SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS: Truth or Obfuscation?

[Jack White]

I don't know what to say, Pat, because Jack has taken a look and says that the hole you have "discovered" isn't there. This will take some sorting out. I will invite David Mantik, David Lifton, and John Costella to take a look, too. Something is not right.

Ironically, Jim, Jack White told me years ago he agreed with me that the proposed bullet hole in F8 is indeed a bullet hole. Groden and Lifton have also told me they think this is a bullet hole. So the only question is if the hole I see on the BOH photo aligns with the hole visible in F8. I think it does.

From patspeer.com, chapter13:

When one inspects the back of the head photo and matches its neck lines with those apparent on what is presumed to be the neck in the open cranium photos, one finds a convincing alignment. Certainly these are not just random lines on a towel. Since the HSCA Authenticity Report stated “Such lines develop in most individuals by middle age, but their exact arrangement forms a pattern that is virtually unique to the individual” one would like to think they tested the lines to see if they matched, but there is no mention of this in their report. But there are other indications that this photo was taken of President Kennedy from behind. It should be remembered here that on their January 26, 1967 report on the photos, the doctors asserted, when discussing the color photo of the back of the head, that “due to the fractures of the underlying bone and the elevation of the scalp by manual lifting (done to permit the wound to be photographed) the photographs show the wound to be slightly higher than its actually measured site.” This indicates that before they pulled the scalp up, the entrance in the scalp was slightly lower and hidden in a skin fold, which would seem to match the lower position of the wound in the open cranium photograph. Moreover, this indicates that the position of the entrance wound before it was “lifted” approximated the teardrop of spinal fluid readily visible on the photographs with the scalp intact and repeatedly identified by the original autopsists as the entrance location. From this it seems logical that this mysterious fluid is no mystery at all, but is instead some macerated brain matter that leaked from the entrance wound during the long flight from Dallas.

A close inspection of the wounds is especially revealing. While it is usually inferred from the Warren Report’s description of the “slicing” associated with the occipital entrance wound that the wound was vertical, and the Rydberg drawings portray it as such, Dr. Finck, the bullet wounds expert at the autopsy, informed his Army superiors in a report filed in January, 1965, that the wound was “transversal,” heading right to left. (While Humes’ misrepresentation of the wound may have been an honest mistake, it’s intriguing that, within a week of interviewing Humes, Arlen Specter asked Parkland witness Dr. Clark if his observations were consistent with the presence of a “lateral wound measuring 15 by 6 cm. on the posterior scalp.” Did Specter know Humes’ testimony was incorrect? If so, how?) Anyhow, Finck’s description of the wound as transversal makes perfect sense when one remembers Boswell’s inclusion on the autopsy face sheet of an arrow heading both to the left and upwards from the bullet entrance, particularly when one considers that Boswell would have immediately connected in his mind the large exit high on the skull as the logical exit of the bullet making the small entrance below. One can deduce from this that the bullet came from the President’s right, or that it hit the President while his head was turned to its right, just enough so that the bullet grazed along the flesh on the outside of his skull before entering. The so-called military review of January 26, 1967, says as much, stating, when discussing the photo with the President’s scalp still intact “The scalp wound shown in the photographs appears to be a laceration and tunnel, with the actual penetration of the skin (they must have meant “skull”) obscured by the top of the tunnel. From the photographs this is not recognizable as a penetrating wound because of the slanting direction of entry.” Dr. Finck’s description of the wound and assertion of a tunnel is, not coincidentally, completely at odds with the Clark Panel and HSCA purported in-shoot in the cowlick. The skull at the Clark Panel location had been removed before Dr. Finck had even arrived at the autopsy.

Should one accept that the entrance described at the autopsy could be the transversal entrance proposed in the images above, but have a problem believing that this bullet entrance could 1) have gone unnoticed by the Parkland doctors, and 2) be so hard to spot in the scalp on the back of the head photos, one should read more wound ballistics literature, as it is filled with stories where the entrance wound proved equally elusive. In Crime Lab: Science Turns Detective, for example, a story first told by Dr. Le Moyne Snyder is re-told by author David Loth. Loth tells of a young man who'd been treated for a .22 caliber rifle wound in the shoulder but whose condition continued to worsen. Finally, the doctor decides to inspect the rest of the man's body. The story concludes: "Behind the right ear, hidden by hair, was a tiny round hole, with the faintest trace of blood. The damage of the second bullet had been internal, and extensive. The victim died a few minutes after this wound was located" (That a wound caused by a .22 rifle would be less severe than a wound caused by Oswald's rifle has not been overlooked, and should make one wonder if maybe, just maybe, the small initially-overlooked entrance wound on the back of Kennedy's head was caused by a rifle other than Oswald's. Much, much, more on this to come.)

While one might also wonder why there’s so little hair visible near the hairline in the open cranium photo, this, too, has an explanation. Dr. Finck told the HSCA: “I don’t remember the difficulty involved in separating the scalp from the skull but this was done in order to have a clear view of the outside…the scalp is adherent to the skull and it had to be separated from it in order to show in the back of the head the wound in the bone.” Finck, by the way, never budged from his contention that this entry was on the occipital bone of the skull, inches away from the HSCA’s entry in the cowlick. Not surprisingly, Finck’s interview with the HSCA was kept secret until the ARRB forced its release.

I do not recall EVER "AGREEING WITH PAT" concerning his interpretation of the "gaping hole" photo.

I may have posted MY interpretation of the photo years ago. I have searched my computer files

for it but cannot locate it. So right now I am rescanning the photo, which I believe is the correct

interpretation. It will take about an hour to do, and I will post it.

Jack

Here is the correct analysis of the "gaping hole" photo.

It shows TWO shots to head.

1. entry into right temple and exit in right occipital.

2. entry slightly above and slightly to the right of the external occipital protruberance.

Because of the very narrow exposure range, extreme lightening of the dark area

was needed to bring out the second hole and specimen jar.

Jack

[David Lifton]

As I said, I'm not informed enough about this tangle of evidence to say anything. I look forward to reading Doug Horne's four volumes on this to learn. If I finish that in the next few weeks or months I'll get back to you. You know it's not required of any of us that we know everything about everything. I hope you'll find my modesty here refreshing.

Tink

DSL REPLY:

I know you don’t care for Professor Fetzer. All very well. That’s your choice. But you’re now engaging in the same kind of behavior with me. Confronted with clear evidence of body interception and body alteration, you’re skittering away, telling me that its all such a mess, and gee, what can we make of it—and golly, Dr. Wecht disagrees, and he’s the expert. And what about rigor mortis, etc etc ad nauseum.

None of this matters, Tink.

All that counts is that in the case of the neck wound, and the head wound—the evidence of change is pretty obvious, pretty damned obvious. Any high school student can see that.

And as for the intercept evidence, there were three separate recorded entries into Bethesda Naval hospital. Let’s count ‘em: 6:35—the shipping casket, according to the Marine security detail; 7:17pm, the FBI accompanying the Dallas casket; and 8pm, the casket team, now carrying the same casket, only now with the body.

Three separate casket entries; three separate paper trails. Its all spelled out in Best Evidence, with time lines and all. I’m boiling it down to the size of an email—but any high school student could write a good term paper about it.

I don’t want to hear that none of this could have happened because its oh so complicated and there wasn’t enough time to figure any of this out that day. Ergo, it couldn’t have happened. To me, that’s almost like saying Kennedy couldn’t have been shot by a conspiracy in Dallas, because, well, my Gosh, that’s against the Ten Commandments.

At some point, you really ought to face what’s going on here, and stop playing these “we can’t know” games.

You’re in a privileged position, Tink, because you once had access to the Zapruder film at Time Life, and then made the decision to surreptitiously copy the frames so your readers could see just what it was you were talking about. The same month you were doing that, I was involved, in Los Angeles, in making the basic discovery of evidence that the body was altered, and Liebeler was involved in sending his memo announcing my discovery to the other members of the Warren Commission, President Johnson, and Robert Kennedy.

This was the beginning of a major paradigm shift that critical evidence in this case is phony.

Remember what Lee Oswald told his brother, when he visited him in jail: “Do not believe the so-called ‘evidence’.”

Where do you stand on all this today? Apparently (and most unfortunately) still hunting for further data that there was a “second gunman” on the knoll.

[Pat Speer]

I don't know what to say, Pat, because Jack has taken a look and says that the hole you have "discovered" isn't there. This will take some sorting out. I will invite David Mantik, David Lifton, and John Costella to take a look, too. Something is not right.

Ironically, Jim, Jack White told me years ago he agreed with me that the proposed bullet hole in F8 is indeed a bullet hole. Groden and Lifton have also told me they think this is a bullet hole. So the only question is if the hole I see on the BOH photo aligns with the hole visible in F8. I think it does.

From patspeer.com, chapter13:

When one inspects the back of the head photo and matches its neck lines with those apparent on what is presumed to be the neck in the open cranium photos, one finds a convincing alignment. Certainly these are not just random lines on a towel. Since the HSCA Authenticity Report stated “Such lines develop in most individuals by middle age, but their exact arrangement forms a pattern that is virtually unique to the individual” one would like to think they tested the lines to see if they matched, but there is no mention of this in their report. But there are other indications that this photo was taken of President Kennedy from behind. It should be remembered here that on their January 26, 1967 report on the photos, the doctors asserted, when discussing the color photo of the back of the head, that “due to the fractures of the underlying bone and the elevation of the scalp by manual lifting (done to permit the wound to be photographed) the photographs show the wound to be slightly higher than its actually measured site.” This indicates that before they pulled the scalp up, the entrance in the scalp was slightly lower and hidden in a skin fold, which would seem to match the lower position of the wound in the open cranium photograph. Moreover, this indicates that the position of the entrance wound before it was “lifted” approximated the teardrop of spinal fluid readily visible on the photographs with the scalp intact and repeatedly identified by the original autopsists as the entrance location. From this it seems logical that this mysterious fluid is no mystery at all, but is instead some macerated brain matter that leaked from the entrance wound during the long flight from Dallas.

A close inspection of the wounds is especially revealing. While it is usually inferred from the Warren Report’s description of the “slicing” associated with the occipital entrance wound that the wound was vertical, and the Rydberg drawings portray it as such, Dr. Finck, the bullet wounds expert at the autopsy, informed his Army superiors in a report filed in January, 1965, that the wound was “transversal,” heading right to left. (While Humes’ misrepresentation of the wound may have been an honest mistake, it’s intriguing that, within a week of interviewing Humes, Arlen Specter asked Parkland witness Dr. Clark if his observations were consistent with the presence of a “lateral wound measuring 15 by 6 cm. on the posterior scalp.” Did Specter know Humes’ testimony was incorrect? If so, how?) Anyhow, Finck’s description of the wound as transversal makes perfect sense when one remembers Boswell’s inclusion on the autopsy face sheet of an arrow heading both to the left and upwards from the bullet entrance, particularly when one considers that Boswell would have immediately connected in his mind the large exit high on the skull as the logical exit of the bullet making the small entrance below. One can deduce from this that the bullet came from the President’s right, or that it hit the President while his head was turned to its right, just enough so that the bullet grazed along the flesh on the outside of his skull before entering. The so-called military review of January 26, 1967, says as much, stating, when discussing the photo with the President’s scalp still intact “The scalp wound shown in the photographs appears to be a laceration and tunnel, with the actual penetration of the skin (they must have meant “skull”) obscured by the top of the tunnel. From the photographs this is not recognizable as a penetrating wound because of the slanting direction of entry.” Dr. Finck’s description of the wound and assertion of a tunnel is, not coincidentally, completely at odds with the Clark Panel and HSCA purported in-shoot in the cowlick. The skull at the Clark Panel location had been removed before Dr. Finck had even arrived at the autopsy.

