Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?

[Daniel Gallup]

Daniel,

Good post! I was drafting mine making the same point as well as others and have just discovered yours. Thanks for putting it up. As for the question of whether the wound was ABOVE or BELOW the top of his right ear, it appears to me to have been at approximately the same level as the ear. So my inclination is to say it was BEHIND THE RIGHT EAR AT ABOUT THE SAME LEVEL AS THE WHOLE EAR BUT AT THE RIGHT REAR OF THE HEAD. It does not appear to have extended to the top of the ear. Since we can actually see the wound in frame 374, that is roughly how I would answer your question.

Jim

P.S. You're still running from my question. Was the wound you imagine to be on the back of Kennedy's head ABOVE or BELOW the top of his right ear?

Pat, since Dr. Fetzer mentioned me on page one of this thread, I feel compelled to mention the early reports of cerebellum protruding from the gaping wound in the back of the head. In his report to Parkland Administrator J.C. Price on the day of the assassination, Dr. Jenkins witnessed "...there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the crebellum had protruded from the wound." (CE 392 in 17WCH 15). Jenkins told Specter the same(6WCH 48&51) and years later to Purdy (7HSCA 286-7). In 1978 Jenkins told the Nov. 24, 1978 Amercian Medical News that "part of his cerebellum was hanging out."(p. 14)

I would ask anyone on this forum, and Pat, you in particular, how the cerebellum could be protruding from a wound high in the back of the head.

Perry told the WC: "We speculated as to wheter he had been shot once to twice because we saw the entry in the throat and noted the large occipital wound." (emphasis mine). Dr. Peters tod the WC ofa "large defect in the occiput... in the right occipitoparietal area" (6 WCH 21) and told Lifton in 1966: " I could see the back of his head quite well. The whole occipital area was blown out, and the skin was shoved a little bit forward and his parietal was a little bit wrinkled...[the wound ] was more occipital than parietal...because we had to get up to his head, to look in through the back, to see the extent of the wound." (BE 316). When Lifton asked Peters what he meant by the back of the head, he indicated "much as if you were to put your hand to the back of the head, about where it would go, naturally."

Where my hand goes naturally, I would expect some of my cerebellum to be hanging out, were I shot as Kennedy.

Other witnesses to cerebellum: Dr. Kemp Clark, neurosurgeon, in a report filed the afternoon of the assassination (17 WCH 9-10); also Dr. Baxter (6 WCH 41), Dr. Carrico: ""We opened his shirt and coat and tie and observed a small wound in the anterior lower third of the neck,...The large skull and scalp wound had been previously observed and was inspected a little more closely. There seemed to be a 4-5 cm. area of avulsion of the scalp and the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue." (page 3 of his deposition before Specter; also page 6:"The wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipitoparietal area, I would estimate its size to be about 5-7 cm in size, more or less circular...there was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds on on the fragments of the dull attached to the dura."), McClelland in his famous description of the wound, Dr. Peters, quoted above, Dr. Perry before the HSCA (7 HAC 302):"And I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen.."; also Crenshaw before the ARRB (March 19,1997). Crenshaw's drawing of the wound encompasses both cerebral and cerebullar areas (Crenshaw 4). Audrey Bell's placement of the wound is very similar (Bell 3 and 4).

If cerebellum was hanging out of the gaping hole in the back of Kennedy's head, then one may deduce that, however high the wound was, it was also quite low. If one take Carrico's 5-7 cm (about 3 inches in diameter) nearly circular wound and place the bottom of it at the upper part of the cerebellum, the wound would probably extend to the the top of the ear. This would be occiptial/parietal, just as the Dallas testimony indicates.

The existence of cerebullar tissue hanging from the wound is decisive as to where the wound in the back of the head was. Best, Daniel.

