Jump to content


Spartacus

Paul Mandel and the Zapruder Film


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,090 posts

Posted 10 November 2009 - 07:35 PM

On 6th December, 1963, Paul Mandel wrote an article about the assassination of John F. Kennedy in Life Magazine. "The doctor said one bullet passed from back to front on the right side of the President’s head. But the other, the doctor reported, entered the President’s throat from the front and then lodged in his body. Since by this time the limousine was 50 yards past Oswald and the President’s back was turned almost directly to the sniper, it has been hard to understand how the bullet could enter the front of his throat. Hence the recurring guess that there was a second sniper somewhere else. But the 8mm film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed – toward the sniper’s nest – just before he clutches it." Jim Marrs has argued: "The account is patently wrong, as anyone who has seen the film can verify. The reason for such wrongful information at such a critical time will probably never be known, as the author of this statement, Paul Mandel, died shortly afterward."

John McAdams has argued: "Mandel’s claim was contrary to fact, which can be seen in the Zapruder film. Some conspiracy theorists claim that Mandel must have had access to LIFE’s copy of the Zapruder film and completed a detailed analysis of the film. They further implicitly assert that Mandel must have known the layout of Dealey Plaza. Thus they conclude that when Mandel discovered that the film was inconsistent with the lone assassin theory he either shaded the article to cover up a conspiracy or was coerced into doing so by the editor of LIFE, a veteran of WWII."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/mandel.htm

I asked James Wagenvoord, the editorial business manager and assistant to Life Magazines Executive Editor, in November 1963, if Mandel had watched the Zapruder film. He replied: "Paul Mandel definitely saw the film. He was a major presence at the magazine, a good guy and an excellent editor-writer. He left Life to become the editor-in-Chief of the Observer Magazine in London. He continued to have total unfettered access to LIFE."

#2 Paul Rigby

Paul Rigby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,532 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southport, England

Posted 10 November 2009 - 11:38 PM

On 6th December, 1963, Paul Mandel wrote an article about the assassination of John F. Kennedy in Life Magazine. "The doctor said one bullet passed from back to front on the right side of the President’s head. But the other, the doctor reported, entered the President’s throat from the front and then lodged in his body. Since by this time the limousine was 50 yards past Oswald and the President’s back was turned almost directly to the sniper, it has been hard to understand how the bullet could enter the front of his throat. Hence the recurring guess that there was a second sniper somewhere else. But the 8mm film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed – toward the sniper’s nest – just before he clutches it." Jim Marrs has argued: "The account is patently wrong, as anyone who has seen the film can verify. The reason for such wrongful information at such a critical time will probably never be known, as the author of this statement, Paul Mandel, died shortly afterward."

John McAdams has argued: "Mandel’s claim was contrary to fact, which can be seen in the Zapruder film. Some conspiracy theorists claim that Mandel must have had access to LIFE’s copy of the Zapruder film and completed a detailed analysis of the film. They further implicitly assert that Mandel must have known the layout of Dealey Plaza. Thus they conclude that when Mandel discovered that the film was inconsistent with the lone assassin theory he either shaded the article to cover up a conspiracy or was coerced into doing so by the editor of LIFE, a veteran of WWII."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/mandel.htm

I asked James Wagenvoord, the editorial business manager and assistant to Life Magazines Executive Editor, in November 1963, if Mandel had watched the Zapruder film. He replied: "Paul Mandel definitely saw the film. He was a major presence at the magazine, a good guy and an excellent editor-writer. He left Life to become the editor-in-Chief of the Observer Magazine in London. He continued to have total unfettered access to LIFE."


From the admirable thread “Was Muchmore’s film shown on WNEW-TV on November 26, 1963?”:

Why was it necessary to suppress the first version of the Zapruder film on November 25/26, and revise it? One key element of any answer lies with the Parkland press conference. The insistence of Perry and Clark that Kennedy was shot from the front threw a significant spanner in the works, not least because their expert, disinterested, first-hand, matter-of-fact descriptions were broadcast live. How to preserve the credibility of both the patsy-from-the-rear scenario, and the similarly pre-planned supporting film?

The solution was to suppress the film-as-film, hastily edit it, and meanwhile bring the public round by degree through the medium of the written word. Here’s the latter process in action.

Note how in example 1, the first shot, which does not impact, is fired while the presidential limousine is on Houston:

John Herbers, “Kennedy Struck by Two Bullets, Doctor Who Attended Him Says,” New York Times, November 27, 1963, p.20:

“…The known facts about the bullets, and the position of the assassin, suggested that he started shooting as the President’s car was coming toward him, swung his rifle in an arc of almost 180 degrees and fired at least twice more.

A rifle like the one that killed President Kennedy might be able to fire three shots in two seconds, a gun expert indicated after tests.

A strip of color movie film taken by a Dallas clothing manufacturer with an 8-mm camera tends to support this sequence of events.

The film covers about a 15-second period. As the President’s car come abreast of the photographer, the President was struck in the front of the neck.”


In this second example, the first shot, which now does impact, occurs as the turn is made from Houston onto Elm:

Arthur J. Snider (Chicago Daily News Service), “Movies Reconstruct Tragedy,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, (Evening edition), November 27, 1963, section 2, p.1:

“Chicago, Nov. 27 – With the aid of movies taken by an amateur, it is possible to reconstruct to some extent the horrifying moments in the assassination of President Kennedy.

As the fateful car rounded the turn and moved into the curving parkway, the President rolled his head to the right, smiling and waving.

At that instant, about 12:30 p.m., the sniper, peering through a four-power telescope sight, fired his cheap rifle.

The 6.5 mm bullet – about .25 caliber – pierced the President’s neck just below the Adam’s apple. It took a downward course.”


And here’s the process completed in example 3, with the presidential limousine now “50 yards past Oswald” on Elm:

Paul Mandel, “End to Nagging Rumors: The Six Critical Seconds,” Life, 6 December 1963:

“The doctor said one bullet passed from back to front on the right side of the President’s head. But the other, the doctor reported, entered the President’s throat from the front and then lodged in his body.