Should one accept that the entrance described at the autopsy could be the transversal entrance proposed in the images above, but have a problem believing that this bullet entrance could 1) have gone unnoticed by the Parkland doctors, and 2) be so hard to spot in the scalp on the back of the head photos, one should read more wound ballistics literature, as it is filled with stories where the entrance wound proved equally elusive. In Crime Lab: Science Turns Detective, for example, a story first told by Dr. Le Moyne Snyder is re-told by author David Loth. Loth tells of a young man who'd been treated for a .22 caliber rifle wound in the shoulder but whose condition continued to worsen. Finally, the doctor decides to inspect the rest of the man's body. The story concludes: "Behind the right ear, hidden by hair, was a tiny round hole, with the faintest trace of blood. The damage of the second bullet had been internal, and extensive. The victim died a few minutes after this wound was located" (That a wound caused by a .22 rifle would be less severe than a wound caused by Oswald's rifle has not been overlooked, and should make one wonder if maybe, just maybe, the small initially-overlooked entrance wound on the back of Kennedy's head was caused by a rifle other than Oswald's. Much, much, more on this to come.)

While one might also wonder why there’s so little hair visible near the hairline in the open cranium photo, this, too, has an explanation. Dr. Finck told the HSCA: “I don’t remember the difficulty involved in separating the scalp from the skull but this was done in order to have a clear view of the outside…the scalp is adherent to the skull and it had to be separated from it in order to show in the back of the head the wound in the bone.” Finck, by the way, never budged from his contention that this entry was on the occipital bone of the skull, inches away from the HSCA’s entry in the cowlick. Not surprisingly, Finck’s interview with the HSCA was kept secret until the ARRB forced its release.

I do not recall EVER "AGREEING WITH PAT" concerning his interpretation of the "gaping hole" photo.

I may have posted MY interpretation of the photo years ago. I have searched my computer files

for it but cannot locate it. So right now I am rescanning the photo, which I believe is the correct

interpretation. It will take about an hour to do, and I will post it.

Jack

Here is the correct analysis of the "gaping hole" photo.

It shows TWO shots to head.

1. entry into right temple and exit in right occipital.

2. entry slightly above and slightly to the right of the external occipital protruberance.

Because of the very narrow exposure range, extreme lightening of the dark area

was needed to bring out the second hole and specimen jar.

Jack

Thanks, Jack. The area "C" is the entrance I was talking about, right where the autopsy doctors said it was, and right where the dark oval is on the BOH photo. (For some reason, you've got your darker photo turned the wrong way, with area C and the EOP on the left side, even though you acknowledge area C is on the right side in your caption.) Anyhow, my suspicion is the beveled bone "B" scared the heck out of the government upon review and led the Justice Department to have the photo re-interpreted in January 1967. This is the subject of my 4 part video series.

Edited January 4, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Bernice Moore]

Any head shot from behind hitting the back of the head would have destroyed the cerebellum. But the cerebellum was intact at Parkland...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpBDuSJeH14

hi karl.. i believe in the video he says the cerebellum was there, meaning if you have read his book he makes it clear and or read this below he has made it very clear it was there oozing out lke they could see it..the hit to the head had destroyed and disturbed partly blown away,,,that part of the blow out of the back of his head... so that is was in view see below

Sept. 22/92...Pacifica Radio Investigates The Murder of President Kennedy see also his book...

GARY NULL:

By the way, Dr. Crenshaw is also the author of a very important

work on the Kennedy Assassination called, JFK: THE CONSPIRACY OF

SILENCE, which right now, I believe, is number one on the New York

Times bestseller list. Isn't it?

DR. CRENSHAW:

Yes, it is.

GARY NULL:

And, by the way, THREE other books on the top-ten bestseller list

are also about this assassination, so CLEARLY there is interest.

Would you be good enough to explain to us the inconsistencies

between your EYEWITNESS account and the official report upheld by

the Warren Commission?

DR. CRENSHAW:

That day, on November the 22nd, 1963, all of the surgeons at

Parkland believed that our President, John Fitzgerald Kennedy was

shot at least once from the front. We saw two wounds there. Both

of them were from the front. The head wound was tangential in

nature, coming in over the right side, above his ear, and leaving

a large exit area, a avulsed area in the right-rear part of the

head. There was loss of part of the parietal, temporal and most

of the occipital lobe of the right cerebral hemisphere, with

exposure of the cerebellum. It was about two-and-a-half to two-

and-three-fourths inches in diameter. It was more or less

circular. And in the photos from the National Archives -- which

are so damaging -- this wound had completely vanished. There was

no wound seen in the exhibits that are marked "B" and "E" in the

book. This wound, that ALL of the physicians at Parkland

described, was completely gone. The second wound was in the

anterior part of the neck. It was about three to six millimeters

in size and with an arc the size of your little finger. It was

clearly demarcated as round and relatively clean-cut. Then the

tracheal tube that had been put down was ineffective. And then

Dr. Perry performed a tracheostomy through the entrance wound.

The incision was sharp with smooth edges, and about an inch to

and inch-and-a-half long. It was no longer than the flange on the

tracheostomy tube, which was one-and-three-fourths inches. Not

only that, after the nurses had removed this tracheostomy tube

before we placed him in the coffin, it was brought back again.

The edges were still smooth and very sharp. And in the autopsy

photographs that I first saw in looking for the head wound, this

wound was widely gaping, it was irregular, and it was now about

two-point-five to three inches long. So there was CLEARLY a

change between these wounds, that I saw at Parkland, and the

wounds that we saw on the autopsy pictures that were given from

the National Archives.

GARY NULL:

Why didn't you or others at the scene later complain or even make

an issue or an affidavit showing that this was an alteration?

DR. CRENSHAW:

We never saw the photos. The first time I saw these was in early

1991. The Parkland physicians were never given this opportunity.

They were only told about the additional wounds (which I doubt

whether there was another wound in the back of the head, because

I looked there) and were never told or shown any other evidence.

We were told only about the autopsy. And we, like most people,

felt that they would have had the best forensic minds in our

country to examine our President. However, obviously, [from] what

has been discussed and what we now know, [that assumption] was wrong.

And so, we had no other knowledge other than the description by the

Secret Service.

GARY NULL:

So if you had the description by the Secret Service, by an

extension of this logic, the Secret Service or someone would have

had to participate in this cover-up, or this obstruction of

information. Would that be a reasonable assumption?

DR. CRENSHAW:

I think that's a very reasonable assumption.

GARY NULL:

Alright. Do you believe that the shots came just from the Book

Depository, or from the Grassy Knoll, or from where?

DR. CHARLES CRENSHAW:

I cannot say that, but he WAS shot twice from the front. And I

assume, also, that he was shot from the back. So there could not

have been just one shooter; that is, Oswald. We spent all of the

next week from the 22nd to the 29th [of Nov. `63], trying to figure

out (as we had been told the official version: that it was Oswald)

how in the world the President could have been shot from the

front when Oswald was supposedly the lone shooter. And on

December the 5th of that year, it was the same way with the

Secret Service. They reenacted the assassination, and it was

their ability there, trying to show how he was shot from the

front, yet being shot from the School Book Depository. It was a

question in everyone's mind.

GARY NULL:

We know that there was one bullet that missed the bodies of both

Kennedy and Connally completely, because it ricocheted off of the

cement. There is absolute evidence of that. The ricochet struck

one of the people standing right on the curb. That meant that

there had to have been four bullets shot, at minimum. We know

then of three. There is an estimate of six. There were acoustical

recordings showing six shots. So even if we assume that there

were four, the Warren Commission claims that there were not four.

DR. CRENSHAW:

Yes.

GARY NULL:

Now, how in the world is it possible for one shooter, from the

Book Depository, firing at a moving target, to get off four

rounds in what would have to have been under approximately

four-point-eight seconds. And even extending it to six seconds,

it's not humanly possible. No one has ever been able to duplicate

that.

DR. CRENSHAW:

No. And I don't think they ever will be. And one other thing.

I also took care of, post-operatively, Governor Connally. And

Connally and Mrs. Connally (Nellie) have always stated that he

was not hit by the same bullet that the President was hit by. He

stated that post-operatively, and he has also stated it recently.

GARY NULL:

Alright. The Secret Service's refusal, against [Parkland]

Hospital policy and Texas law, to allow an autopsy to be

performed on JFK, and the swift removal of the President's body

from the hospital to Air Force One and back to Washington, D.C. ....

Give us your insights on that, please.

DR. CRENSHAW:

Well, you know, this is the reason. I was a junior resident,

staying there preparing the President's body along while the

nurses were preparing him. But I would stay there because this is

just a law, and we MUST have a chain of evidence if we were going

to prosecute whoever had shot the President.

Then, all of a sudden, there was such a hubbub with the Secret

Service. They would not have the autopsy performed there, even

though our forensic pathologist, Dr. Earl Rose, had told them, in

no uncertain terms, that this had to be. So they asked the

administrator to get a justice of the peace. A very young,

uneducated justice of the peace came there. And he even talked

with the district attorney and the chief of police, and he was

told that he should at least have an autopsy or a bullet.

However, he chose to go along with the Secret Service and sign

the death certificate. Also, in so doing, he checked the inquest

that was performed. That was merely his walking at the head of

the room, looking in. And also, he checked that an autopsy was

performed. And I can assure you, there was no autopsy performed

there. Then, at Mrs. Kennedy's request and [that of] the Secret

Service, the coffin was brought in, and it is the one that is

described. It was the large bronze coffin. And there, we put a

rubberized sheet there, and a clear plastic mattress cover over

that to keep the blood from getting into the satin. He had,

initially, towels around the head, but he had bled through that,

and Mr. O'Neill, of the O'Neill Funeral Home, put several

rubberized sacks (we had no good plastic then), and then we

placed him in the coffin. After, again, I looked at the head

wound and placed a sheet over the President, with his clothes at

the bottom. And there was no body bag at Parkland. He had just a

sheet over there. And the coffin was the bronze one that all the

pictures were made [taken of] at Andrews Air Force Base.

GARY NULL:

Isn't it rather unusual that a Dr. Boswell would state that he is

now removing head bandages? What is the significance of that

statement?

DR. CRENSHAW:

I do not know. Boswell is also the one who has said, of course,

that the tracheostomy was almost three inches long. And it was not

that [length] when it left Parkland. But he did have those rubberized

sacks over his head. This is the only thing that I could have

thought: that maybe they thought it was a body bag. But there was

NO body bag.

GARY NULL:

Okay. I'm going to go now to Paul O'Connor.

Mr. O'Connor, are you on the line?

PAUL O'CONNOR:

Yes sir.

GARY NULL:

And Dr. Michio Kaku, are you on the line?

MICHIO KAKU:

I'm on the line.

GARY NULL:

Okay. We're going to come to both of you in just a second, but I

want to follow this train of thought:

Lyndon Johnson's direct order to YOU, Dr. Crenshaw, to obtain a

deathbed confession from Lee Harvey Oswald during an emergency

surgery to save his life ....

DR. CRENSHAW:

Yes, this was on that Sunday. Obviously, we did not watch the TV.

And the head administrator of Parkland called for a free

operating team to come to the emergency room. We went there.

We were told that Oswald was coming in. At least we were

prepared. So immediately, in seven-and-a-half minutes, we got

Oswald up to the operating room, and operated on him on the cart.

We didn't even place him on an operating table.

After all of the attending staff .... some even at home had seen

this [the shooting on TV] .... they immediately came. And Dr. Perry

initially started the operation. I was an assistant there. So

when all of the attending staff arrived, I scrubbed out, was

standing there, and looked at this funny looking gentleman over

there on the left side. But, of course, Parkland was so wild

then. People were in every corner there. This man looked like the

comedian, Oliver Hardy, in a small scrub suit. He did have a

badge out of his front pocket, and a very large gun out of the

back pocket. And I thought: Well gee, it's just something weird

again at Parkland. The nurse tapped me on the shoulder then and

asked me if I would take the phone call. I went to the operating

room supervisor's office, picked up the phone, and there, a voice

like thunder said: "This is the President, Lyndon B. Johnson.