David's picture on p. 310 of Best Evidence looks very similar to McClelland's drawing, and both look similar to the drawings of Bell and Chrenshaw for the ARRB. All are consistent with the wound at the level of the cerebellum, which is why that part of the brain was observed herniating from the hole in the back of Kennedy's head. In fact Bell's placement of the wound is slightly lower than Crenshaw's. Bell, as a nurse, may well be better insulated from pressure to alter her view of the wound than were the Dallas doctors, some of whom through the years have changed their tune. Even Perry before the WC denied he had told the press the throat wound was one of entrance, such was the pressure exerted upon him. Specter: "What responses did you give to questions relating to the source of the bullets, if such questions wer aked?" Perry: "I could not, I pointed out that both Dr. Clark and I had no way of knowing from whence the bullets came." This is very slippery of Perry, because everyone knew he said three times the throat wound was one of entrance, so at least he knew that, but obfuscated before Specter for several pages of testimony. Audrey Bell, however, was left alone and gave no testimony until called by the ARRB. True, by that time memory can fail, but at least it seems she was under no pressure to alter her views. That gives her deposition, IMO, more importance. She has to be one of the unsung Parkland heros. Best, Daniel.

[Pat Speer]

Oy Vey, Jim, look at the photos YOU'VE posted, will ya? They "prove" the wound was not where you claim it was.

Beverly Oliver--holds her hand to the back of her head on the right side. Her fingers extend above the top of her ear. Is it your contention she was wrong?

Phil Willis--holds his hand to the back of his head ABOVE his ear. But he doesn't count anyway, seeing as he never saw the wound.

Marilyn Willis--holds her hand to the very top of the right side of her head. Not anywhere near where you place the wound. Is it your contention she was wrong?

Ed Hoffman--holds his hand above and in back of his right ear. Other photos show him placing the wound directly above his ear. Is it your contention he was wrong?

Robert McClelland--holds his hand above and in back of his right ear. Is it your contention he was wrong?

Paul Peters--on the far back of the right side of his head, extending well above the level of his ear. Is it your contention he was wrong?

Kenneth Salyer--on the right side of his head, behind and above the level of his ear. Is it your contention he was wrong?

Charles Carrico--on the right back side of his head entirely above the level of his ear. Is it your contention he was wrong?

Richard Dulaney--at the crown of his head, FAR above his ear and far way from where you place the wound. Is it your contention he was wrong?

Charles Crenshaw--on the right back side of his head and stretching slightly above the level of his right ear. Is it your contention he was wrong?

Ronald Jones--on the right back side of his head and almost entirely above the level of his right ear. Is it your contention he was wrong?

Audrey Bell--on the right back side of her head and stretching slightly above the level of her right ear. Is it your contention she was wrong?

Theron Ward--on the right side of his head near his ear. Is it your contention he was wrong?

Aubrey Rike--never saw the wound. He claims he felt the wound, however, on the right back side of the head, mostly above the ear. Is it your contention he was wrong?

Frank O'Neil--at the right back side of his head, entirely above his ear. He also claims there was an entrance wound on the bone near the EOP, where you claim there was a large hole. It IS your contention he was wrong.

Jerrol Custer--at the back of his head behind the right ear, stretching to slightly above his ear. BIG problem, however, the image is a still from a video in which Custer described the wound as stretching from the very top of Kennedy's head all the way back to where his hand is in the image. He is clearly describing the skull AFTER the scalp was reflected and skull fell to the table.

Paul O'Connor--ditto Custer on both points. His hand on the back of his head stretches slightly above the level of his ear AND this image was taken from a video in which he claimed the wound stretched from the top to the back. He was clearly describing what he saw during the autopsy and not at the beginning.

Floyd Riebe--at the back of his head almost entirely above his ear. He later deferred to the accuracy of the autopsy photos. YOU'RE now claiming he was wrong even when he was claiming they were fakes.

Hmmm, how about that? The very photos you claim prove you correct prove you wrong. None of these witnesses placed the wound on the far back of the head, BELOW the top of Kennedy's ear.

Hmmm, how about this? You've also decided to continue pretending Mantik is not at odds with these witnesses by claiming he places the Harper fragment slightly to the right of midline. Well, Mantik's orientation is on the slide below, marked by an H.

The Harper fragment in his orientation is almost exactly in the middle, and stretches well over the midline onto the left side.

So...not only are you in disagreement with the witnesses on the vertical placement of the wound, you are in disagreement on the horizontal placement.

In this light...

1. Do you stick by Mantik's orientation for the Harper fragment?

2. Do you still suspect the large head wound was below the level of the top of Kennedy's ear?

and

3. IF the answers to the above two questions remain YES and YES, then how can you claim your opinion is supported by the statements of ALL these witnesses, when NONE of them remotely agree with you?