Since by this time the limousine was 50 yards past Oswald and the President’s back was turned almost directly to the sniper, it has been hard to understand how the bullet could enter the front of his throat. Hence the recurring guess that there was a second sniper somewhere else. But the 8mm film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed–toward the sniper’s nest–just before he clutches it,”

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/mandel.htm


The film-as-film could not be shown while the above process of fraudulent harmonisation - of medical testimony and the lone-assassin-from-the-rear – was undertaken. More, it was predicated on the removal of the left turn from Houston onto Elm. Showing of that turn would have furnished visual-pictorial refutation of the entire elaborate deceit

To which one can add the following from Mark Lane:

Extract from: The British ‘who killed Kennedy?’ Committee, December 1964 (Pamphlet, 32pp)

The Warren Commission Report and the Assassination

By Mark Lane


When that first bullet struck the President and he grasped his throat with both hands, all one has to do is examine the wound and find out if it was an entrance wound indicating the shot came from the front, or an exit wound. The doctors at the Parkland Memorial Hospital on November 22nd held a Press Conference after they pronounced the President dead, and at that Press Conference, which was widely televised and broadcast by radio throughout America, the doctors made these comments. Dr. Malcolm Perry, the physician who performed the tracheotomy on the President’s throat so that a tube could be inserted in the throat said: “I followed the path of the bullet which entered at the Adam’s apple and ranged downward into the chest. The bullet did not exit, and that is the path I followed with the tube when I performed the tracheotomy.” Dr. Kemp Clark, the physician who signed the death certificate said: “The bullet entered the President’s throat at the Adam’s apple and ranged downward into the chest and did not exit.” Dr. Robert N. McClelland, Senior Physician at the Parkland Hospital, said: “Down here in Dallas we have an opportunity to examine and treat bullet wounds every single day. As a result we know the difference between entrance wounds and exit wounds, and the wound in the President’s throat was an entrance wound. The bullet entered from the front.”

Based upon that information, the FBI and the Dallas Police issued a statement saying that the limousine was right here (on Houston Street, facing the Book Depository Building) when the first shot was fired and Oswald took that rifle, fired down Houston Street, the first bullet striking the President in the front of the throat. Well that testimony then totally confirms the medical statement that the bullet entered the throat from the front and from above and ranged downward into the chest. But there was a problem with that story.

The problem is that it’s totally false and not only that, the witnesses agreed that it was false, that the car was here, moving away from the Book Depository Building in this direction before the first shot was fired. Now among the witnesses who said that the car was on Elm Street, not on Houston Street, were such witnesses as Jacqueline Kennedy, Governor Connolly, Mrs. Connolly, and all the films that were taken showing the car there. Just before it was announced, however, just before the story was changed to version number two, the Dallas District Attorney said: “We have a map found in Oswald’s possession. He circled the Book Depository Building, and he had drawn a dotted line on the map down Houston Street, showing the trajectory which he had planned, and he drew that dotted line in his own handwriting.” However, now that the witnesses have all said publicly: “The car was here” (on Elm Street) and the films show the car was there, the FBI and the Secret Service and the Dallas Police are nothing if not absolutely flexible, and so version number one was forever erased, and we now reach version number two. Now version number two is presented with two new problems. Number one: what about that dotted line that Oswald drew down Houston Street? New York Times, November 29th: “The Dallas authorities said today there never was such a map. Any reference to it was an error.” That takes care of the map.

However, there’s another problem, how did Oswald shoot the President in the front of his throat, how did he shoot him from the front, from the back? That’s a more weighty problem. The autopsy was conducted on November 22nd from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. on the very day of the assassination, and agents of the FBI were there when the autopsy was being conducted and got reports on the progress of the autopsy and immediately thereafter. After that autopsy had been completed, thirteen days later, the Federal Authorities re-enacted and reconstructed the crime, with an FBI Agent sitting in the back seat playing the role of President Kennedy, and the New York Times which observed the re-enactment reported that as the limousine came to this point, the officer of the FBI who was playing the role of the President turned completely around to face the Book Depository Building to expose his throat, seeking to explain how that first bullet entered the President’s throat from above, and from the front. “But,” mused the New York Times, then, “that’s rather curious because the pictures which have already been published widely show that the President was looking in this direction, to the front and to the right when the first bullet entered his throat.” Well, the Times, throwing its hands up at that point, said: “There is one document that will answer these questions for us: the statements made by Dr. Humes, the medical Corps Commander of the Navy who performed the autopsy on the President’s body at the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, for Dr. Humes is the expert,” said the New York Times, “on the angle of entry of the bullet, so we must wait for his report.”



#3 David G. Healy

David G. Healy

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,151 posts

Posted 11 November 2009 - 12:32 AM

[quote name='Paul Rigby' post='174316' date='Nov 10 2009, 02:38 PM'][quote name='John Simkin' post='174297' date='Nov 10 2009, 07:35 PM']On 6th December, 1963, Paul Mandel wrote an article about the assassination of John F. Kennedy in Life Magazine. "The doctor said one bullet passed from back to front on the right side of the President’s head. But the other, the doctor reported, entered the President’s throat from the front and then lodged in his body. Since by this time the limousine was 50 yards past Oswald and the President’s back was turned almost directly to the sniper, it has been hard to understand how the bullet could enter the front of his throat. Hence the recurring guess that there was a second sniper somewhere else. But the 8mm film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed – toward the sniper’s nest – just before he clutches it." Jim Marrs has argued: "The account is patently wrong, as anyone who has seen the film can verify. The reason for such wrongful information at such a critical time will probably never be known, as the author of this statement, Paul Mandel, died shortly afterward."