How is the accused assassin doing?" And I said: "Well, he's

critical. He's lost a lot of blood, but he is holding his own."

He said: "Would you take a message to the chief operating surgeon?"

And I said, obviously: "Yes sir." He said: "There is

a man in the room, and I want him to take a deathbed confession

as soon as possible."

DR. CHARLES CRENSHAW:

So I went back, I tapped Dr. Shires[?] on his shoulder and he

looked at me because everything was bedlam there. And I said:

"I've just been talking to the President of the United States,

and that man over there is to take a deathbed confession." And we

both just kind of looked and knew that, had Oswald survived, he

wouldn't have been able to talk for two or three days anyway.

Consequently, because of the ravages of hemorrhagic shock,

Oswald's heart started failing and ultimately fibrillating. We

tried all of the resuscitative measures -- chemical injections

and starting with the shocks -- but to no avail. So I then went

over and tapped this guy on the shoulder and said: "There'll be

no deathbed confession today." So Oliver Hardy melted away again.

I don't know who he was. I don't know how he got there. The only

interesting part is that I know that the President of the United

States knew that he was in the room.

GARY NULL:

Give us again the astonishing differences between the Dallas

medical team's account of the JFK wounds and the findings of the

official Bethesda autopsy team.

DR. CRENSHAW:

The most striking, of course, is the head wound which is right at

the back of the head at this occipit. It was in the right-rear

portion, in the occipital area. It was about the size of a

baseball. In the official pictures of the autopsy, this wound had

vanished. It was completely gone. And then the neck wound which

had the tracheostomy performed there, which was an inch to an

inch-and-a-half -- smooth, sharp edges, EVEN when the

tracheostomy tube was removed. This is now gaping, irregular and

was three inches in length [in the Bethesda autopsy].

GARY NULL:

The Parkland Hospital's nervousness about residents treating the

President, which resulted in the Warren Commission's failure to

obtain crucial statements from the attending medical staff ....

Would you give us some background on this please?

DR. CRENSHAW:

Well, basically, there were thirty visits -- twenty-four of them by

the Secret Service and six by the FBI -- in which they talked to

different physicians and nurses there. And it's interesting that

not ONE of these conversations was given to the Warren Commission.

GARY NULL:

Not one of thirty?

DR.CRENSHAW:

Not one!

GARY NULL:

What does that tell you? What does that imply?

DR. CRENSHAW:

It would imply that they didn't want to hear any contradictory

remarks.

GARY NULL:

Alright. What is your feeling about Robert Kennedy's involvement

in any possible cover-up?

DR. CRENSHAW:

I've always felt that maybe he wanted to become president so that

he could reopen this investigation. Three days before HIS

assassination, in a small community college, he announced to

everyone that only the power of the Presidency could unravel the

mystery of his brother's death. And he was, of course, assassinated

then. But immediately, Mrs. Lincoln, John Fitzgerald Kennedy's

secretary, called Senator Ted Kennedy and told him of artifacts

that the Kennedy Family had in their possession. And he told her

not to worry; that everything was taken care of. So the implication

has been that the attorney-general or Senator Kennedy, at that

time, did have important information that he had sequestered

there, so that, if it were at all possible, he could

reopen this investigation.

GARY NULL:

And lastly, Jacqueline Kennedy's immediate reactions and behavior

following the shooting?

DR. CRENSHAW:

I thought Mrs. Kennedy was very regal. She was standing there

initially. We asked her to sit outside the room. And then, of

course, after his death we did not officially pronounce him dead

because of her request for a priest and the last rites. The

priest arrived, and she walked into the room after him. We had

pulled the sheet up. It was a little short. She stopped at the

foot and kissed his great toe, and then went forward and stood

there holding his right hand, listening to the last rites.

Immediately after that, she took her wedding ring off and placed

it on the President's little finger. It would not go past the

knuckle, and so when she came in, after they had had the harangue

about the autopsy, and before we placed him in the coffin, one of

our orderlies there -- I believe it was Aubrey Wright -- helped

her get the ring on his small finger.

I had read many accounts of how their marriage was just that, in

name only. But being in trauma surgery now for thirty years, I

have seen grievances and unhappiness and definite examples of

removing the facade of what one felt. And I still will always

believe that there was no greater example of genuine and intense

love for the President than that exhibited by Mrs. Kennedy.

GARY NULL:

I want to thank you very much, Dr. Crenshaw, for sharing

your insights with us in this special report on cover-ups.

DR. CHARLES CRENSHAW:

Thank you.

GARY NULL:

Now let's shift gears. I want to go over to two other panelists

standing by: Dr. Michio Kaku, Professor of Theoretical Physics

here at CUNY, the City University of New York. Would you give us

your comments about the physics of the exhibit 399, the single magic bullet?

http://www.beyondweird.com/conspiracies/jfkmessages.html

FYI

B..

Edited January 5, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Bernice Moore]

b...info confirming the telephone operator's information of a call from lbj that she picked up and past along to the operating room.........b

Edited January 5, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Bernice Moore]

Pamela,

You write: "You are making the assumption that Tink was looking at the same version of the Altgens 1-6 that Weldon was. The NARA copy, made from the negative, shows no defect in the windshield. Copies of the version uploaded to the newswires have a flaw that looks like something in the windshield."

Thank you for pointing out that the Altgens photo in a NARA copy made from the negative "shows no defect in the windshield." If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Weldon and Fetzer were misled by relying on a newswire copy instead of getting a copy from the original negative. That seems about right to me.

Josiah Thompson

quote Dr Thompson from post 107....''(4) Again in MIDP, you publish the famous Altgens photo taken at Z 255 and showing the windshield pristine and undamaged. You circle a pristine area of the windshield and caption the circle as follows: “Circle 1. The apparent through-and-through hole in the windshield.” But there isn’t any hole. There isn’t even any suggestion of a hole. The surface of the windshield is pristine.

Doug Weldon has responded to this and article on http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html

show #451.

b..

You are making the assumption that Tink was looking at the same version of the Altgens 1-6 that Weldon was. The NARA copy, made from the negative, shows no defect in the windshield. Copies of the version uploaded to the newswires have a flaw that looks like something in the windshield. I tried uploading the NARA copy but it was too large. For the time being, here is a link to that section:

http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/altgens1-6snbl.gif

This is ridiculous. Newswire copies were not used to examine the hole. I encourage people to listen to my interview on Black Ops. In addition there appears to be a deliberate attempt to obscure that defect as shown in the slides of my presentation in Minnesota in 1999, http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html

Doug Weldon

Edited January 5, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Very shabby, Josiah. You aren't answering the questions because you don't have persuasive answers--which I take as an implicit concession that you are indeed the obfuscationist extraordinarie who is dedicating the rest of his life to undermining the best work by the best students, because it exposes the stunning conflict between the medical evidence and the Zapruder film and reveals your role in obstructing the search for truth about the death of our 35th president. These are legitimate questions for the author of SIX SECONDS. What a shame that you are unable to answer them! Future generations of student will understand your role in the history of the study of the death of JFK. All of us who once admired you now know that you were playing us for saps.

Professor,

Same old... same old. There's nothing here to reply to. You offer speculations and smears as questions and expect me to reply to them. No, I don't think so. I think just about everyone reading this thread will be happy that I haven't bothered to bore them any longer by continuing to deal with you. Then, too, I've got other things to do.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah,

What's this introducing irrelevant issues on a thread? In the past, you have declined to answer questions on the basis that they were on the wrong thread. That even happened for your "double hit" theory, which makes it all the more peculiar that you continue to ignore the perfectly legitimate questions that have been raised on this thread and introduce irrelevancies like (1), (2), (3), and (4)! That speaks volumes. Cute remarks may give you an infantile sense of satisfaction, but there are many here who want the answers to serious questions.

And for you to seek to hide behind Pat Speer's skirt is something else again. He has admitted that he has rejected the multiple proofs of alteration that have been published without studying them. I guess that makes him "a kindred spirit", which does not surprise me. You don't even use the latest exchange between us in creating this post. That suggests to me that you might want to explain this all away as "sloppy research" on your part! You are displaying plenty of that here, including an explanation of why you abandoned the "double hit" theory that entails violations of natural laws!

It troubles me is that you, Josiah Thompson, in January 2010, still appear to have not read THE GREAT ZARPUDER FILM HOAX (2003), which includes a very detailed report about Rich DellaRosa's viewing of this film on three occasions. No one who has actually read it would be inclined to make the absurd suggestion that he (Rich) was talking about a version from "Executive Action"! What kind of scholar are you to not have read the most important book on film fakey or have studied a witness report like DellaRosa's?

Moreover, it is stunning that you do not appear to be aware of some of the blatant disproofs of the film's authenticity, such as "More Proof of JFK Film Fakery" and "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", not to mention the confirmation of Roderick Ryan's observation that the back of the head wound had been painted over in black and that the "blob" and blood spray were painted in that Horne has reported, which has now been confirmed by seven Hollywood experts--eight counting Ryan!

You, Josiah Thompson, were in a unique position among students of JFK in having access to the very best versions of the film held by LIFE magazine. You were aware of the Parkland physicians' reports, some of which, including the McClelland diagram, you discuss, and that Officer Hargis was hit by debris so hard that thought he himself had been shot. Yet you did not make a point of the inconsistency of the medical evidence with the film, in spite of its blatancy. You are not being candid; you had to have know better, which makes it a work of obfuscation.

Insofar as (i) you do not use frames from the film but sketches (allegedly because of a breech of contract with LIFE), (ii) you do not provide sketches of the crucial frames (314, 315, and 315), and (iii) your sketch of 313, which was unavoidable, does not include the crucial feature of the "blob" bulging out to the right-front, they together suggest rather strongly that (iv) your book, SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS, was designed to defect attention from the contradiction between the medical evidence and the film.

And now, on various threads, I find that you are denying that you understand the medical evidence in this case, which you say is a complete mess, and even suggesting that you are not really an expert on photographs and films. I guess we can expect that, before long, you will be denying that you are an expert on the case--although it is my suspicion that all of this, including denying the "double hit" hypothesis on the basis of a specious explanation, is preliminary to undergoing a future "conversion".

For you to imply that the conclusion the film has been faked is a "tribal belief"--as though it had no foundation in logic or evidence--exemplifies the inflexible and irrational stance you have adopted. No matter how strong the proof, no matter how many experts on film conclude not only has the film been faked but the fakery was amateurish in the extreme, you, Josiah Thompson, will not budge. There are not many alternative explanations for such a stand, under these conditions, and none is flattering to you.

Not only have you avoided explaining how you could have constructed such an artful obfuscation without conscious intent, but you have not told us where you stand today on the medical evidence, its significance for the question of the film's authenticity, or even on the independent proof that the film is a fake. Are you, too, like Pat Speer, going to claim you have reviewed these proofs and found them wanting? And does that include the film restoration experts, who, like Roderick Ryan, have concluded the film has been altered--and in amateurish ways?

In fact, you made much of my citing the final paragraph of the text of your book as though that were somehow misleading or inappropriate. But you appear to be backing away from supporting the existence of a conspiracy in the death of JFK. I can see the headline now: "Former Conspiracy Theorist Josiah Thompson Abandon's His Belief!" The subtitle will say that you now agree with Gary Mack that "we will just never know". That is where you are heading, isn't it--and just in time for the 50th?

Are you going to adopt Pat Speer''s line--that the only way to prove conspiracy is by impeaching the evidence? He does not seem to understand that almost all of the evidence in this case has been faked, altered, or fabricated. And I have yet to hear a good reason for thinking the film is an exception. Even your cherished "chain of custody" argument is tattered and torn. You appear to be as unreasonable as Pat Speer in your unwillingness to display a rational response to new arguments based upon new evidence.