P.S. Can you even see the inconsistency in your claiming Clint Hill's memory is correct and that it proves the Z-film is fake when you are in the same thread admitting you believe the head wound was at the level of Kennedy's ear? Uhh, HELLO, Hill has repeatedly claimed the wound was ABOVE Kennedy's ear. I mean, does this even register?

Pat,

What about the reports of cerebellum?

At least two of the doctors claiming to have seen cerebellum later retracted their statements, and claimed they saw macerated brain resembling cerebellum. Carrico and Jenkins come to mind. Perry has also been dismissive that the head wound he saw was at odds with the autopsy photos. I have read elsewhere that explosive wounds to the skull will indeed macerate the brain. I have read elsewhere that macerated brain has so much air in it that it shows up black on x-rays. I even have an example of this on my website.

As a consequence, I suspect the maceration of Kennedy's brain helped create two illusions... 1) that cerebellum was oozing from the large wound, and 2) that the right forehead area of the skull was missing on the x-rays. (If I recall, In Jim D's book The Assassinations, Mantik makes a valid point in noting that macerated brain would settle somewhat to the back of the skull in a victim laying on his back and that this would thereby make the forehead area of the x-ray darker than what one would otherwise expect.)

Edited January 16, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

I don't mean to defend Perry, but I think its pretty clear now with the declassified files that the point man in coercing the doctors was SS agent Elmer Moore. He essentially set up court in Dallas by the first week of December and went to work on massaging the testimony of the Parkland physicians. And then Specter picked up after Moore's work was done. At the Wecht conference in 2003, Specter revealed that he knew who Moore was.

Moore is one of the great finds of the ARRB. He shows that the WC understood there was going to be a problem with the medical evidence and testimony.

He probably did not think it was important to go after the nurses.

Jim, while Moore was indeed instrumental in getting everyone to pretend the back wound was higher than the throat wound, I suspect no one really understood the problem with the head wounds at such an early date, and that no effort was made to coerce anyone to change their minds about them. The WC testimony of the Parkland staff is proof of that, IMO, as is CE 388.

[Cliff Varnell]

The WC testimony of the Parkland staff is proof of that, IMO, as is CE 388.

Pat, you can present zero evidence that the body in the BOH photo was JFK.

Even the HSCA panel you love to cite as the ultimate experts in the case concede that

the autopsy photos were degraded as scientific evidence, and there is no chain of

possession for the extant autopsy photos as per Saundra Kay Spencer (ARRB).

To parade this trash as valid evidence in the case strikes me as decidedly incorrect.

[Ron Ecker]

Pat, you can present zero evidence that the body in the BOH photo was JFK.

Even the HSCA panel you love to cite as the ultimate experts in the case concede that

the autopsy photos were degraded as scientific evidence, and there is no chain of

possession for the extant autopsy photos as per Saundra Kay Spencer (ARRB).

To parade this trash as valid evidence in the case strikes me as decidedly incorrect.

Yes. I go back to my question to Jim Fetzer about why researchers should waste time arguing about autopsy photos and X-rays that are worthless as evidence in the case.

Researchers might as well waste time arguing about whether or not the Z film was altered.

But hey, if all this stuff was faked or altered, that means there was a conspiracy! Don't we already know that?

But then doesn't it tell us who had the power to fake and alter such stuff? Yes. The government!

But then exactly which government entities?

An acronym or two comes to mind. I suggest a real investigation! (Just to confirm what I think I already know. I'm basically with Gaeton Fonzi, who said years ago, "We know who did it.")

[Cliff Varnell]

Pat, you can present zero evidence that the body in the BOH photo was JFK.

Even the HSCA panel you love to cite as the ultimate experts in the case concede that

the autopsy photos were degraded as scientific evidence, and there is no chain of

possession for the extant autopsy photos as per Saundra Kay Spencer (ARRB).

To parade this trash as valid evidence in the case strikes me as decidedly incorrect.

Yes. I go back to my question to Jim Fetzer about why researchers should waste time arguing about autopsy photos and X-rays that are worthless as evidence in the case.

Ron, I'm with you. There are basically two kinds of medical evidence in this case: material which was properly prepared and handled, and material which was not properly prepared or handled.