John McAdams has argued: "Mandel’s claim was contrary to fact, which can be seen in the Zapruder film. Some conspiracy theorists claim that Mandel must have had access to LIFE’s copy of the Zapruder film and completed a detailed analysis of the film. They further implicitly assert that Mandel must have known the layout of Dealey Plaza. Thus they conclude that when Mandel discovered that the film was inconsistent with the lone assassin theory he either shaded the article to cover up a conspiracy or was coerced into doing so by the editor of LIFE, a veteran of WWII."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/mandel.htm

I asked James Wagenvoord, the editorial business manager and assistant to Life Magazines Executive Editor, in November 1963, if Mandel had watched the Zapruder film. He replied: "Paul Mandel definitely saw the film. He was a major presence at the magazine, a good guy and an excellent editor-writer. He left Life to become the editor-in-Chief of the Observer Magazine in London. He continued to have total unfettered access to LIFE."[/quote]

From the admirable thread “Was Muchmore’s film shown on WNEW-TV on November 26, 1963?”:

Why was it necessary to suppress the first version of the Zapruder film on November 25/26, and revise it? One key element of any answer lies with the Parkland press conference. The insistence of Perry and Clark that Kennedy was shot from the front threw a significant spanner in the works, not least because their expert, disinterested, first-hand, matter-of-fact descriptions were broadcast live. How to preserve the credibility of both the patsy-from-the-rear scenario, and the similarly pre-planned supporting film?

The solution was to suppress the film-as-film, hastily edit it, and meanwhile bring the public round by degree through the medium of the written word. Here’s the latter process in action.

Note how in example 1, the first shot, which does not impact, is fired while the presidential limousine is on Houston:

[quote]John Herbers, “Kennedy Struck by Two Bullets, Doctor Who Attended Him Says,” New York Times, November 27, 1963, p.20:

“…The known facts about the bullets, and the position of the assassin, suggested that he started shooting as the President’s car was coming toward him, swung his rifle in an arc of almost 180 degrees and fired at least twice more.

A rifle like the one that killed President Kennedy might be able to fire three shots in two seconds, a gun expert indicated after tests.

A strip of color movie film taken by a Dallas clothing manufacturer with an 8-mm camera tends to support this sequence of events.

The film covers about a 15-second period. As the President’s car come abreast of the photographer, the President was struck in the front of the neck.”[/quote]

In this second example, the first shot, which now does impact, occurs as the turn is made from Houston onto Elm:

[quote]Arthur J. Snider (Chicago Daily News Service), “Movies Reconstruct Tragedy,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, (Evening edition), November 27, 1963, section 2, p.1:

“Chicago, Nov. 27 – With the aid of movies taken by an amateur, it is possible to reconstruct to some extent the horrifying moments in the assassination of President Kennedy.

As the fateful car rounded the turn and moved into the curving parkway, the President rolled his head to the right, smiling and waving.

At that instant, about 12:30 p.m., the sniper, peering through a four-power telescope sight, fired his cheap rifle.

The 6.5 mm bullet – about .25 caliber – pierced the President’s neck just below the Adam’s apple. It took a downward course.”[/quote]

And here’s the process completed in example 3, with the presidential limousine now “50 yards past Oswald” on Elm:

[quote]Paul Mandel, “End to Nagging Rumors: The Six Critical Seconds,” Life, 6 December 1963:

“The doctor said one bullet passed from back to front on the right side of the President’s head. But the other, the doctor reported, entered the President’s throat from the front and then lodged in his body.

Since by this time the limousine was 50 yards past Oswald and the President’s back was turned almost directly to the sniper, it has been hard to understand how the bullet could enter the front of his throat. Hence the recurring guess that there was a second sniper somewhere else. But the 8mm film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed–toward the sniper’s nest–just before he clutches it,”

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/mandel.htm[/quote]

The film-as-film could not be shown while the above process of fraudulent harmonisation - of medical testimony and the lone-assassin-from-the-rear – was undertaken. More, it was predicated on the removal of the left turn from Houston onto Elm. Showing of that turn would have furnished visual-pictorial refutation of the entire elaborate deceit

To which one can add the following from Mark Lane:

[quote]Extract from: The British ‘who killed Kennedy?’ Committee, December 1964 (Pamphlet, 32pp)

The Warren Commission Report and the Assassination

By Mark Lane


When that first bullet struck the President and he grasped his throat with both hands, all one has to do is examine the wound and find out if it was an entrance wound indicating the shot came from the front, or an exit wound. The doctors at the Parkland Memorial Hospital on November 22nd held a Press Conference after they pronounced the President dead, and at that Press Conference, which was widely televised and broadcast by radio throughout America, the doctors made these comments. Dr. Malcolm Perry, the physician who performed the tracheotomy on the President’s throat so that a tube could be inserted in the throat said: “I followed the path of the bullet which entered at the Adam’s apple and ranged downward into the chest. The bullet did not exit, and that is the path I followed with the tube when I performed the tracheotomy.” Dr. Kemp Clark, the physician who signed the death certificate said: “The bullet entered the President’s throat at the Adam’s apple and ranged downward into the chest and did not exit.” Dr. Robert N. McClelland, Senior Physician at the Parkland Hospital, said: “Down here in Dallas we have an opportunity to examine and treat bullet wounds every single day. As a result we know the difference between entrance wounds and exit wounds, and the wound in the President’s throat was an entrance wound. The bullet entered from the front.”

Based upon that information, the FBI and the Dallas Police issued a statement saying that the limousine was right here (on Houston Street, facing the Book Depository Building) when the first shot was fired and Oswald took that rifle, fired down Houston Street, the first bullet striking the President in the front of the throat. Well that testimony then totally confirms the medical statement that the bullet entered the throat from the front and from above and ranged downward into the chest. But there was a problem with that story.