And why, for God's sake, are you not even willing to confirm that this every paragraph convinced Vincent Salandria that you were a government agent? He and I have corresponded about this and he explained to me that, when he confronted you about it, you dismissed his concerns on the grounds that it was simply an "infelicitous" use of language. So why can't you confirm it? Because you have suggested that it was abusive for me to cite it, when another JFK expert already called you on it? Why are we forming the impression that you, Josiah Thompson, are not a "stand up" guy?

The question is, since you were the "inside man" on the Zapruder film, why didn't you even sketch the most important frames? Why is frame 313 opaque? Since the inconsistency between the McClelland diagram and Officer Hargis' report was so blatant, why did you not address it? Those would have been obvious things to do. And, given your belief in the "double hit" analysis that was such a central feature of your account, how could you possibly have suggested that your book--not just those last few pages --does not prove the existence of a conspiracy, for which Salandria faulted you, too?

Stop bobbing and weaving, ducking and hiding. This has gone on too long. Just answer the questions, if you can, and let us all assess them.

Jim

Professor Fetzer,

Since Pat Speer has handled your latest, somewhat hysterical outbursts, I’ve kept silent.... figuring that the more you rant the more you expose who you are.

Your latest attempt at character assassination seems to be based on the claim that forty years ago I didn’t write the book that you would expect me to write now. After all these years, isn’t that a rather unrealistic expectation?

To advance your smear, you point to various arguments I didn’t make and various sketches I didn’t include. You claim that this is all part of some dark conspiracy on the part of me and unnamed others to keep the truth from the American people. Given that you charge me with a dark conspiracy, it seems only right for me to point out that you have ended up over time misleading that small group of people who read your books by publishing photos that really show the opposite of what you say they show. Make no mistake. I am not charging that this feature of your work is part of a dark conspiracy. I am sure it is not. It is most likely only the result of slovenly editing.

Unlike your dark conspiracy that I defy anyone to figure out, it is simplicity itself to show how you have misled your readers.

(1) Take the photo that started the recent debate... the red pickup truck in Dealey Plaza taken from one of Rollie Zavada’s studies. In TGZFH, you published it in a blurry, black and white copy and then claimed it failed to show “left full frame image penetration.” As we’ve seen however, it is precisely “left full frame image penetration” that this photo demonstrates.

(2) In your latest foray, The 9/11 Conspiracy, you are trying to show that fires in WTC 7 were not very extensive or ferocious. As someone hired to investigate this building’s collapse on 9/11, I can tell you they were both. No matter. To prove the point you are trying to make, you publish a photo of the building showing it standing serene and untouched with a flash of orange near its base. The caption describes this photo as follows: “WTC-7, above right, during the attack on the Twin Towers, appears undamaged except for a modest fire at street level.” Well, the building should “appear undamaged” since the photo was taken in 1997. And the “modest fire at street level”? Well, that is a bright orange, Calder statue to be found on the mezzanine level.

(3) Years ago in MIDP, you published a photo purporting to show a particular sight-line in the Moorman photo (the line-up of the left top corner of the Zapruder pedestal with the right bottom corner of a pergola window behind it). The only problem was that you covered up the relevant intersection point with an orange cross. The effect was that the reader had to believe your caption about what was shown. Whoops! When the orange cross was removed, it became clear to the naked eye that the two points did not line up and, therefore, the whole argument was bogus.

(4) Again in MIDP, you publish the famous Altgens photo taken at Z 255 and showing the windshield pristine and undamaged. You circle a pristine area of the windshield and caption the circle as follows: “Circle 1. The apparent through-and-through hole in the windshield.” But there isn’t any hole. There isn’t even any suggestion of a hole. The surface of the windshield is pristine.

I point these facts out since it is very easy do so and requires not much description. I know you will say that the mistakes are not yours but those of your contributors. And, to some degree, you are correct in saying that. But I raise these mistakes also for another reason. Don’t you become so hysterical about me... wigged out enough to produce a completely silly theory of conspiracy to charge me with... because a few days ago I pointed out these mistakes? Aren’t you really so angry simply because I won’t go away and keep pointing out your errors? Isn’t that the real reason behind your recent tirade?

Josiah Thompson

Edited January 5, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

For any of you with lingering doubts, here is a brilliant post from Paul Rigby of the analysis of the Zapruder film that was presented by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams, MURDER FROM WITHIN (Santa Barbara: Probe, 1974).

Paul Rigby

Yesterday, 11:54 PM

Post #3

Super Member

Group: Members

Posts: 1104

Joined: 27-July 06

From: Southport, England

Member No.: 5045

This is the kind of analysis Thompson should have produced in SSID were he remotely interested in the truth of the subject. Compare the quality of observation below with that to be found in SSID. And laugh.

QUOTE

Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams. Murder From Within (Santa Barbara: Probe, 1974)

Chapter 4: The Filmed Assassination

One of the most important films of the murder was an 8 mm color movie taken by Abraham Zapruder. The Secret Service had first access to his original film, which was then altered in an attempt to cover up the agency’s part in the plot.

Zapruder stood mid-way between the depository and the underpass (1) and filmed the Presidential limousine from the time it turned the corner of Elm and Houston Streets until it reached the triple underpass. His untampered film recorded what occurred inside the vehicle.

A number of copies of the Zapruder film, whose clarity ranged from excellent to poor, including the films and slides at Life magazine and those at the National Archives, were made available to the authors. Each copy was carefully examined and this chapter deals basically with the results of that examination.

A movie is a series of individual pictures, or frames, in consecutive order (2). In describing the film, we refer to numbers assigned to each frame.

Description

The Presidential limousine first appears on available Zapruder film at frame 133, at a point in the street opposite the centre of the depository (3). The President, seated in the back on the right, is waving to the crowd with his right arm. He is hidden from camera view by a freeway sign, beginning at frame 203, and is shot in the throat at approximately frame 207. When he reappears from behind the sign at frame 225, his mouth is open and his hands are raised to his throat. From this point, he starts to lean forward, and to his left, until frame 313, when his head is impacted by a bullet.

Beginning with frame 305, the driver turns around, one hand on the wheel, and faces the President (4), at which point the President’s head is struck by the fatal bullet.

Between frames 313 and 323, the President is slammed backward by the impact of the shot. Between frames 323 and 340, he falls forward, and to his left, into his wife’s lap.

Mrs. Kennedy scrambles out of the limousine, over the trunk, between frames 345 and 375. Her bodyguard, Clinton J. Hill, touches the back of the limousine at frame 345, placing his foot on the car at frame 371, to assist her.

When the Governor reappears from behind the freeway sign at frame 223, he is looking to his right. Then he begins to turn his head forward. Between frames 227 and 230, he raises his hat (the whereabouts of which, possibly containing bullet hole, is unknown) up-and-down in reaction. At frame 233, he starts to raise his left forearm and to turn to his right again. The Governor’s mouth is open. Between frames 255 and 292, he continues to turn his head to the right, exposing his back to the front seat, until he is looking at the President. At frame 285, he is shot. He is then pulled backward by his wife.

After the fatal shot to the President at frame 313, the Governor begins to pull himself up, placing his right hand on the metal handhold on the top of the back of the front seat. At frame 323, he is sitting up, looking into the front seat.

A visible flare on the windshield of the limousine occurs at frame 330 as the result of another shot.

Authentication

For the Warren Commission, an FBI photographic expert numbered each frame of the Zapruder film. The first frame of the motorcade sequence was number “1” and the following frames were counted in order (5).

In its published record of the film, the Commission printed black-and-white photographs of frame 171 through 334. This is just before the limousine disappears behind the freeway sign until just before Mrs. Kennedy begins to climb out of the back seat (6).

The same numbering was used for those available copies of the Zapruder film that the authors examined. Each copy was placed on a viewer that allowed every frame to be seen and counted individually.

The examined copies agreed with the published version. For example, frame 171 of the copies we examined was identical to the published frame 171. The head shot at frame 313 in the copies was the same as frame 313 printed by the Commission.

All available copies were a single, continuous strip of film, without any mechanical splices.

In sum, those available copies matched the film that the Warren Commission viewed.

The original Zapruder film, however, seems to be unavailable.

Cuts

Between the period that Zapruder took his film and the Commission saw it, the film was altered.

Available copies that we examined showed splices present (Fig. 4-3). All splices were photographic, i.e., the mechanical splices of the original were copied onto the duplicates (7).

The following is an inventory of our examination.

Splices in frames 152-159 concern the period after the limousine turned Elm and Houston Streets and before the freeway sign.

Frame 152 is spliced at the bottom of the frame. In the next frame, splices exist at both top and bottom. In addition, the color changes. Instead of the previous warm color, the frames have a bluish cast. A great difference between frames 153 and 152 is indicated by the movement of the limousine: it makes an extremely rapid forward lurch indicating frames are missing here.

Frame 154 has a splice at the top and is bluish in cast. Frame 155 contains a splice at the top third of the frame. Splicing tape marks are present in the foreground of frame 156, which is also bluish; a crude splicing gap appears at the base. A splice may exist at the lower third of frame 159.

The next sequence in which splicing and color change occur is during the that period when the limousine is hidden by the freeway sign.

There is a possible splice in the top eighth of frame 205. Splicing tape adhesive marks are visible on the freeway sign in frame 206. Frame 206 has a bluish cast, as do frames 207-212.

Frame 207 is spliced at the top. A splice may have been made on frame 210 near the bottom. On frame 211, splicing adhesive tape marks are present. Splicing adhesive covers frame 212; a crude cut out is at the base. Frame 213 has a splice at the top; the color changes back to warm hues. At frame 215, a splice line runs across the top fourth of the frame.

Color change indicates that different copies of the film were used to produce one continuous film (8).

A graph, made to show the feet the limousine traveled per frame number, indicates the limousine moved about 20 feet every 20 frames (Fig. 4-4). Between frames 197 and 218, when the limousine is behind the freeway sign, it moved only 10 feet within 21 frames. This means that the limousine either slowed down or stopped between frames 197 and 218. If it stopped then an unaccountable number of frames could have been removed.

Throughout the entire Zapruder film, nothing indicates that frames have been added. What is clear is that frames have been removed. Time has been deleted from the film. With time removed, the film is useless as a clock for the assassination.

Retouching

Retouching has been done with the image of the driver in the film between frames 214-333. It appears after the limousine emerges from behind the freeway sign. Retouching is evident on the front of the limousine windshield on the driver’s side to obscure his movements. The author’s reconstruction film, taken of a car on Elm Street, under similar lighting conditions, on Nov. 22, 1969, at 12:30 p.m., shows the driver’s motions clearly through the windshield.

Retouching may also occur at the top of the freeway sign to obscure the action of the occupants and to hide the shot hitting the President in the throat.

The object in the driver’s hand is barely visible between frames 285 and 297, the sequence of the Governor’s wounds. Between frames 303-317, it is easily seen. The telling feature, especially in the latter sequence, is the action: the driver raises it, seems to aim, and, then, in the frame immediately after the fatal shot to the President in frame 313, brings it down.

Although splicing marks were undetectable about frame 313, it is likely that frames were removed and the remaining retouched. The appearance of frame 313 is vital to the health of the scenario.

Given the forward inclination of the President’s head at the time of the fatal shot (Fig. 4-5), a line drawn through the actual points of entrance and exit is horizontal. If a rifleman fired from above and behind, the line between the points of exit and entrance would be at an angle.

To camouflage evidence of a shot from the front, the actual exit wound at the side of the head (Fig. 4-5) was covered with opaque (Fig. 4-6).

