again for Dateline:Dallas. Demonstrating, if being unable to verbalize, the difference does not strike me as rocket science. But like you say, I didn't know him. I'm just trying to apply common sense.

But regardless of all this crap about whether Ed said to someone that the guy walked fast - ran slow - hurried - ran - walked - or what ever, he was telling his story to his family and friends from the very beginning and those who know him claim he has never wavierd.

You can call it crap, but I see it as the crux of whether he was making up a story or not. I don't consider the described MO of JFK's assassins to be irrelevant crap.

The Zapruder film had not been publicly shown until 1978 and Ed had told of seeing the Prsident's head wound from day one according to his family.

If he did see JFK's head, what did he see? Did he say he saw an open flap? He is quoted by Sloan as saying "the side of the president's head looked like a bowl of Jell-O." Since JFK at the time was lying more or less face down, either on the seat or in Jackie's lap and depending on how soon Jackie would have obscured any wound with her hands, what Hoffman may well have seen is remaining brains and blood in the gaping occipitoparietal hole in JFK's head, i.e. the right rear of and part of the "side" of his head. The Z film flap could have nothing to do with it (particularly if there wasn't one there).

BTW Hoffman also said he saw JFK's foot hanging over the side of the car. A lot of people thought that from a published photo. Whether Hoffman saw it live or in a photo, it was Clint Hill's foot.

Edited April 22, 2006 by Ron Ecker

[David G. Healy]

BM wrote

[...]

I guess when this was addressed in the past that all that was said was understood, but I see that was not the case. I am constantly hearing questions raised about what should have been seen on the Zapruder film and in each instance it is a lack of knowledge as to the natural causes that leads one to jump straight to film alteration.

[...]

Kinda tough to swallow isn't it? There are those that just don't buy the WC story, nor certain segments of the

Zapruder film... course if you discount eyewitness testimony, especially testimony from Parkland MD's who treated JFK -- only then would you have a leg to stand defending the Z-film...

So what you 'guess' was addressed, remains a open question.... After all these years I've never heard anyone ask, "...what should of been in the Z-film?" Its alway's, "so, who shot him from the front...?

Not lack of knowledge as you profess, just common sense, champ!

[Bill Miller]

What I'm after is facts, like Joe Friday. If facts don't bear out the hypothesis I'm exploring, I'll drop it, in which case it will never become a "theory." I like to fancy that I'm following the scientific method.

No, Ron ... you are not following facts, just implementing suppositions on your part. The fact is that Hoffman said he saw the top of JFK's head ... Ed goes as far as to place his hand on his own head where he said the wound was. You then go from that to supposing he was talking about the occipital part of the skull. And the reference to jello was because he brain tissues were shaking like jello does when moved.

Once he had acted out exactly what happened for TMWKK, you would think he would have worked things out well enough by 1992 that he could make clear through a professional interpreter that he meant walk, moving in a relatively slow and casual fashion, and not run (as he had told the FBI in a letter) as if making a getaway.

Interpretation is just that ... it is not 100% accurate. I would take Ed's acting out what he saw over someone trying to interpret what he meant. I recall going around and around with a guy once because Holland said Connally was driven down into the floor when shot. This guy was implying the Zfilm was altered because Connally is never seen in the floorboard of the limo. Ed's daughter can sign and knows Ed far better than any interpreter and she even had trouble relaying exactly what Ed was saying at times ... and Ed became quite irritated over it when he caught such instances happening.

You can call it crap, but I see it as the crux of whether he was making up a story or not. I don't consider the described MO of JFK's assassins to be irrelevant crap.

Yeh right, Ron. The bone plate coming off the top of JFK's head never happened. Hoffman lied about seeing a wound that just so happened to be seen publicly on the Zfilm 15 years later. Newman actually saw JFK's ear fly off ... etc.

If he did see JFK's head, what did he see? Did he say he saw an open flap? He is quoted by Sloan as saying "the side of the president's head looked like a bowl of Jell-O." Since JFK at the time was lying more or less face down, either on the seat or in Jackie's lap and depending on how soon Jackie would have obscured any wound with her hands, what Hoffman may well have seen is remaining brains and blood in the gaping occipitoparietal hole in JFK's head, i.e. the right rear of and part of the "side" of his head. The Z film flap could have nothing to do with it (particularly if there wasn't one there).

More factless supposition

BTW Hoffman also said he saw JFK's foot hanging over the side of the car. A lot of people thought that from a published photo. Whether Hoffman saw it live or in a photo, it was Clint Hill's foot.

So what if Hoffman saw JFK's foot or Hill's foot in a photo ... it has nothing to do with him describing independently a wound that other witness had claimed to see.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Kinda tough to swallow isn't it? There are those that just don't buy the WC story, nor certain segments of the

Zapruder film... course if you discount eyewitness testimony, especially testimony from Parkland MD's who treated JFK -- only then would you have a leg to stand defending the Z-film...

So what you 'guess' was addressed, remains a open question.... After all these years I've never heard anyone ask, "...what should of been in the Z-film?" Its alway's, "so, who shot him from the front...?

Not lack of knowledge as you profess, just common sense, champ!

David, are you not capable of writing anything other than a few say-nothing disjointed sentences? How many times do I have to remind you that "YOU" have not seen anything that proves photo and film alteration, so why are you wasting my time. I don't buy the WC story either and I spend a great deal of time researching and creating clips to show the viewer why I say what I do. However, to date, as you also have acknowledged, no one has shown any proof that the Zapruder film is altered. I've heard people say that there should be bullets seen flying through the air in the Zfilm - details of the avulsed bones in the hair on the back of JFK's head should be seen - and so on ... but it is their lack of knowledge of the camera Zapruder used, as well as the type of film Z used that prevented him from capturing such details.

And what common sense are you talking about ... because what ever it is - it never demonstrated to you that the Zfilm had been altered because that is what you have said to this forum. Your disjointed ramblings appear to be double talking ... so any time you decide to present a case for alteration, expect to be thorough about it and to have your own words come back and bite you on the rear.

Bill

Edited April 22, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Ron Ecker]

The fact is that Hoffman said he saw the top of JFK's head ...

This does further damage to his credibility, if I understand correctly where Hoffman was at the time. He was north of the limo as it passed, and JFK was lying flat with his head pointed south.

The sum of all this is that you believe the story of a witness who never got his story straight about whether the assassins he said he saw nonchalantly hung around to fool people, or took off running for the railroad yards. You say he somehow saw a wound like in the Z film before he ever saw the Z film. You can't prove that, it's what he and/or his family or someone else told you. And you know something else? As hard as you've tried you can't prove Gordon Arnold was on the grassy knoll either. But you accuse me of going by suppositions and not facts. But that's okay, carry on.