The problem is that it’s totally false and not only that, the witnesses agreed that it was false, that the car was here, moving away from the Book Depository Building in this direction before the first shot was fired. Now among the witnesses who said that the car was on Elm Street, not on Houston Street, were such witnesses as Jacqueline Kennedy, Governor Connolly, Mrs. Connolly, and all the films that were taken showing the car there. Just before it was announced, however, just before the story was changed to version number two, the Dallas District Attorney said: “We have a map found in Oswald’s possession. He circled the Book Depository Building, and he had drawn a dotted line on the map down Houston Street, showing the trajectory which he had planned, and he drew that dotted line in his own handwriting.” However, now that the witnesses have all said publicly: “The car was here” (on Elm Street) and the films show the car was there, the FBI and the Secret Service and the Dallas Police are nothing if not absolutely flexible, and so version number one was forever erased, and we now reach version number two. Now version number two is presented with two new problems. Number one: what about that dotted line that Oswald drew down Houston Street? New York Times, November 29th: “The Dallas authorities said today there never was such a map. Any reference to it was an error.” That takes care of the map.

However, there’s another problem, how did Oswald shoot the President in the front of his throat, how did he shoot him from the front, from the back? That’s a more weighty problem. The autopsy was conducted on November 22nd from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. on the very day of the assassination, and agents of the FBI were there when the autopsy was being conducted and got reports on the progress of the autopsy and immediately thereafter. After that autopsy had been completed, thirteen days later, the Federal Authorities re-enacted and reconstructed the crime, with an FBI Agent sitting in the back seat playing the role of President Kennedy, and the New York Times which observed the re-enactment reported that as the limousine came to this point, the officer of the FBI who was playing the role of the President turned completely around to face the Book Depository Building to expose his throat, seeking to explain how that first bullet entered the President’s throat from above, and from the front. “But,” mused the New York Times, then, “that’s rather curious because the pictures which have already been published widely show that the President was looking in this direction, to the front and to the right when the first bullet entered his throat.” Well, the Times, throwing its hands up at that point, said: “There is one document that will answer these questions for us: the statements made by Dr. Humes, the medical Corps Commander of the Navy who performed the autopsy on the President’s body at the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, for Dr. Humes is the expert,” said the New York Times, “on the angle of entry of the bullet, so we must wait for his report.”[/quote]
[/quote]

great summation, Paul!

#4 Guest_Tom Scully_*

Guest_Tom Scully_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 December 2009 - 09:04 AM

[quote name='John Simkin' post='174297' date='Nov 10 2009, 08:35 PM']On 6th December, 1963, Paul Mandel wrote an article about the assassination of John F. Kennedy in Life Magazine. "The doctor said one bullet passed from back to front on the right side of the President’s head. But the other, the doctor reported, entered the President’s throat from the front and then lodged in his body. Since by this time the limousine was 50 yards past Oswald and the President’s back was turned almost directly to the sniper, it has been hard to understand how the bullet could enter the front of his throat. Hence the recurring guess that there was a second sniper somewhere else. But the 8mm film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed – toward the sniper’s nest – just before he clutches it." Jim Marrs has argued: "The account is patently wrong, as anyone who has seen the film can verify. The reason for such wrongful information at such a critical time will probably never be known, as the author of this statement, Paul Mandel, died shortly afterward."

John McAdams has argued: "Mandel’s claim was contrary to fact, which can be seen in the Zapruder film. Some conspiracy theorists claim that Mandel must have had access to LIFE’s copy of the Zapruder film and completed a detailed analysis of the film. They further implicitly assert that Mandel must have known the layout of Dealey Plaza. Thus they conclude that when Mandel discovered that the film was inconsistent with the lone assassin theory he either shaded the article to cover up a conspiracy or was coerced into doing so by the editor of LIFE, a veteran of WWII."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/mandel.htm

I asked James Wagenvoord, the editorial business manager and assistant to Life Magazines Executive Editor, in November 1963, if Mandel had watched the Zapruder film. He replied: "Paul Mandel definitely saw the film. He was a major presence at the magazine, a good guy and an excellent editor-writer. He left Life to become the editor-in-Chief of the Observer Magazine in London. He continued to have total unfettered access to LIFE."[/quote]
There was much initial support for the opinion among healthcare practitioners at Parkland Hospital who saw the wound to JFK's neck, that it was a gunshot entrance wound.:

Discussion on the subject of the Parkland doctors' initial opinion of wound of entry to JFK's neck are ongoing here:
http://educationforu...h...11339&st=45
....and here: http://educationforu...h...15105&st=15
[quote]http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/press.htm
"PRESS CONFERENCE
PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
DALLAS, TEXAS
NOVEMBER 22, 1963
2:16 P.M. CST
AT THE WHITE HOUSE WITH WAYNE HAWKS
...QUESTION-
Where was the entrance wound?
DR. MALCOM PERRY-
There was an entrance wound in the neck. As regards the one on the head, I cannot say.
QUESTION-
Which way was the bullet coming on the neck wound? At him?
DR. MALCOM PERRY-
It appeared to be coming at him. ...
..QUESTION-
Doctor, describe the entrance wound. You think from the front in the throat?
DR. MALCOM PERRY-
The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes, that is correct. The exit wound, I don’t know...
..DR. KEMP CLARK-
The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound,..."[/quote]
[quote]http://news.google.c... ...1&scoring=a
PLOT ON KENNEDY STILL SUSPECTED; Theory Persists in Europe …
- New York Times - Mar 15, 1965
Mr. Salandria says 'that the! examinations in Dallas were made before a -- an opening of the trachea[ [to facilitate breathing -- had al-! tered the wound
in the front oft !the President's neck neck He [ that Dr. Rufus Baxter [said the ... I lave never] seen an exit bullet hole -- I don tl !remember teeing one that looked like that."
The article quotes also from Mr. Bennett's testimony that he had "heard a sound like a " to which President Kennedy did not seem to react and had then heard another shot !that hit the President's back, and a third that "hit on the right rear of the President's head...

http://spot.acorn.ne.../vs_wounds.html
The following article was first published in Liberation magazine, March 1965, Vol. X No. 1., and is reprinted with permission of the author.
A Philadelphia Lawyer Analyzes
The President's Back and Neck Wounds
by Vincent J. Salandria

.....All of the evidence discussed herein is derived from the Warren Report and its supporting notes of testimony and exhibits. Not a scrap of it comes from any outside source.