Second, an exploding, bloody halo was manufactured on the film in the area around the President’s head in frame 313 (Fig. 4-6). Significantly, other films of the assassination lack this halo (9). The CBS reporter who saw the Zapruder film two days [error: three days – PR] after the assassination at a press showing made no mention of an exploding head (10). Mrs. Kennedy failed to describe this burst in her testimony (11).

The halo, a cartoon-like, red-orange burst that nearly obscures the President’s head (12), not only confuses the features of the head, but also distorts the actual and less dramatic wounding (Fig. 4-5). Furthermore, the burst occurs for one frame only – an eighteenth of a second – and does not appear in the very next frame. The film should have shown the burst developing and decaying over a sequence of perhaps 18-30 frames. For example, a film made of the effect of a rock hitting a window would require a number of frames to record the moment of impact, the spidering and splintering of the glass, then the shattering effect of the rock, and the outward showering movements of fragments, and their eventual descent to the ground.

The two Secret Service agents in the front seat and both Connallys implied a shot came from the rear by claiming that a substantial amount of debris came forward and down on them (13). No pictorial evidence verifies their claims.

A good indication of removal of frames during the fatal shot sequence is found in the out-of-sequence movements of the legs of a woman running across the lawn in the background. The rhythm of her running is broken unnaturally, e.g., running on her left leg twice, which would indicate frame removal.

Retouching can be seen in a comparison of frames 317 and 321 (Fig. 4-7). The President and his wife appear large in frame 321, even though the dimensions of the two frames are equal in size. Frame 321 was optically enlarged and then reframed. This eliminated material at the right hand side of the picture, such as the driver and the windshield. In addition, it is possible that in frame 321 the windshield was painted-in; it fails to match the windshield in frame 317. In addition, a change in perspective occurs. The line in the back seat in frame 321 has shifted. This means that the limousine has gone further down the street and that an unknown number of frames were removed (14).

Refilming

More evidence of tampering is indicated with the framing of the pictures, especially between frames 280-300. There, the heads of both the President and Connally scarcely appear, and almost disappear from view. This means that the original film was probably refilmed, and reframed, in such a manner as to remove certain material just below their heads.

For example, on the afternoon of Nov. 24, 1963, two days after the assassination, CBS newsman Dan Rather viewed a copy of the Zapruder film in Dallas. His report noted that Connally, as he turned to look back at the President, “…exposed his entire shirt front and chest because his coat was unbuttoned…at that moment a shot very clearly hit that part of the Governor” (15). On available copies, only Connally’s head appears in this sequence.

The possibility exists that the original Zapruder film was refilmed on an optical printer. Modern cinematography laboratories are equipped with optical printing machines that can generate a new negative without the “errors” of the original. Optical printers can insert new frames, skip frames, re-size the images, along with other creative illusions. One hour on the optical printer could eliminate the Connally hit (16).

Deletions

Most available copies, when viewed on a screen as a movie, are slightly jerky, especially in the movement of the limousine. Perhaps the maximum number of cuts was made, the greatest number of frames removed, without making it obvious to the casual viewer.

Certain items could not be altered, such as the President’s head and body snapping backward, without elaborate artwork. But, of those who have seen the film, the cuts are overcome by the way in which people see the movie. The viewer’s focus is usually on the President, not on the other people in the limousine.

Some of the action depicted on the film that was difficult to explain had to be eliminated.

First, the limousine initially appears on available copies some 40 feet down from the top of the street; it literally leaps into view. Yet Zapruder stated that he filmed the limousine as it turned onto Elm St. from Houston St. (17). The copy that CBS reporter Dan Rather saw two days [error: three days – PR] after the assassination apparently had the turn on it because Rather described it (18).

Frames deleted between 152-159 probably showed the decoy shot being fired from the Vice-President’s follow-up car.

Cuts between frames 205-215 likely relate to two areas: reaction to the decoy (first) shot, and the second (throat) shot.

Between frames 207-212, the President seems to swing his head very quickly to his left as if in reaction to the decoy shot. His action would indicate the direction of the Secret Service agent’s revolver as well as sharply contrast with the lack of reaction by those agents in the front seat of the Presidential limousine.

The President’s reaction to the second shot, which hit him in the throat, is missing. Zapruder testified, “…I heard the first shot and I saw the President lean over and grab himself like this (holding his left chest area)” (19). CBS reporter Dan Rather said that “…the President lurched forward just a bit, it was obvious he had been hit in the movie…” (20).

The Commission, which received the film from the Secret Service, published frames 207 and 212, both obviously spliced, but failed to print frames 208-211 (21).

The alterations after the fatal shot probably were concerned with eliminating the limousine stop and the rush by Secret Service agents upon it. Indeed, the Secret Service made an effort “…to ascertain whether any [movie news] film could be found showing special agents on the ground alongside the Presidential automobile at any point along the parade route” (22).

Film Confiscation

In other films of the assassination, activity in the front seat of the limousine is either obscured or absent. All known movie films of the murder (except Zapruder’s) omit the sequence where the President was first hit. Confiscation of film explains this less than random pattern; all would not stop their cameras at the same time.

Fig. 4-8 shows the areas of Houston and Elm Streets covered by nine known, amateur movie cameras, tracking the limousine. All of the professional movie cameramen were too far back to take footage of the action, except one.

One amateur said that his 8 mm color film was lost during processing. When it was finally returned, some frames were ruined, others were missing (23). The assassination sequence that reached the FBI had 150 frames, equivalent to eight seconds (24). The limousine was in the amateur’s view for some 20 seconds, not including the time it was stopped.

Another amateur’s 8 mm color movie film contained 66 frames of the assassination, approximately three and one-half seconds (25).

Two Secret Service agents obtained both of a woman’s black-and-white still Polaroid photographs (26). One photograph showed the motorcade with the depository in the background; the other caught the President a split-second after he was struck in the head (27). When the two pictures were returned, her friend thought “some things had been erased” (28). Her friend recalled that the woman took four or five photographs of the motorcade, including “two or three good ones” of the President (29).

A man turned his photographs over to a Secret Service agent who kept them for about one month before returning them (30). Retouching is apparent on a 35 mm colored slide he took about the time of the first shot (31).

James W. Altgens, a professional photographer, took his still black-and-white photographs back to his office at Associated Press, had the film processed, and put on the wire (32). The Secret Service was unable to intercept these.

Altgens snapped four photographs of the limousine as it approached Main and Houston Streets and turned right into Houston Street heading for the depository building. Then, he ran down across the grass triangle in the center of Dealey Plaza and into the sparsely populated assassination zone. Directly across from a grassy knoll, where Zapruder was filming, Altgens stepped from the curb and took a photograph of the approaching limousine approximately midway in the execution. Returning to the curb, he snapped another one of the limousine when it was two or three car lengths past him. These professional quality photographs were to become the clearest taken that day of the limousine on Elm Street.

Altgens moved approximately 240 feet from Main and Houston Streets to snap his Elm St. photograph of the limousine in mid-assassination. The limousine traveled approximately 330 feet during this time. These distances give some indication of the low speed of the motorcade.

A professional movie cameraman, within range, was referred to by an ABC News Director during a TV broadcast. The Director said:

“A tv newsreel man was following in a car just behind the Presidential motorcade and at that particular moment had the President in the frame of his camera. He had it on close-up and he was panning from the Texas Library building [sic]…As soon as he saw the President fall…he then panned up and he said…”If I have on film what I saw through the eye of my camera, I have the complete assassination.” At that particular point…he was picked up by a Secret Serviceman. The Secret Service impounded the film; it was allegedly 16 mm color” (33).

No such film has been located. Such professional quality film would show not only activity in the limousine, but also an empty “sniper’s nest” (34).

Getting the Zapruder Film

How did the Secret Service acquire Zapruder’s film?

After Zapruder completed his filming, he returned to his office and asked his secretary “…to call the police or the Secret Service” (35). Then he went to his desk where he waited “…until the police came and then we were required to get a place to develop the film” (36).

An inspector with the Dallas Police Dept. was notified about Zapruder’s film. A sergeant told him that Zapruder refused to give the police the film and was waiting for either the Secret Service or the FBI. The inspector sent the sergeant, with two other men, to bring Zapruder and his movie to him. Instead, the sergeant reported back that Forrest V. Sorrels of the Secret Service was with Zapruder. The inspector then told his men to go about their usual assignments because “…since Forrest was already there and talking to him [Zapruder], I knew that that part would be taken care of” (37).

Sorrels first learned about the film from a crime reporter for the Dallas Morning News (38). According to Sorrels, Zapruder “…agreed to furnish me with a copy of this film with the understanding that it was strictly for official use of the Secret Service…” (39).

Sorrels went to the Dallas Morning News in mid-afternoon (40). He found that the newspaper was unable to develop the film, but did learn that the Eastman Kodak Co., in Dallas, could do so (41).

The Kodak Film Processing Laboratory received “…one 8 mm Kodachrome II Film…” on November 22, and claimed they returned it unaltered to Zapruder. Kodak perforated the identification number 0183 at the “…end of the processed film and carrier strip [leader]…”(42).

Sorrels may have advised Zapruder to have three copies made of the film. Kodak was unable to do so. The Jamieson Film Co. of Dallas, however, could make copies if the 8 mm film was in its original form as a 25-foot roll of 16 mm (8 mm is made by dividing the 16 mm and splicing the two 25 foot rolls together). Zapruder, therefore, had Kodak process the film without splitting it, then took it to Jamieson (43).

Jamieson also received the film on November 22. The company asserted the film remained unaltered during the printing operation. Zapruder received three duplicate copies with the identification number 0183, at the end of the original film, printed onto the three duplicates (44).

Zapruder returned to Kodak where he had the three duplicates processed and developed. They were given the identification numbers 0185, 0186, and 0187 (45). What happened to 0184 is unclear.

Zapruder then had a total of four films, one original and three duplicates. He said he gave Sorrels two copies. Sorrels kept one and another was rushed to Washington, D.C., on November 22, by army plane. (46). Yet, according to a note of transmittal from a Secret Service agent to Secret Service Chief Rowley in Washington, D.C., the disposition was different. The agent stated: “Mr. Zapruder is in custody of the ‘master’ film. Two prints were given to SAIC Sorrels, this date. The third print is forwarded” (47).

Also on Friday evening, November 22, Sorrels did a frame-by-frame study of the Zapruder film in his Dallas office. According to Dallas Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes, who was present, “…we thumbed [through] that thing for an hour or more…push[ing] it up one frame at a time” (48).

The next day, November 23, Sorrels gave a copy to an inspector of the Secret Service who at a later date loaned it to the FBI. The FBI returned it to the inspector, who gave it to Sorrels for the Dallas office of the Secret Service (49).

The FBI was dependent upon the Secret Service for a copy of the film, which it then duplicated for its examination (50). The Secret Service retained the film until the altered version was prepared.

Life

On November 23, 1963, Zapruder made an agreement with Life magazine (51). Two days later, he asked Life to acknowledge receipt of the original and one copy (52). He wrote that the Secret Service had the other two copies, one in Dallas, and one in Washington, D.C. (53).

When did Life acquire physical possession of the film? On November 29, 1963, Life printed some frames. But it only talked of a “…series of pictures…”; it failed to mention that it was a movie and also the name of the man who made it (54).

There are two indications that Life was not in possession of the film. First, the lack of clarity in its reproduction suggests a copy. Second, the magazine enjoyed a reputation for its color printing. The film was in color, but Life’s reproduction was in black-and-white (55).

In its memorial edition of December 13, 1963, Life printed colored reproductions of the film and mentioned “a Dallas clothing manufacturer…[took] pictures with his 8 mm home movie camera: it is from his film that these pictures are taken” (56). Yet three days later, the Warren Commission only saw a series of still photographs made from the film (57). It was not until Feb. 25, 1964, that Life showed its version of the film to the Commission” (58).