Isn't it a matter of simple common sense that we should dismiss medical evidence which was not prepared according to proper autopsy protocols, and seriously weight only the evidence that was prepared according to the proper protocols?

The autopsy photos were not properly prepared. The FBI autopsy report indicates there was pre-autopsy surgery to the head. Very simply, all head wound evidence is thoroughly degraded, and all of it is inherently obfuscationary.

How many times was JFK struck in his head? One, two, three? Any conclusions drawn are moot, since we can never know.

Researchers might as well waste time arguing about whether or not the Z film was altered.

Z alteration tells us nothing about the murder of JFK. Might tell us a thing or two about the cover-up of the murder of JFK.

But hey, if all this stuff was faked or altered, that means there was a conspiracy! Don't we already know that?

Indeed. The low back wound and the throat entrance wound are prima facie evidence of conspiracy. The medical evidence which was properly prepared -- the contemporaneous notes of the Parkland doctors, the wound diagram on the autopsy face sheet, Burkley's death certificate, the FBI autopsy report -- are consistent with this prima facie evidence.

All the rest of it is meaningless controversy.

Edited January 16, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

None of these witnesses, no matter how hard you attempt to distort them, support the wound as having been on

the side of his head as opposed to the right rear. They are all completely uniform about that. For your position

to be defensible, it has to be the case that witnesses from Dealey Plaza are wrong; the physicians from Parkland

are wrong; the witnesses from Bethesda (even including Boswell and Humes, who acknowledge the blow-out at

the back of the head but extend it upward and forward) must be wrong; Gary Aguilar's study of the evidence of

the location of the wound across from Parkland to Bethesda must be wrong; David W. Mantik's studies of the X-

rays must be wrong; the reports of the FBI agents at Bethesda must be wrong--pretty much everyone who saw

the wound on the 22nd of November 1963 has to be wrong, including Clint Hill! Frame 374 must be be faked,

since it actually shows the blow-out to the right rear; and of course the Hollywood experts who had concluded

that the blow-out is missing from key frames such as 313-316 because it was painted over in black have to be

wrong! Apparently, according to you, the only one who has it right is PAT SPEER! Why am I not impressed?

Let me invite you to read Doug Horne's INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), which is chock full of testimony, depositions,

photographs and drawings related to the medical evidence. I presume you are not familiar with his massively

documented and meticulously detailed analysis of the medical evidence, since I cannot imagine how anyone--

even you!--could continue with this charade other than by persisting in a state of denial. I must say that it is

simply astonishing that anyone could claim to be an expert on the medial evidence, as you pretend to be, who

is so ready and willing to dismiss what the witnesses, including thoroughly competent and highly qualified

physicians at Parkland, have to tell us about the wound, including, of course, diagrams that they prepared,

including those by Dr. McClelland and by Dr. Crenshaw. Since all of this is brought together in one place in

Doug's book, let's start with Vol. I, which initiates his discussion of the medical evidence. Better yet, not to

overstrain your cognitive abilities, let's start with Chapter 1. Read it and tell us what it says about all of this

and why Doug and the witnesses are wrong as a nice test of your intellectual competence and your integrity.

The only support for your bizarre theory stems from the skull flap, which was blown open when the frangible

bullet exploded after entering his right temple. We know the Newmans, for example, reported seeing the side

of his head blow open. That is because they were at the right-hand side of the limousine and saw it blow open.

But that does not contradict the massive blow-out to the back of the head. I have explained all these things

in many places, including "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", which is archived here:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Zapruder-JFK-Film-Impeache-by-Jim-Fetzer-090324-48.html We can see both the massive blow-out and the bluish-gray brains

AS WELL AS the pinkish skull flap in frame 374, which I have already published here several times. We can

also see the skull flap (but not the massive blow out) in the HSCA photograph and diagram. And we know

from Thomas Evan Robinson that there were BOTH a massive blow out to the back of the skull AND a skull

flap to the side of the head. THESE WERE DISTINCT. And it would be preposterous to maintain cerebellum

would have been extruding from the wound at your location. So the only way you can maintain your position

is by ignoring the evidence and not distinguishing the distinct. I am sorry to say, Pat, that you are either the

most dishonest student of JFK or else the most incompetent to ever address the medical evidence, bar none.