The first evidence of a back wound came from Secret Service Agent Glen A. Bennett, stationed at the time in the right rear seat of the President's followup car,

who heard a sound like a firecracker as the motorcade proceeded down Elm Street. At that moment, Agent Bennett stated: "...I looked at the back of the President. I heard another firecracker noise and saw that shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear of the President's head." (W-111)

According to Bennett, the second shot hit "about four inches down from the right shoulder." His testimony indicated that the first bullet did one of two things: either missed, or hit the President at a point which Bennett did not or could not see from his position in the followup car.

His testimony gives rise to the following question: Could the President have been hit in the front of the neck by the first shot, directed from a rifle positioned in the front of the President, and then immediately thereafter struck in the back by a different missile, aimed from a weapon of an assassin posted in the Book Depository Building? Is there credible evidence to support an early hit on the President from the front? With the purpose of answering this inquiry, we must examine the wound in the President's neck.

The autopsy report was prepared at Bethesda Naval Hospital. It indicates a wound "in the low anterior cervical region" (W-541). This, in layman's terms, describes a wound in the front of the neck at the necktie knot. The Report concludes "that the bullet exited from the front portion of the President's neck that had been cut away by the tracheotomy" (W-88). Since we have adopted a view of healthy skepticism, there is no need for us to join in the Commission's conclusion that this wound was an "exit" wound. Rather, we will sift the evidence, and arrive at whatever independent conclusion the evidence directs us to.

The tracheotomy was prepared by Dr. Malcolm O. Perry of Parkland Hospital. Dr. Perry described the neck wound as "a small wound in the lower anterior third in the midline of the neck, from which blood was exuding very slowly" (VI, H-9). Dr. Perry testified that he didn't know whether this wound was an entrance wound or an exit wound (VI, H-15). Dr. Charles James Carrico likewise described the President's throat wound as "fairly round, had no jagged edges" (III, H-32).

Dr. Charles Rufus Baxter of Parkland Hospital saw this neck wound and described it as follows:

4 to 5 mm. in widest diameter and was a spherical wound. (VI, H-42)

Well, the wound was, I think, compatible with a gunshot wound. It did not appear to be a jagged wound such as one would expect with a very high velocity rifle bullet. We could not determine, or did not determine at that time whether this represented an entry or an exit wound. Judging from the caliber of the rifle that we later found or became acquainted with, this would more resemble a wound of entry. However, due to the density of the tissue of the neck and depending upon what a bullet of such calibre would pass through on the way to the neck, I think that the wound could well represent either exit or entry wound. (II, H-42)

Although Dr. Baxter stated that the wound "would more resemble a wound of entry," he was willing to say it "could well represent either exit or entry wound." Then Arlen Specter, assistant counsel to the Commission, put a lengthy hypothetical question to Dr. Baxter. This question was designed to elicit from the doctor information as to whether a wound through the back of the President which exited from the President's neck could have made a wound such as was found in the neck.

Dr. Baxter's answer did little to help support the Commission's ultimate conclusion that the neck wound was a wound of exit and not of entry:

Dr. Baxter. Although it would be unusual for a high velocity missile of this type to cause a wound as you have described, the passage through tissue planes as you have described, the passage through tissue planes of this density could, have well resulted in the sequence which you outline; namely, that the anterior wound does represent a wound of exit. (VI, H-42)
But Mr. Specter knows too well that history is reluctant to regard as verity that which is "unusual." So Mr. Specter's anxiety about the judgment of history shows when he asks:

Mr. Specter. What would be the considerations which, in your mind, would make it, as you characterized it, unlikely?
Dr. Baxter. It would be unlikely because the damage that the bullet would create would be--first its speed would create a shock wave which would damage a larger number of tissues, as in its path, it would tend to strike, or usually would strike, tissues of greater density than this particular missile did and would then begin to tumble and would create larger jagged--the further it went, the more jagged would be the damage that it created; so that ordinarily there would have been a rather large wound of exit. (VI, H-42)

Mr. Specter had even more severe problems with Dr. Ronald Coy Jones of Parkland Hospital, whom he asked about the neck wounds:

Mr. Specter. In this report, Dr. Jones, you state the following, "Previously described severe skull and brain injury was noted as well as a small hole in the anterior midline of the neck thought to be a bullet entrance wound." What led you to the thought that it was a bullet entrance wound, sir?
Dr. Jones. The hole was very small and relatively clean cut, as you would see in a bullet that is entering rather than exiting from a patient. If this were an exit wound, you would think that it exited at a very low velocity to produce no more damage than this had done, and if this were a missile of high velocity, you would expect more of an explosive type of exit wound, with more tissue destruction than this appeared to have on superficial examination. (VI, H-55)

Even Mr. Specter could not find in this account much opportunity for turning this neck wound into an exit wound. So, in good prosecutor-like fashion, he prodded for the thin slant of Commission daylight in Dr. Jones's otherwise dark view of the Commission's suggestions:

Mr. Specter. Would it be consistent, then, with an exit wound, but of low velocity, as you put it?
Dr. Jones. Yes, of very low velocity to the point that you might think that this bullet barely made it through the soft tissues and just enough to drop out of the skin on the opposite side. (VI, H-55)

But the effort to get more government light into Dr. Jones's testimony only resulted in blowing the fuse and pitched the government case into darkness. For the kind of "low velocity" described by Dr. Jones would not support the Commission's estimate that the entrance velocity of the bullet that emerged from the President's neck was 1,776 feet per second. (W-95) This is the same bullet which allegedly pierced the President's throat and also caused Governor Connally's wounds.