It is likely that the Secret Service sanctioned what frames could be printed between 1963 and Sep. 1964, when the Commission issued its report. In the October 2, 1964, issue of Life, which covered the Warren Commission’s report, frame sprockets are missing on the cover and eight frames featured inside (59).

The October 2, 1964, issue of Life appeared in at least six versions (60). Frame 313, with the bursting head, appeared in color in three of the six versions.

Chairman Warren displayed his advance knowledge of the head burst before the Warren Commission on Dec. 16, 1963. “There’s another sequence which they [Life] did not include,” he said, “and it shows the burst of blood and things from his head, blown out” (61). This seems to be the earliest date when certain knowledge was expressed about the manufactured head burst. This frame was not printed in Life until Oct. 2, 1964. CBS reporter Dan Rather, who saw the film in Dallas two days after the assassination, did not mention this dramatic burst. In addition, other movie films of this same sequence failed to record it.

At what point did Life realize that it did not have the original film? It waited until May 1967 to copyright it (62).

Tell-Tale Sign

At some time between Nov. 22, 1963, and Dec. 5, 1963, the Stemmons Freeway sign was re-positioned and raised, invalidating any accurate reconstruction of the crime.

On Dec. 16, 1963, member John J. McCloy commented on it and its significance before a Commission meeting: “You see this sign here,” he said, “pointing to a frame from the Zapruder film, “someone suggested that this sign has now been removed…from the sign you can get a good notion of where the first bullet hit” (63).

It was on July 22, 1964, however, when the Commission interviewed the Dealey Plaza grounds keeper. He commented, “…they have moved some of those signs. They have moved that R.L. Thornton Freeway sign and put up a Stemmons sign” (64).

A photograph taken during the Secret Service re-enactment (Fif. 4-9) on Dec. 5, 1963, when compared to Zapruder frame 207 (Fig. 4-10) shows the following. First, the sign had been moved to the right and raised. Second, the angle of the sign to the camera differs from Zapruder’s. The sign’s new position is also shown when the FBI reconstruction photograph of May 24, 1964, (Fig. 4-11), is overlayed with the Secret Service photo of Dec. 5, 1963. The overlay (Fig. 4-12) was made by matching the tree (A), masonry holes (, and windows © in both.

The FBI apparently tried to have the sign replaced to approximately where it was on Nov. 22, 1963. Note how much of the stand-ins can be seen (Fig. 4-11) as compared to frame 207 (Fig. 4-10). There is also a difference in appearance between the two signs: the sign in frame 207 (Fig. 4-10) has a medium grey tone while that in the Secret Service (Fig. 4-9) and FBI (Fig. 4-11) reconstructions is solid black.

After May 24, 1964, the sign was removed, making any accurate reconstruction of the Zapruder film impossible (65).

Altering Time

The Secret Service produced the first re-enactment tests and surveys. These would be the basis of the information for both the FBI and the Commission, and thereby mislead them.

On Nov. 25, 1963, the Secret Service made a survey in Dealey Plaza to establish bullet trajectories (66).

Two days later, the Secret Service held its first re-enactment. Using a surveyor and the Zapruder film, an agent measured the distance from the eastern window ledge of the depository’s sixth floor to the car. The distance for the neck shot was given as 170 feet, the point at which the view of the car is blocked by the freeway sign. The head shot was stated as 260 feet. He claimed the point where Connally was shot was undeterminable (67).

The Secret Service photographs of its re-enactment show the car at 170 and 260 feet; its map designates these two shots at frames 207 and 375, with frame 330 as the shot for Connally (68).

Again, on Dec. 5, 1963, the Secret Service held another re-enactment. At that time, the car, according to photographs, was positioned at frames 207, 330, and 375. When this was put on a map, they co-ordinated with frames 207, 285, and 330 (69).

A final version of the hits further compressed the time. The Warren Commission stated that the President was first hit between frames 210-225, and Connally was hit between frames 235-240. Frame 313 was the final hit (70).

In short, the timing of the shots was compressed. This solved the problem of time that the film had created. Zapruder’s movie camera ran at 18 frames per second (71). The scenario rifle required a minimum of 2.3 seconds between shots, or 42 frames (72). The difference between the Commission’s designations of the first hit on the President and the hit on Connally was less than 42 frames, exceeding the rifles capability. If one shot hit both, however, then the Commission avoided the problem of having to deal with another gun and a conspiracy.

But the altered film still left major problems unexplained by the single-bullet hypothesis: 1) the lack of reaction by the President’s guards, who were supposed to protect him; 2) the backward movement of the President’s head after he was struck at frame 313; and 3) Mrs. Kennedy’s crawling across the trunk in panic.

Notes:

1) Abraham Zapruder, “Testimony of Abraham Zapruder [dated July 22, 1964],” in Hearings, v. 7, p. 570.

2) Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt [dated June 4, 1964],” in Hearings, v. 5, p. 139.

3) Calculation by photo triangulation.

4) “…the Secret Service agent…must be able to hit the target under any and all conditions…” (C.B. Colby, Secret Service: History, Duties and Equipment, p. 20.)

According to Merriman Smith, “All [agents on the White House Detail of the Secret Service] are crack shots with either hand. Their pistol marksmanship is tested on one of the toughest ranges in the country. The bull’s-eye of their target is about half the size of the one ordinarily used on police and Army ranges. They must qualify with an unusually high score every thirty days, and if any one of them – or any of the White House police, which falls under Secret Service jurisdiction – falls below a certain marksmanship standard, they are transferred. Agents must also qualify periodically firing from moving vehicles. This accounts for the requirement to shoot well with either hand. A right-handed agent might be clinging to a speeding car with that hand and have to shoot with the left.” (Timothy G. Smith (ed.), op. cit., p. 226.)

In his testimony, Greer claimed he “…made a quick glance and back again,” over his right shoulder, at the time of the second shot. He stated, “My eyes [turned] slightly [to the right] more than my head. My eyes went more than my head around. I had a vision real quick of it.” (Greer, op. cit., v. 2, p. 118.)

One study (1971) of the Zapruder film approximated the direction, clockwise, that the occupants faced in the limousine. In orientation, noon was the front of the car, 6 o’clock was on the trunk, 9 o’clock was the mid-point on the left, and 3 o’clock that on the right of the limousine. Greer was judged to be looking to the right and rear twice. He was in the 4:30 position from frames 282-290, the sequence when Connally is shot; in the 3:30-5 position from frames 303-316, the sequence with the fatal shot.

Another study (1967), made without the film and working only from the frames, estimated Greer to be 40 degrees to his right beginning at frame 240 and extending to 80 degrees from frame 270 through frame 309 (309 was the last frame available to the researcher). (Ronald Christensen, “A Preliminary Analysis of the Pictures of the Kennedy Assassination,” p. 69.)

5) Shaneyfelt, loc. cit.

6) Zapruder film, “Commission Exhibit No. 885. ‘Album of black and white photographs of frames from the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films,’” in Hearings, v. 18, pp. 1-80.

According to FBI Director Hoover, in a letter of Dec. 14, 1965, frames 314 and 315 were transposed in printing. Visually, it appears to reverse the direction of the head movement.

7) In a few of the more sophisticated available copies, splice marks were retouched out. A 16 mm version contained evidence of only one splice.

8) In a few of the more sophisticated copies, color change was consistent throughout the film A 16 mm version, in the Life magazine photo library, is of excellent quality, containing consistent color throughout. This copy, however, does contain evidence of a splice between frames 156-157.

9) Nix film. Muchmore film.

10) Dan Rather, loc. cit.

11) She stated, “And just as I turned and looked at him, I could see a piece of his skull sort of wedge-shaped like that, and I remember it was flesh colored with little ridges at the top. I remember thinking he just looked as if he had a slight headache. And I just remember seeing that. No blood or anything. And then he sort of did that, put his hand to his forehead and fell in my lap.” (President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, Report of Proceedings, v. 48, June 5, 1964, p. 6814.)

12) Especially in Life magazine’s 4 x 5 transparency of this frame.

13) John Connally, op. cit., v. 4, p. 133.

Nellie Connally, op. cit., v. 4, p. 147.

Commission Document No. 188, p. 6.

Kellerman, op. cit., v. 2, pp. 74, 78.

In an interview with William R. Greer, Greer said, “…my back was covered with it.”

14) This area also displays optical enlargement, especially between frames 317 and 318 (magnification jumps from 1 to 1.3).

15) Dan Rather, loc. cit.

16) Modern Cinematographer, June 1969, pp. 566, 567, 568.

Note: Connally testified, “I had seem what purported to be a copy of the film when I was in hospital in Dallas.” (Connally, op. cit., v. 4, p. 145.)

17) Abraham Zapruder, Commission Document No. 7 [dated Dec. 4, 1963],” p. 12.

18) Dan Rather, loc. cit.

19) Zapruder, op. cit., v. 7, p. 751.

20) Dan Rather, loc. cit.

21) Zapruder film, “Commission Exhibit No. 885,” op. cit., v. 18, p. 19.

Note: Life magazine later accepted the blame for this. It said that four frames “…had been accidentally destroyed by its photo lab technicians.” (New York Times, Jan. 30, 1967, p. 22.)

22) Commission Document No. 87, p. 434.

23) Interview with Orville O. Nix in film Rush to Judgment.

24) Commission Document No. 385, p. 70. FBI lab report says Nix’s camera was running at an average speed of 18.5 frames per second.

25) Marie Muchmore. Commission Document No. 735, pp. 124, 103.

26) Mary Moorman. Commission Document No. 5, p. 37.

John Wiseman, “Decker Exhibit No. 5323. ‘Supplementary Investigation Report dated Nov. 23, 1963,’ within Dallas County Sheriff’s Office record…” in Hearings, v. 19, pp. 535-536.

“Commission Exhibit No. 1426, ‘FBI report dated November 23, 1963, of interview of Mary Ann Moorman at Dallas, Tex. (CD 5, pp. 36-37),’” in Hearings, v. 22, p. 839.

27) “Commission Exhibit No. 1426,” loc. cit.

28) Interview with Jean L. Hill.

29) Ibid.

30) Philip L. Willis. Commission Document No. 1245, pp. 44-47.

31) Willis slide number five.

32) Altgens, op. cit., v. 7, p. 519.

33) ABC Television, Nov. 23, 9:00 a.m. Tom O’Brian, ABC News Director.

34) Of the amateurs, an 8 mm color film by Robert J. Hughes does show the depository with the limousine directly below the sixth floor “sniper’s nest.” The FBI examined this film and concluded there was no person in the window (Commission Document No. 205, p. 158.) In addition, “Itek Corporation, a photo-optical electronics firm, concluded the object in the window…was not a person.”

(Life, Nov. 24, 1967, p. 88.) A polaroid photo taken by Jack Weaver, who was standing near Hughes at Main and Houston Streets, was also examined by the FBI with the same negative results (Ibid., p. 175).

35) Zapruder, op. cit., v. 7, p. 571.

36) Ibid.

37) J. Herbert Sawyer, “Testimony of J. Herbert Sawyer [dated April 8, 1964],’” in Hearings, v. 6, p. 324.

38) Forrest V. Sorrels, op. cit., v. 7, p. 352.

39) Commission Document No. 1014, “Sorrels memo to S.S. Chief Rowley and S.S. Inspector Tom Kelley [dated Jan. 22, 1964].”

40) Dallas Police Department, “Commission Document No. 705. ‘Channel 2’…” op. cit., v. 17, p. 482.

41) Sorrels, loc. cit.

42) Affidavit of P. M. Chamberlain, Jr., Production Supervisor, Eastman Kodak Co., Dallas, Tex., dated Nov. 22, 1963.

43) Letter of Abraham Zapruder to C.D. Jackson, Publisher, Life magazine, dated Nov. 25, 1963.

44) Affidavit of Frank R. Sloan, Laboratory Manager, Jamieson Film Co., Dallas, Tex., dated Nov. 22, 1963.