I guess if Robert Harris can grossly misrepresent my position by falsely alleging that I am comparing what Clint Hill

had to say in 2010 with the Zapruder film in 1963 (when in fact I have copiously documented that he has been saying

the same thing since 1963), I should not be surprised that you would similarly grossly misrepresent my position by

talking about the HARPER FRAGMENT and falsely claim I said it was in THE CENTER OF THE BACK OF THE HEAD.

You are both engaging in "the straw man" by offering distorted version of the argument to make it easier to attack.

That's pretty bad, Pat, since everyone agrees that it was slightly to the RIGHT OF CENTER. Neither David Mantik

nor I place it precisely at the center. Have you forgotten it is your claim it was at the side of the head?. You claim to

have "gone through those 18 witnesses" on your web site. ALL OF THEM PLACE THE WOUND AT THE BACK OF

THE HEAD. NONE OF THEM PLACE IT AT THE SIDE OF THE HEAD. Not only are you disregarding where these

witnesses placed their hands to demonstrate where the wound was located, but you ignore what they have to say:

Beverly Oliver: "The whole back of his head was flying out the car."

Phillip Willis: "It took the back of his head off."

Marilyn Willis: "A red 'halo'. Matter was coming out the back of his head."

Ed Hoffman: "The back of his head was gone, blasted outward."

Dr. Robert McClelland: "It was in the right back part of the head . . . very large . . ."

Dr. Paul Peters: ". . . right there, occipital/parietal."

Dr. Kenneth Salyer: "This wound extended into the parietal area."

Dr. Charles Carrico: "There was a large--quite a large--defect about here [pointing] on his skull."

Dr. Richard Delaney: "It was up in this area."

Dr. Charles Crenshaw: "The wound was the size of a baseball."

Dr. Ronald Jones: "My impression was there was a wound in this area of the head."

Nurse Audrey Bell: "There was a massive wound at the back of the head."

Theran Ward: "It was right back here."

Aubrey Rike: "You could feel the sharp edges of the bone at the edge of the whole in the back of his head."

Frank O'Neill: ". . . a massive wound in the right rear."

Jerrol Custer: "From the top of the head, almost to the base of the skull, you could see where that part was gone."

Paul O'Connor: "[There was] an open area all the way across into the rear of the brain."

Floyd Riebe: ". . . a big gaping hole in the back of the head."

According to your pet theory, however, there was no massive gaping hole at the back of the head; instead, it was

at the side of the head, although NONE OF THESE WITNESSES PLACED THEIR HAND AT THE SIDE OF THEIR

HEAD and NONE OF THE DESCRIBED THE WOUND AS AT THE SIDE OF THE HEAD. So I am fascinated by the

principle of reasoning you are relying upon, which appears to have the following form (Speer's princple): "If the

witness says it was at the back of the head, discount it and reassert that it was actually at the side of the head."

Moreover, I have repeatedly asked you for the location of the cerebellum, which is shown in my chapter, "Dealey

Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?", JOHN F. KENNEDY: HISTORY, MEMORY, LEGACY, Chapter 30, on page

361. This is important, because the physicians at Parkland, who were experienced with gunshot wounds. were

quite consistent in describing cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue extruding from the wound at the back of the

head. I have a summary (originally prepared by Gary Aguilar) of their observations on page 360 as follows:

According to Dr. Crenshaw, the cerebellum was hanging out of the rear head wound;

According to Dr. Jenkins, cerebellum was hanging out from a hole in the right rear of the head;

According to Dr. Carrico, the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue;

According to Dr. Perry, there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum was seen;

According to Dr. McClellan, brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar issue had been blasted out;

According to Dr. Clalrk, cerebral and cerebellar had been damaged and exposed.

Given the relative location of the cerebellum and the location at the side of the wound that Pat Speer prefers, the

probability that cerebellar tissue would be extruding from the side of the head is virtually non-existent, and, of

course, none of the physicians suggested that this massive wound was located anywhere but the rear of the head.

You cannot prove a wound was at the side of the head based on witnesses who report it was at the right rear!

What we have here is the massive disregard of the observations of witnesses at Dealey Plaza, Parkland Hospital,

and even Bethesda, who consistently maintain this massive wound was to the right rear, not at the side of the head.

It a prime attribute of scientific research is to discount the observations of the best witnesses, including, in this case,

the Parkland physicians, then Pat Speer is a paragon of scientific research. Otherwise, he is something else entirely.