Dr. Jones's testimony, despite all Specter's efforts, supports the inference that this wound in the President's neck was an entrance and not an exit wound. If the Commission is going to call this an exit wound, then Dr. Jones caused a short circuit on that aspect of the government case which requires us to believe that the same bullet coursed through Governor Connally, hitting the 5th rib, fracturing his right wrist and finally entering his left knee area. He reduced the velocity of the bullet emerging from President Kennedy nearly to zero, thus rendering it incapable of further harm....

....Dr. Jones's testimony punctured the government's case badly. In describing the wound as either an entry wound or the exit wound of a spent bullet, Dr. Jones has incapacitated the Commission's precious projectile. He rendered it impotent to perform the very heavy workload the Commission had designated for it, i.e., infliction of all wounds on Governor Connally in addition to the wounds in the back and neck of President Kennedy. Dr. Jones used up invaluable ammunition with his testimony, ammunition which the Commission had to economize if it was to retain any tenuous connection with reality.

With Parkland Hospital nurse, Margaret M. Henchliffe, Mr. Specter had no better luck:

Mr. Specter. Did you see any wound on any other part of his body?
Miss Henchliffe. Yes, in the neck.

Mr. Specter. Will you describe it, please?

Miss Henchliffe. It was just a little hole in the middle of his neck.

Mr. Specter. About how big a hole was it?

Miss Henchliffe. About as big around as the end of my little finger.

Mr. Specter. Have you ever had any experience with bullet holes?

Miss Henchliffe. Yes.

Mr. Specter. And what did that appear to you to be?

Miss Henchliffe. An entrance bullet hole--it looked to me like.

Mr. Specter. Could it have been an exit bullet hole?

Miss Henchliffe. I have never seen an exit bullet hole--I don't remember seeing one that looked like that. (VI, H-141)

The reader will recall that a tracheotomy (creation of an artificial breathing hole) was performed on the President by Dr. Perry of Parkland Hospital. For purposes of performing this tracheotomy, Dr. Perry employed the neck wound as an opening for the tracheotomy tube (VI, H-10). Therefore, by the time the Bethesda doctors saw the President's body and examined this neck wound, the wound had already been altered by the tracheotomy. Under the circumstances, it was necessary for the Bethesda doctors to rely largely on the statements of the Parkland Hospital physicians concerning the nature and source of the neck wound of the President.

A fair reading of the Bethesda Hospital physicians' testimony relating to the throat wound would not dictate any definite conclusion concerning whether the throat wound was one of entry or exit. We suggest, however, that none of the Parkland Hospital witnesses had any difficulty seeing the wound in the front of the President's neck as an entry wound. If there was a preference expressed by the Parkland Hospital people, it was that the neck wound in the front of the President more resembled a wound of entrance.

Recapitulating, Dr. Rufus Baxter said that the neck wound was "unlikely" to be a wound of exit and "would more resemble a wound of entry" (VI, H-42). Dr. Jones stated: "The hole was very small and relatively clean cut, as you would see in a bullet that is entering rather than exiting from a patient" (VI, E-55). Nurse Henchliffe insisted: "An entrance bullet hole--it looked to me like. I have never seen an exit bullet hole--I don't remember seeing one that looked like that" (VI, H-141).

In addition, Secret Service Agent Glen A. Bennett, who had been stationed in the Presidential follow-up car, "heard a sound like a firecracker," then heard another shot and saw it hit the President's back and then saw a "hit on the right rear of the President's head" (W-111). Thus, his testimony is likewise compatible with the first shot entering the President's throat and a second and separate shot hitting him in the back. Bennett's failure to see the President react after the first shot is consistent with the President having been hit in the soft tissue in the front of the neck which impact would not have been visible to Bennett.

Despite the utter failure of the above testimony to support the Commission's conclusion that the strike in the President's neck was an exit wound, the Commission concluded that it was:

President Kennedy was first struck by a bullet which entered at the back of his neck and exited through the lower front portion of his neck... (W-19)

Clearly, on the basis of the testimony of Special Agent Glen A. Bennett and the Parkland Hospital group, the Commission was not justified in drawing such an inference....[/quote]
[quote]http://www.nytimes.c...ml?pagewanted=2
THE DOCTOR'S WORLD; 28 Years After Dallas, A Doctor Tells His Story Amid Troubling Doubts
Published: May 26, 1992

...Dr. Crenshaw makes repeated references to the vast experience he and the Parkland team had with gunshot wounds, and he cites it to support his theory that the bullets struck Kennedy from the front. ...

....Dr. Crenshaw said an independent new investigation was needed, in part because Senator Arlen Specter, then assistant counsel to the Warren Commission, pursued only one line of questioning on the trajectory of the bullet and did not explore other theories with the Dallas doctors. ....

....Dr. Crenshaw said he got a clear view of Kennedy's head and neck wounds before other surgeons operated on them because he arrived on the scene earlier than Dr. Salyer.

After the President was declared dead, Dr. Crenshaw said he examined the wounds again and was the only doctor who stayed in the room while Kennedy's body was placed in a casket. ....

...The book also said: "The hospital was nervous about the image of residents playing such a supreme role in its services, although it was true. As a result, certain med-school officials deliberately masked the major role that I and other resident surgeons played in the medical aspects of the Kennedy assassination, and the Warren Commission failed to obtain from us what would have been important testimony." .....[/quote]
[quote]http://edition.cnn.c.../23/lkl.00.html
CNN LARRY KING LIVE
Interview With Three Doctors Who Treated JFK the Day He Was Shot
Aired December 23, 2003
...Also here is Dr. Ronald Jones, one of the first doctors to see the president at Parkland Hospital. He worked on Kennedy in the trauma room, was then chief resident of surgery. He was 31 years old at the time. Two days later, he treated Lee Harvey Oswald. He's now chief of surgery at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.

In Parkland is Dr. Charles Baxter. Dr. Baxter was in charge of the emergency room at Parkland that day, helped treat the president, has vivid recollections of Mrs. Kennedy in the trauma room. Here in Washington is Dr. Robert Grossman, a doctor in the trauma room treating Kennedy, 30 years old then, in his first job. He was an instructor in neurosurgery, examined the head, now professor and chairman at the Department of Neurosurgery at Baylor College of Medicine. And in Dallas is Gary Mack. Gary is a curator, 6th Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza. ...