45) Affidavit of Tom Nulty, Production Foreman, Eastman Kodak Co., Dallas, Tex., dated Nov. 22, 1963.

46) Zapruder, op. cit., v. 7, p. 575.

47) Commission Document No. 87, “Max D. Phillips, Note of transmittal [undated] 9:55 p.m.”

According to Life’s representative, Richard B. Stolley, the disposition was “…one copy sent off to Washington and another given to Dallas police. Zapruder kept the original and one print…” (Richard B. Stolley, “What happened next…,” Esquire, November 1973, p. 135.)

48) Interview with Harry D. Holmes.

49) Inspector Kelley. Commission Document No. 1014, op. cit.

50) Shaneyfelt, op. cit., v. 5, p. 138.

51) Agreement between Abraham Zapruder and Time, Inc., dated Nov. 25, 1963.

52) Contract between Abraham Zapruder and Time, Inc., dated Nov. 25, 1963.

Record of physical possession is confused. Zapruder’s agreement of Nov. 23, 1963, reads: “You [Life] agree to return to me the original print of that film, and I will then supply you with a copy print.” Life’s agent, Richard B. Stolley, claimed he “…picked up the original of the film and the one remaining copy…” after the agreement was signed. (Stolley, loc. cit.)

53) Ibid.

54) Life, Nov. 29, 1963, p. 24.

Time, Nov. 29, 1963, and Dec. 6, 1963, made no mention of the film although it printed four frames in the latter issue (pp. 33A, 33B.)

55) The issue dated for Nov. 29, 1963, was to have been on sale by Nov. 26, 1963. Although, according to Life, “The editors said that time limitations did not permit reproductions in color,” they also said “…they were unable last night [Nov. 23, 1963] to give precise details as to what the film showed but that they were assured that it depicted the impact of the bullets that struck Mr. Kennedy.” (New York Times, Nov. 24, 1963, p. 5.)

56) Life, Dec. 13, 1963. The Memorial issue is unpaginated.

57) Lifton (ed.), op. cit., p. 72.

58) Shaneyfelt, op. cit., v. 5, p. 138.

59) Life, Oct. 2, 1964, pp. 43-46.

60) Researcher Paul Hoch determined that five versions were issued by Life by comparing the text and captions 3, 5, 6, and 8 on p. 42; picture 6 on p. 45; the text in column 2 and caption of line 3 on p. 47; and 4 captions, lines 1, 9, 13 and 18, on p. 48. Using this method, the authors discovered a sixth version. Vincent J. Salandria noted three versions (“A Philadelphia Lawyer Analyzes the Shots, Trajectories, and Wounds,” Liberation, January 1965, pp. 6-7.)

61) Lifton (ed.), loc. cit.

62) “Motion Pictures and Film Strips,” Catalog of Copyright Entries, Third Series, v. 21, pts. 12-13, no. 1, January-June 1967, p. 19. Though the film is at least 27 seconds in length, Life, on Oct. 2, 1964, described it as “…an eight second strip…” In the Catalog of Copyright Entries, in 1967, it is listed as 10 seconds in length (p. 42).

Life’s representative, Richard B. Stolley, claimed it was “…seven seconds of film” (Stolley, loc. cit.) He also said, “…in the beginning of the film…pictured some children at play…” (Ibid., p. 134), a sequence not shown on any film made available to the authors.

63) Lifton (ed.), loc. cit.

64) Emmett J. Hudson, “Testimony of Emmett J. Hudson [dated July 22, 1964],” in Hearings, v. 7, p. 562.

65) An official use of the film, other than by the Warren Commission, was made by the CIA. It wanted to borrow the FBI’s copy”…for training purposes.” (J. Edgar Hoover, Letter of Dec. 4, 1964.)

66) Dallas Morning News, Nov. 26, 1963, Sect. 4, p. 7.

67) Agent John J. Howlett. Commission Document No. 5, p. 117.

68) “Commission Exhibit No. 585. ‘Surveyor’s plat of the Assassination Scene,’” in Hearings, v. 17, p. 262.

69) Ibid.

70) Report of the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, pp. 105-109.

71) Ibid., p. 97.

Shaneyfelt, op. cit., v. 5, p. 153.

“Commission Exhibit No. 2444. ‘FBI report of FBI Laboratory examination of various items relating to the assassination (CD 206, pp. 45-61),’” in Hearings, v. 25, p. 576.

72) Report of the President’s Commission, loc. cit.

Very shabby, Josiah. You aren't answering the questions because you don't have persuasive answers--which I take as an implicit concession that you are indeed the obfuscationist extraordinarie who is dedicating the rest of his life to undermining the best work by the best students, because it exposes the stunning conflict between the medical evidence and the Zapruder film and reveals your role in obstructing the search for truth about the death of our 35th president. These are legitimate questions for the author of SIX SECONDS. What a shame that you are unable to answer them! Future generations of student will understand your role in the history of the study of the death of JFK. All of us who once admired you now know that you were playing us for saps.

Professor,

Same old... same old. There's nothing here to reply to. You offer speculations and smears as questions and expect me to reply to them. No, I don't think so. I think just about everyone reading this thread will be happy that I haven't bothered to bore them any longer by continuing to deal with you. Then, too, I've got other things to do.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah,

What's this introducing irrelevant issues on a thread? In the past, you have declined to answer questions on the basis that they were on the wrong thread. That even happened for your "double hit" theory, which makes it all the more peculiar that you continue to ignore the perfectly legitimate questions that have been raised on this thread and introduce irrelevancies like (1), (2), (3), and (4)! That speaks volumes. Cute remarks may give you an infantile sense of satisfaction, but there are many here who want the answers to serious questions.

And for you to seek to hide behind Pat Speer's skirt is something else again. He has admitted that he has rejected the multiple proofs of alteration that have been published without studying them. I guess that makes him "a kindred spirit", which does not surprise me. You don't even use the latest exchange between us in creating this post. That suggests to me that you might want to explain this all away as "sloppy research" on your part! You are displaying plenty of that here, including an explanation of why you abandoned the "double hit" theory that entails violations of natural laws!

It troubles me is that you, Josiah Thompson, in January 2010, still appear to have not read THE GREAT ZARPUDER FILM HOAX (2003), which includes a very detailed report about Rich DellaRosa's viewing of this film on three occasions. No one who has actually read it would be inclined to make the absurd suggestion that he (Rich) was talking about a version from "Executive Action"! What kind of scholar are you to not have read the most important book on film fakey or have studied a witness report like DellaRosa's?

Moreover, it is stunning that you do not appear to be aware of some of the blatant disproofs of the film's authenticity, such as "More Proof of JFK Film Fakery" and "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", not to mention the confirmation of Roderick Ryan's observation that the back of the head wound had been painted over in black and that the "blob" and blood spray were painted in that Horne has reported, which has now been confirmed by seven Hollywood experts--eight counting Ryan!

You, Josiah Thompson, were in a unique position among students of JFK in having access to the very best versions of the film held by LIFE magazine. You were aware of the Parkland physicians' reports, some of which, including the McClelland diagram, you discuss, and that Officer Hargis was hit by debris so hard that thought he himself had been shot. Yet you did not make a point of the inconsistency of the medical evidence with the film, in spite of its blatancy. You are not being candid; you had to have know better, which makes it a work of obfuscation.

Insofar as (i) you do not use frames from the film but sketches (allegedly because of a breech of contract with LIFE), (ii) you do not provide sketches of the crucial frames (314, 315, and 315), and (iii) your sketch of 313, which was unavoidable, does not include the crucial feature of the "blob" bulging out to the right-front, they together suggest rather strongly that (iv) your book, SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS, was designed to defect attention from the contradiction between the medical evidence and the film.

And now, on various threads, I find that you are denying that you understand the medical evidence in this case, which you say is a complete mess, and even suggesting that you are not really an expert on photographs and films. I guess we can expect that, before long, you will be denying that you are an expert on the case--although it is my suspicion that all of this, including denying the "double hit" hypothesis on the basis of a specious explanation, is preliminary to undergoing a future "conversion".

For you to imply that the conclusion the film has been faked is a "tribal belief"--as though it had no foundation in logic or evidence--exemplifies the inflexible and irrational stance you have adopted. No matter how strong the proof, no matter how many experts on film conclude not only has the film been faked but the fakery was amateurish in the extreme, you, Josiah Thompson, will not budge. There are not many alternative explanations for such a stand, under these conditions, and none is flattering to you.

Not only have you avoided explaining how you could have constructed such an artful obfuscation without conscious intent, but you have not told us where you stand today on the medical evidence, its significance for the question of the film's authenticity, or even on the independent proof that the film is a fake. Are you, too, like Pat Speer, going to claim you have reviewed these proofs and found them wanting? And does that include the film restoration experts, who, like Roderick Ryan, have concluded the film has been altered--and in amateurish ways?

In fact, you made much of my citing the final paragraph of the text of your book as though that were somehow misleading or inappropriate. But you appear to be backing away from supporting the existence of a conspiracy in the death of JFK. I can see the headline now: "Former Conspiracy Theorist Josiah Thompson Abandon's His Belief!" The subtitle will say that you now agree with Gary Mack that "we will just never know". That is where you are heading, isn't it--and just in time for the 50th?

Are you going to adopt Pat Speer''s line--that the only way to prove conspiracy is by impeaching the evidence? He does not seem to understand that almost all of the evidence in this case has been faked, altered, or fabricated. And I have yet to hear a good reason for thinking the film is an exception. Even your cherished "chain of custody" argument is tattered and torn. You appear to be as unreasonable as Pat Speer in your unwillingness to display a rational response to new arguments based upon new evidence.

And why, for God's sake, are you not even willing to confirm that this every paragraph convinced Vincent Salandria that you were a government agent? He and I have corresponded about this and he explained to me that, when he confronted you about it, you dismissed his concerns on the grounds that it was simply an "infelicitous" use of language. So why can't you confirm it? Because you have suggested that it was abusive for me to cite it, when another JFK expert already called you on it? Why are we forming the impression that you, Josiah Thompson, are not a "stand up" guy?

The question is, since you were the "inside man" on the Zapruder film, why didn't you even sketch the most important frames? Why is frame 313 opaque? Since the inconsistency between the McClelland diagram and Officer Hargis' report was so blatant, why did you not address it? Those would have been obvious things to do. And, given your belief in the "double hit" analysis that was such a central feature of your account, how could you possibly have suggested that your book--not just those last few pages --does not prove the existence of a conspiracy, for which Salandria faulted you, too?

Stop bobbing and weaving, ducking and hiding. This has gone on too long. Just answer the questions, if you can, and let us all assess them.

Jim

Professor Fetzer,

Since Pat Speer has handled your latest, somewhat hysterical outbursts, I’ve kept silent.... figuring that the more you rant the more you expose who you are.

Your latest attempt at character assassination seems to be based on the claim that forty years ago I didn’t write the book that you would expect me to write now. After all these years, isn’t that a rather unrealistic expectation?

To advance your smear, you point to various arguments I didn’t make and various sketches I didn’t include. You claim that this is all part of some dark conspiracy on the part of me and unnamed others to keep the truth from the American people. Given that you charge me with a dark conspiracy, it seems only right for me to point out that you have ended up over time misleading that small group of people who read your books by publishing photos that really show the opposite of what you say they show. Make no mistake. I am not charging that this feature of your work is part of a dark conspiracy. I am sure it is not. It is most likely only the result of slovenly editing.

Unlike your dark conspiracy that I defy anyone to figure out, it is simplicity itself to show how you have misled your readers.

(1) Take the photo that started the recent debate... the red pickup truck in Dealey Plaza taken from one of Rollie Zavada’s studies. In TGZFH, you published it in a blurry, black and white copy and then claimed it failed to show “left full frame image penetration.” As we’ve seen however, it is precisely “left full frame image penetration” that this photo demonstrates.