What is there here that you do not understand? And

are you unaware of the location of the cerebellum?

So it is your contention that you, Pat Speer, are

right and the witnesses, who were there, are wrong?

Aguilar's study of the descriptions of the wound at

the right rear confirm my position, not your scheme.

That means the HSCA photo/diagram is faked, which, all

things considered, would be reasonable for you to admit.

And these witnesses are from Dealey Plaza, Parkland,

and Bethesda, even including Special Agents of the FBI.

So it's not just Pat Speer against the Parkland doctors,

but Pat Speer against the vast majority of the witnesses.

Here we can actually see the blow out to the back of

the head, where the pinkish skull flap is also visible:

What nonsense, Jim. I go through those 18 witnesses one by one on my website, and show how they absolutely positively 100% DO NOT confirm your position that the Harper fragment was OCCIPITAL bone, and that there was a large blow-out on the MIDDLE of the back of JFK's head! Two of the witnesses--Phil Willis and Aubrey Rike--never saw the wound. Two of the witnesses--Custer and O'Connor--described a wound from the front of JFK's head all the way to the back, and were clearly describing the wound after the scalp was peeled back, and skull fell to the table. Five of the witnesses--M. Willis, Hoffman, Carrico, Dulaney, and O'Neil--claimed the wound was high on the head, above the ear and the occipital region. Two more--Salyer and Ward--placed it on the side of the head, and not the far back. When finally shown them by the ARRB, Floyd Riebe deferred to the accuracy of the autopsy photos. So what does that leave? Six witnesses of EIGHTEEN who one might honestly claim support the fervent belief there was a large blow-out on the far back of Kennedy's head in the occipital region, and one of these, Oliver, might very well have not even seen the wound. So that's five. Well, how many of these five have claimed the boh autopsy photos are fake? McClelland won't say so--he thinks they're legit, but that some loose scalp has been lifted. So, what are you left with? Not much. Crenshaw and Bell were so erratic that they couldn't even place the head wound in the same place on the ARRB's anatomy drawings as they had but a moment before.

And you KNOW this, don't you? Not only have we gone through this before, but you admitted in this post that Aguilar's witnesses were for a wound to the "right rear"...NOT the middle of the back of JFK's head, where Mantik and YOU place the wound.

So...drum roll, please, are you finally willing to admit that the witnesses are not exactly consistent and that Mantik's placement of the Harper fragment puts him at odds with the witnesses?

Oy Vey, Jim, look at the photos YOU'VE posted, will ya? They "prove" the wound was not where you claim it was.

Beverly Oliver--holds her hand to the back of her head on the right side. Her fingers extend above the top of her ear. Is it your contention she was wrong?

Phil Willis--holds his hand to the back of his head ABOVE his ear. But he doesn't count anyway, seeing as he never saw the wound.

Marilyn Willis--holds her hand to the very top of the right side of her head. Not anywhere near where you place the wound. Is it your contention she was wrong?

Ed Hoffman--holds his hand above and in back of his right ear. Other photos show him placing the wound directly above his ear. Is it your contention he was wrong?

Robert McClelland--holds his hand above and in back of his right ear. Is it your contention he was wrong?

Paul Peters--on the far back of the right side of his head, extending well above the level of his ear. Is it your contention he was wrong?

Kenneth Salyer--on the right side of his head, behind and above the level of his ear. Is it your contention he was wrong?

Charles Carrico--on the right back side of his head entirely above the level of his ear. Is it your contention he was wrong?

Richard Dulaney--at the crown of his head, FAR above his ear and far way from where you place the wound. Is it your contention he was wrong?

Charles Crenshaw--on the right back side of his head and stretching slightly above the level of his right ear. Is it your contention he was wrong?

Ronald Jones--on the right back side of his head and almost entirely above the level of his right ear. Is it your contention he was wrong?

Audrey Bell--on the right back side of her head and stretching slightly above the level of her right ear. Is it your contention she was wrong?

Theron Ward--on the right side of his head near his ear. Is it your contention he was wrong?

Aubrey Rike--never saw the wound. He claims he felt the wound, however, on the right back side of the head, mostly above the ear. Is it your contention he was wrong?