....KING: So what was the little hole in the front of the neck?

GROSSMAN: There was a hole in the front of the neck, which everyone thought was an entry wound. But as you know, we did not undress him. When it was clear that he was dead, I think out of respect for a dead person and respect for the president, we did not undress him....

...(CROSSTALK)

KING: Would you have done that with any patient in that condition?

JONES: Yes. And that was, I think -- we saw a lot of trauma and a lot of gunshot wounds at that time, and this was a reflex that you automatically do. I think if you'd had to stop and think about it, and knowing it was the president of the United States, it might have been a little harder. But I think most of us thought this was an entrance wound, and in the back of the head was an exit wound....

BAXTER: Mrs. Kennedy was in the room and sort of circling around. ........Dr. Carrico was having trouble ventilating the patient, and we put a chest tube in on the left. Then we saw the bullet hole in his neck, or rather, the little wound, very small wound, in his neck, and we proceeded with a tracheostomy, and there was very little tissue damage there, not anything that would cause any problems with breathing. ....

.....SCHIEFFER: I'm just wondering, listening to the doctors -- you thought at the beginning that the -- this wound was an entrance wound. Did that lead you to believe that this shot, as you came to know what we all know about now, could not have come from above and behind the president? Are you satisfied, I guess is what I'm saying, with the conclusion the Warren Commission came to?

GROSSMAN: I think if you look at the autopsy report and all the other re-reviews, I think it's clear that the neck wound was an exit wound. The bullet entered...

SCHIEFFER: It looked that way at the beginning to you?

GROSSMAN: It looked like an entrance wound, but there was no way of telling whether entrance or exit and nobody...

KING: The autopsy makes it clear it was...

GROSSMAN: I think it was clear that...

KING: All right, let me...

GROSSMAN: ... the bullet went in the back and came out the neck....[/quote]
[quote]http://www.dallasnew...rson.c0ef8.html
The good doctor still lives with Nov. 22, 1963
02:22 PM CST on Tuesday, January 27, 2004
By RENA PEDERSON / The Dallas Morning News

Dr. Robert McClelland, one of the doctors in the emergency room at Parkland Memorial Hospital that fateful day, ....Dr. McClellan held the retractor to keep the tissue open as Dr. Malcolm Perry and Dr. Charles Baxter performed a tracheotomy in a desperate attempt to save John F. Kennedy. "I was standing right above the president's head and had an unrestricted view for the longest time," he remembers. "I stared at that terrible hole for 10 minutes." ...

.....But Dr. McClelland did observe that one of the shots seemed to have come from the front. The other attending physicians insist the wounds came from the back. Why did Dr. McClellan come to a differing conclusion?

"That's what it looked like to me," he says simply. "The shot that killed him probably was from the back, but I have to honestly say what I think. I do differ from my associates. I think he was struck from the front. It's a minority opinion. I have no inside information that says I was right and they were wrong. It's just that they have their opinion and I have my opinion." ...

.....The journal editor noted that, while Dr. McClelland differed, he wasn't an "expert in forensic pathology and ballistic wounds."

Dr. McClelland held his ground. "Like Pontius Pilate said, what is truth? I was 18 inches away. Right above his head. I am not a forensic pathologist or any kind of pathologist, I am just telling what I saw and what my opinion is. I can't change simply because someone else tells me what I didn't see or think."

One of the other doctors once remarked in an interview that he didn't know why Dr. McClelland said such things, "because it is such poor judgment and Bob usually has such good judgment." Dr. McClelland chuckles a little as he recalls the remark, but he adds, "He didn't see the head wound." ....

....Though his view is in contrast to the Warren Commission's findings, he reminds everyone that the House Select Committee determined in 1979 there could have been a conspiracy. ...[/quote]

#5 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,146 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 December 2009 - 07:55 AM

Doug Horne - IARRB, Vol. IV, P. 1203

The Misuse of the Zapruder Film by LIFE Magazine In It's December 6, 1963 Issue

The 'Big Lie' so prevalent in Nazi Germany and in the Soviet Union was perfected in America in the December 6, 1963 issue of LIFE magazine, the issue which featured numerous photos of President Kennedy's funeral.

In this issue, the corporate entity (Time, Inc.) which had just purchased the film so that it could be suppressed as a motion picture, lied to the public about the film's image content. Because the home movie had not been publicly exhibited as a motion picture, and would not be until 1975, the public did not know that it was being fed a blatant falsehood, but LIFE magazine - presumably Henry Luce and C.D. Jackson - certainly did.

On page 52F, in an article titled "End to Nagging Rumors: the Six Critical Seconds," written by Paul Mandel, there were numerous false statements. The most egregious of these falsehoods attempted to reconcile the reports originating from the Parkland hospital medical staff the day of the assassination (of an entry wound in President Kennedy's throat) with the government's pat explanation the JFK had been killed by lone gunman firing from above and behind the limousine.

Mandel's text begins wih one blatant lie about the medical evidence, and ends with another blatant lie about what was supposedly seen in the (suppressed) Zapruder film:

The description of the President's two wounds by a Dallas doctor who tried to save him have added to the rumors. The doctor said one bullet passed from back to front on the right side of the President's head [Comment: This is completely untrue; no Parkland hospital physician ever said this. On the contrary, they all spoke only of seeing an exit defect in the back of JFK's head.] But the other, the doctor reported, entered the President's throat from the front and then lodged in his body. Since by this time the limousine was 50 yards past Oswald and the President's back was turned almost directly to the sniper, it has been hard to understand how the bullet could enter from the front of his throat. But the 8mm film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed - toward the sniper's nest - just before he clutches it. [This is pure bullshit, of course. the film shows no such thing - JFK never turns to his rear at any time in the extant film. Nor was he physically capable of doing so, so severe were his back problems. [emphasis added by author].