(2) In your latest foray, The 9/11 Conspiracy, you are trying to show that fires in WTC 7 were not very extensive or ferocious. As someone hired to investigate this building’s collapse on 9/11, I can tell you they were both. No matter. To prove the point you are trying to make, you publish a photo of the building showing it standing serene and untouched with a flash of orange near its base. The caption describes this photo as follows: “WTC-7, above right, during the attack on the Twin Towers, appears undamaged except for a modest fire at street level.” Well, the building should “appear undamaged” since the photo was taken in 1997. And the “modest fire at street level”? Well, that is a bright orange, Calder statue to be found on the mezzanine level.

(3) Years ago in MIDP, you published a photo purporting to show a particular sight-line in the Moorman photo (the line-up of the left top corner of the Zapruder pedestal with the right bottom corner of a pergola window behind it). The only problem was that you covered up the relevant intersection point with an orange cross. The effect was that the reader had to believe your caption about what was shown. Whoops! When the orange cross was removed, it became clear to the naked eye that the two points did not line up and, therefore, the whole argument was bogus.

(4) Again in MIDP, you publish the famous Altgens photo taken at Z 255 and showing the windshield pristine and undamaged. You circle a pristine area of the windshield and caption the circle as follows: “Circle 1. The apparent through-and-through hole in the windshield.” But there isn’t any hole. There isn’t even any suggestion of a hole. The surface of the windshield is pristine.

I point these facts out since it is very easy do so and requires not much description. I know you will say that the mistakes are not yours but those of your contributors. And, to some degree, you are correct in saying that. But I raise these mistakes also for another reason. Don’t you become so hysterical about me... wigged out enough to produce a completely silly theory of conspiracy to charge me with... because a few days ago I pointed out these mistakes? Aren’t you really so angry simply because I won’t go away and keep pointing out your errors? Isn’t that the real reason behind your recent tirade?

Josiah Thompson

Edited January 5, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Dean Hagerman]

I want Fred Newcomb's book so bad, thats one gem that my grandpa did not by and pass down to me

[Gary Murr]

I want Fred Newcomb's book so bad, thats one gem that my grandpa did not by and pass down to me

Hi Dean:

The reason that "grandpa" did not pass a copy "Murder From Within" down to you is because it was never (legally) for sale. In truth it was a joint effort constructed by Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams, copyrighted in 1974. I was fortunate enough to be one of those who contributed, in some small way, to this venture, as were many others, some of whom contribute to this forum as of this date - including both Josiah Thompson and David Lifton. Newcomb and Adams published a very limited number of "pre-publication" drafts, in their words "expressly for the use of the United States Congress and other interested law enforcement bodies, and not for the general public." My copy is #84.

I believe Fred Newcomb is still alive, but I have not spoken to him for about 4 or 5 years. Perry Adams unfortunately passed away a number of years ago. If you like I will contact Tyler Newcomb, Fred's son, who, along with fellow researcher, Larry Haapanen, has a lot of Fred and Perry's original research materials, and ask permission to make a copy for you. Or , you can contact Tyler directly yourself. I believe he has posted on this Forum in the past, though I could be wrong about that.

Gary Murr

[Michael Hogan]

I want Fred Newcomb's book so bad, thats one gem that my grandpa did not by and pass down to me

Hi Dean:

The reason that "grandpa" did not pass a copy "Murder From Within" down to you is because it was never (legally) for sale. In truth it was a joint effort constructed by Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams, copyrighted in 1974. I was fortunate enough to be one of those who contributed, in some small way, to this venture, as were many others, some of whom contribute to this forum as of this date - including both Josiah Thompson and David Lifton. Newcomb and Adams published a very limited number of "pre-publication" drafts, in their words "expressly for the use of the United States Congress and other interested law enforcement bodies, and not for the general public." My copy is #84.

I believe Fred Newcomb is still alive, but I have not spoken to him for about 4 or 5 years. Perry Adams unfortunately passed away a number of years ago. If you like I will contact Tyler Newcomb, Fred's son, who, along with fellow researcher, Larry Haapanen, has a lot of Fred and Perry's original research materials, and ask permission to make a copy for you. Or , you can contact Tyler directly yourself. I believe he has posted on this Forum in the past, though I could be wrong about that.

Gary Murr

A couple of links:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...5&start=135

http://www.google.com/search?q=tyler+newco...mp;ved=0CAoQ_wI

[Pamela Brown]

Pamela,

You write: "You are making the assumption that Tink was looking at the same version of the Altgens 1-6 that Weldon was. The NARA copy, made from the negative, shows no defect in the windshield. Copies of the version uploaded to the newswires have a flaw that looks like something in the windshield."

Thank you for pointing out that the Altgens photo in a NARA copy made from the negative "shows no defect in the windshield." If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Weldon and Fetzer were misled by relying on a newswire copy instead of getting a copy from the original negative. That seems about right to me.

Josiah Thompson

quote Dr Thompson from post 107....''(4) Again in MIDP, you publish the famous Altgens photo taken at Z 255 and showing the windshield pristine and undamaged. You circle a pristine area of the windshield and caption the circle as follows: “Circle 1. The apparent through-and-through hole in the windshield.” But there isn’t any hole. There isn’t even any suggestion of a hole. The surface of the windshield is pristine.

Doug Weldon has responded to this and article on http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html

show #451.

b..

You are making the assumption that Tink was looking at the same version of the Altgens 1-6 that Weldon was. The NARA copy, made from the negative, shows no defect in the windshield. Copies of the version uploaded to the newswires have a flaw that looks like something in the windshield. I tried uploading the NARA copy but it was too large. For the time being, here is a link to that section:

http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/altgens1-6snbl.gif

This is ridiculous. Newswire copies were not used to examine the hole. I encourage people to listen to my interview on Black Ops. In addition there appears to be a deliberate attempt to obscure that defect as shown in the slides of my presentation in Minnesota in 1999, http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html

Doug Weldon

Is Doug Weldon expecting everyone else to do his homework for him? He is unable to post for himself, and he refers us to an old interview where we have to search to find out what he said.

Why not speak plainly and tell us today exactly what you want us to know? With your own login, like all the other responsible researchers here.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pamela,

You may be unaware, but Doug is not in good health. Your remark, under the circumstances, alas, is really not appropriate.

Jim

Pamela,

You write: "You are making the assumption that Tink was looking at the same version of the Altgens 1-6 that Weldon was. The NARA copy, made from the negative, shows no defect in the windshield. Copies of the version uploaded to the newswires have a flaw that looks like something in the windshield."

Thank you for pointing out that the Altgens photo in a NARA copy made from the negative "shows no defect in the windshield." If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Weldon and Fetzer were misled by relying on a newswire copy instead of getting a copy from the original negative. That seems about right to me.

Josiah Thompson

quote Dr Thompson from post 107....''(4) Again in MIDP, you publish the famous Altgens photo taken at Z 255 and showing the windshield pristine and undamaged. You circle a pristine area of the windshield and caption the circle as follows: “Circle 1. The apparent through-and-through hole in the windshield.” But there isn’t any hole. There isn’t even any suggestion of a hole. The surface of the windshield is pristine.

Doug Weldon has responded to this and article on http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html

show #451.

b..

You are making the assumption that Tink was looking at the same version of the Altgens 1-6 that Weldon was. The NARA copy, made from the negative, shows no defect in the windshield. Copies of the version uploaded to the newswires have a flaw that looks like something in the windshield. I tried uploading the NARA copy but it was too large. For the time being, here is a link to that section:

http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/altgens1-6snbl.gif

This is ridiculous. Newswire copies were not used to examine the hole. I encourage people to listen to my interview on Black Ops. In addition there appears to be a deliberate attempt to obscure that defect as shown in the slides of my presentation in Minnesota in 1999, http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html

Doug Weldon

Is Doug Weldon expecting everyone else to do his homework for him? He is unable to post for himself, and he refers us to an old interview where we have to search to find out what he said.

Why not speak plainly and tell us today exactly what you want us to know? With your own login, like all the other responsible researchers here.

[Dean Hagerman]

I want Fred Newcomb's book so bad, thats one gem that my grandpa did not by and pass down to me

Hi Dean:

The reason that "grandpa" did not pass a copy "Murder From Within" down to you is because it was never (legally) for sale. In truth it was a joint effort constructed by Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams, copyrighted in 1974. I was fortunate enough to be one of those who contributed, in some small way, to this venture, as were many others, some of whom contribute to this forum as of this date - including both Josiah Thompson and David Lifton. Newcomb and Adams published a very limited number of "pre-publication" drafts, in their words "expressly for the use of the United States Congress and other interested law enforcement bodies, and not for the general public." My copy is #84.

I believe Fred Newcomb is still alive, but I have not spoken to him for about 4 or 5 years. Perry Adams unfortunately passed away a number of years ago. If you like I will contact Tyler Newcomb, Fred's son, who, along with fellow researcher, Larry Haapanen, has a lot of Fred and Perry's original research materials, and ask permission to make a copy for you. Or , you can contact Tyler directly yourself. I believe he has posted on this Forum in the past, though I could be wrong about that.

Gary Murr

Gary

Thank you for that explanation, as stated before my gramps passed down around 150 or so books to me, many rare ones as well, its good to know why he never had a copy of Newcomb and Adams book

If you would be abel to copy it for me I would be forever in your debt

If you can get permission that would be great

Thanks again, and if you can do that for me send me a PM and we will talk

Dean

[Paul Rigby]

I want Fred Newcomb's book so bad, thats one gem that my grandpa did not by and pass down to me

Hi Dean:

The reason that "grandpa" did not pass a copy "Murder From Within" down to you is because it was never (legally) for sale. In truth it was a joint effort constructed by Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams, copyrighted in 1974. I was fortunate enough to be one of those who contributed, in some small way, to this venture, as were many others, some of whom contribute to this forum as of this date - including both Josiah Thompson and David Lifton. Newcomb and Adams published a very limited number of "pre-publication" drafts, in their words "expressly for the use of the United States Congress and other interested law enforcement bodies, and not for the general public." My copy is #84.

I believe Fred Newcomb is still alive, but I have not spoken to him for about 4 or 5 years. Perry Adams unfortunately passed away a number of years ago. If you like I will contact Tyler Newcomb, Fred's son, who, along with fellow researcher, Larry Haapanen, has a lot of Fred and Perry's original research materials, and ask permission to make a copy for you. Or , you can contact Tyler directly yourself. I believe he has posted on this Forum in the past, though I could be wrong about that.

Gary Murr

Yes, thanks for the background, Gary. I should explain the background to the placing of the text in Word format.

In the mid-1990s, two friends and I sought to persuade a British TV company to put together a documentary on the Z film provisionally entitled "Z for Fraud." We avoided the notorious BBC for the obvious reasons: MI5 has on office in the Beeb's London HQ, and ruthlessly winnows out both "unacceptable" ideas and personnel. Only one independent TV franchise expressed interest, Carlton TV, which covered the London and the south-east region. This was something of an expensive hike for three guys from the north-west of England, but we gave it a crack anyway.

In the course of researching the background to the Z film, we heard about Murder From Within, and went in search of a copy. We eventually found both it and Fred Newcomb, and were so impressed with the manuscript - and so thoroughly appalled that it had never received publication - that, with Fred and Perry's permission, we typed it up and distributed copies to a number of UK publishers. From memory, I think we obtained two responses. Both were absurd, and it was difficult to resist the conclusion that word had gone out that this was a manuscript too far. Fred and Perry had told us as much at the outset.

In the age of print-on demand, it is surely not beyond the realm of the possible to get a copy, complete with the manuscript's many brilliant graphs, tables and illustrations, assembled and available for purchase by all who are interested? If there are any reading this who are serious about publication, and would like assistance, please get in touch.

Paul