Frank O'Neil--at the right back side of his head, entirely above his ear. He also claims there was an entrance wound on the bone near the EOP, where you claim there was a large hole. It IS your contention he was wrong.

Jerrol Custer--at the back of his head behind the right ear, stretching to slightly above his ear. BIG problem, however, the image is a still from a video in which Custer described the wound as stretching from the very top of Kennedy's head all the way back to where his hand is in the image. He is clearly describing the skull AFTER the scalp was reflected and skull fell to the table.

Paul O'Connor--ditto Custer on both points. His hand on the back of his head stretches slightly above the level of his ear AND this image was taken from a video in which he claimed the wound stretched from the top to the back. He was clearly describing what he saw during the autopsy and not at the beginning.

Floyd Riebe--at the back of his head almost entirely above his ear. He later deferred to the accuracy of the autopsy photos. YOU'RE now claiming he was wrong even when he was claiming they were fakes.

Hmmm, how about that? The very photos you claim prove you correct prove you wrong. None of these witnesses placed the wound on the far back of the head, BELOW the top of Kennedy's ear.

Hmmm, how about this? You've also decided to continue pretending Mantik is not at odds with these witnesses by claiming he places the Harper fragment slightly to the right of midline. Well, Mantik's orientation is on the slide below, marked by an H.

The Harper fragment in his orientation is almost exactly in the middle, and stretches well over the midline onto the left side.

So...not only are you in disagreement with the witnesses on the vertical placement of the wound, you are in disagreement on the horizontal placement.

In this light...

1. Do you stick by Mantik's orientation for the Harper fragment?

2. Do you still suspect the large head wound was below the level of the top of Kennedy's ear?

and

3. IF the answers to the above two questions remain YES and YES, then how can you claim your opinion is supported by the statements of ALL these witnesses, when NONE of them remotely agree with you?

P.S. Can you even see the inconsistency in your claiming Clint Hill's memory is correct and that it proves the Z-film is fake when you are in the same thread admitting you believe the head wound was at the level of Kennedy's ear? Uhh, HELLO, Hill has repeatedly claimed the wound was ABOVE Kennedy's ear. I mean, does this even register?

Edited January 16, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Josiah Thompson]

"I am sorry to say, Pat, that you are either the most dishonest student of JFK or else the most incompetent to ever address the medical evidence, bar none."

You are so predictable, Professor. Pat has made some excellent points concerning what the witnesses actually said. He made these points by citing real evidence. You just can't leave it at debate can you? You have offer your own opinion as to Pat's honesty and competence. Apparently, you don't yet get it. We've all seen you pull this again and again and no one really gives a damn what sort of pompous judgments you choose to make about others.

JT

[Cliff Varnell]

"I am sorry to say, Pat, that you are either the most dishonest student of JFK or else the most incompetent to ever address the medical evidence, bar none."

You are so predictable, Professor. Pat has made some excellent points concerning what the witnesses actually said. He made these points by citing real evidence. You just can't leave it at debate can you? You have offer your own opinion as to Pat's honesty and competence. Apparently, you don't yet get it. We've all seen you pull this again and again and no one really gives a damn what sort of pompous judgments you choose to make about others.

JT

Since Pat and Tink are both on this thread, I'd like discuss a position Pat referred to upthread claiming the throat wound was caused by an exiting skull fragment, a position Tink has taken in the past.

Gentlemen (Pat and Tink), are we to believe that JFK started reacting to throat trauma intuitively 6 seconds before he suffered said throat trauma, or did the witnesses who described him as reacting to throat trauma (Nellie Connally, Linda Willis) in response to the first shot get it wrong?

And how do we account for the Zapruder film showing JFK reacting to throat trauma 6 seconds before the head shot?

I've never been able to figure out any argument for your positions on this.

Thanks in advance.

[Bill Miller]

"I am sorry to say, Pat, that you are either the most dishonest student of JFK or else the most incompetent to ever address the medical evidence, bar none."

You are so predictable, Professor. Pat has made some excellent points concerning what the witnesses actually said. He made these points by citing real evidence. You just can't leave it at debate can you? You have offer your own opinion as to Pat's honesty and competence.

JT

Josiah got that right! Over a decade that I know of and Fetzner has not produced an independent expert to back up his alteration claims. Where was Fetzer when it came to the qualifications of the guys that said that their line of sight matched Moorman's below?