Whether Paul Mandel ever saw the Zapruder film or not, we shall never know. If he did not see it himself, then one of his superiors told him - lied to him - that this is what happened. If he did see the film, then surely he would not have told such a blatant falsehood unless ordered to do so by someone in high authority at LIFE magazine, for this is the kind of mistake that in major journalism is a 'career ender.' Anyone caught in this kind of lie would suffer irreparable loss of inegrity that would forever damage his credibilty as a serious journalist. And we know today that since Mandel's statement is so grossly at odds with what is shown in the Zapruder film, that there is no conceivable way that it could be an innocuous mistake.

If there is a hell, I sincerely hope that Henry Luce and C.D. Jackson are in it.....

p. 1204

#6 Paul Rigby

Paul Rigby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,532 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southport, England

Posted 21 December 2009 - 07:52 PM

Doug Horne - IARRB, Vol. IV, P. 1203

The Misuse of the Zapruder Film by LIFE Magazine In It's December 6, 1963 Issue

The 'Big Lie' so prevalent in Nazi Germany and in the Soviet Union was perfected in America in the December 6, 1963 issue of LIFE magazine, the issue which featured numerous photos of President Kennedy's funeral.

In this issue, the corporate entity (Time, Inc.) which had just purchased the film so that it could be suppressed as a motion picture, lied to the public about the film's image content. Because the home movie had not been publicly exhibited as a motion picture, and would not be until 1975, the public did not know that it was being fed a blatant falsehood, but LIFE magazine - presumably Henry Luce and C.D. Jackson - certainly did.

On page 52F, in an article titled "End to Nagging Rumors: the Six Critical Seconds," written by Paul Mandel, there were numerous false statements. The most egregious of these falsehoods attempted to reconcile the reports originating from the Parkland hospital medical staff the day of the assassination (of an entry wound in President Kennedy's throat) with the government's pat explanation the JFK had been killed by lone gunman firing from above and behind the limousine.

Mandel's text begins wih one blatant lie about the medical evidence, and ends with another blatant lie about what was supposedly seen in the (suppressed) Zapruder film:

The description of the President's two wounds by a Dallas doctor who tried to save him have added to the rumors. The doctor said one bullet passed from back to front on the right side of the President's head [Comment: This is completely untrue; no Parkland hospital physician ever said this. On the contrary, they all spoke only of seeing an exit defect in the back of JFK's head.] But the other, the doctor reported, entered the President's throat from the front and then lodged in his body. Since by this time the limousine was 50 yards past Oswald and the President's back was turned almost directly to the sniper, it has been hard to understand how the bullet could enter from the front of his throat. But the 8mm film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed - toward the sniper's nest - just before he clutches it. [This is pure bullshit, of course. the film shows no such thing - JFK never turns to his rear at any time in the extant film. Nor was he physically capable of doing so, so severe were his back problems. [emphasis added by author].

Whether Paul Mandel ever saw the Zapruder film or not, we shall never know. If he did not see it himself, then one of his superiors told him - lied to him - that this is what happened. If he did see the film, then surely he would not have told such a blatant falsehood unless ordered to do so by someone in high authority at LIFE magazine, for this is the kind of mistake that in major journalism is a 'career ender.' Anyone caught in this kind of lie would suffer irreparable loss of inegrity that would forever damage his credibilty as a serious journalist. And we know today that since Mandel's statement is so grossly at odds with what is shown in the Zapruder film, that there is no conceivable way that it could be an innocuous mistake.

If there is a hell, I sincerely hope that Henry Luce and C.D. Jackson are in it.....

p. 1204


Bill,

First things first - thank you for all the extracts etc. you've taken the time and trouble to reproduce from Doug Horne's enormous tome. For those of us without access to the various volumes, it's been a great help. Do keep them coming.

Credit duly paid, the fact is that Horne is quite simply wrong when he isolates Mandel's rank disinfo in the Life edition in question. As demonstrated above, Mandel was simply one contributor in a much bigger campaign which sought to reconcile a front entry in the throat with the Z fraud. This doesn't invalidate everything else he has to say, nor does it mean he is a purveyor of fibs, or anything of the sort. But the point is worth making, not least because it bears directly on the scale of the plot, and much else besides.

Paul

#7 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,146 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 February 2010 - 06:42 PM

Since the NPIC yellow legal pad notes include references to Life Mag., I'd like to know why they used Life as a source when they had the original film?

BK

#8 Paul Rigby

Paul Rigby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,532 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southport, England

Posted 14 February 2010 - 07:22 PM

Since the NPIC yellow legal pad notes include references to Life Mag., I'd like to know why they used Life as a source when they had the original film?

BK


"Spooks tell lies to journalists, then pretend to believe what they read."

With apologies to Karl Kraus.

#9 Will Emaus

Will Emaus

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 84 posts

Posted 14 February 2010 - 08:18 PM

Since the NPIC yellow legal pad notes include references to Life Mag., I'd like to know why they used Life as a source when they had the original film?

BK


Well either the Life portion of the notes came after the NPIC weekend sessions or they had Life's information much earlier than when the article was submitted. Or like Paul said, someone could have fed Life the information and then it came back to the NPIC through Life afterwards.

The best reason for them to have used Life's timings would have been to save time themselves I would imagine...

#10 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,146 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 March 2010 - 08:04 AM

Since the NPIC yellow legal pad notes include references to Life Mag., I'd like to know why they used Life as a source when they had the original film?

BK


Well either the Life portion of the notes came after the NPIC weekend sessions or they had Life's information much earlier than when the article was submitted. Or like Paul said, someone could have fed Life the information and then it came back to the NPIC through Life afterwards.

The best reason for them to have used Life's timings would have been to save time themselves I would imagine...


http://www.santafe.c...hard-b-stolley/

#11 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,090 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 08:54 AM

See Peter Mandel's article in the Huffington Post on this subject:

 

 

http://www.huffingto..._b_3294456.html






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users