I can show this animation to 1st graders and they can see that they are different. I guess he still believes that if you can't attack the evidence, then attack the messenger. The thing is that with this approach it has not advanced the alteration claims one bit and only made the people making these gross errors look inept. So again, where was Fetzer's concerns about qualifications when those poorly thought out claims were ever made???

Bill

[Daniel Gallup]

"I am sorry to say, Pat, that you are either the most dishonest student of JFK or else the most incompetent to ever address the medical evidence, bar none."

You are so predictable, Professor. Pat has made some excellent points concerning what the witnesses actually said. He made these points by citing real evidence. You just can't leave it at debate can you? You have offer your own opinion as to Pat's honesty and competence.

Now hold on Dr. Thompson and Bill, Dr. Fetzer was offering testimony -- ironclad in my opinion -- that herniating cerebellum was recorded contemporaneously in Trauma Room 1 by physicians competent to tell the difference between cerebral and cerebullar tissues, and you, Bill, bring up a photographic issue unrelated to Pat Speer's claim that the Dallas physicans were confused about where the wound was and what kind of brain they saw herniating from that wound. I fancy on one has perfect knowledge on this case, but in this case it is Pat Speer who has to rationalize away the contemporaneous record of what was seen at Parkland. That Pat actually finds some comfort in later Dallas retractions is most disturbing to me. Whom do you trust, a doctor's observations with the patient in front of him, or a doctor weeks, months or years later under pressure to revise his report by persons highly placed? I simply cannot fathom Pat's confidence in Dallas' retractions, nor his claim that a neurosurgeon like Kemp Clark or other doctors could confuse brain tissue. I cannot read Best Evidence, pp. 321-326, and believe it possible for such confusion. Dr. Peters' (p. 324)mention of the occipital lobes almost resting on the foramen magnum could only hold if the cerebellum/brainstem were injured, or, as Peters says, "missing." Cerebellum "protruding" from the wound (Jenkins) puts the wound low (in the occiput). I think it critical to remember that reports of cerebellum oozing from the wound were made before it was realized how this was contradicted by official government x-rays and photos, and before pressure was brought to bear on the doctors to bend their conclusions. Tell me Bill, what "real evidence" does Pat have to counter these Dallas claims? Or at least in this case do you agree Pat is just dead wrong, however else he may understand the case in other areas? Best, Daniel

Edited January 17, 2011 by Daniel Gallup

[Josiah Thompson]

If Professor offered just testimony I wouldn't have said anything. Characteristically, he couldn't just do that. He had to insult his interlocutor, Pat, and do so in his usual condescending manner. I merely wanted to point out that I and others are tired of his game.

I agree with you that the observation of cerebellum tissue extending from the wound would place at least one wound low in the right back of the head. I'm looking forward to reading what Pat says about that. I thought Pat's citing of actual testimony and his commentary on the photos presented was quite helpful. However, the observations by Kemp Clark, McClelland and others about cerebellum tissue clearly has to be taken into account.

I look forward to hearing what everyone has to say about this.

I don't know whether a fragment from the head shot caused the throat wound. I would point out that Don Thomas relates JFK's elbows coming up as reaction not to a throat wound but from being hit in the back of the head by a ricocheting fragment from a miss that hit the street. So nothing is simple.

I would hope that we could discuss things without all the insult and condescension that the Professor's posts are almost always full of. Perhaps if he gets called on this every time he does it, he might quit doing it.

JT

[Cliff Varnell]

I don't know whether a fragment from the head shot caused the throat wound.

But you have carefully reviewed the Zapruder film and you can see JFK's hands in the vicinity of his throat as the limo emerges from behind the freeway sign.

Wouldn't the fact that his left hand grabbed at his throat (or his tie) be consistent with throat trauma?

When people are struck by an external blow don't they instinctively reach for that area of their body?

Nellie Connally to the WC, emphasis added:

Mrs. Connally:...I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the right. I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck.

Mr. Specter: And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands crossing over

gripping your own neck?

Mrs. Connally: Yes; and sit seemed to me there was--he made no utterance, no cry.

I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and

he just sort of slumped down.

Linda Willis to the WC, emphasis added:

Mr. Liebler: Did you hear any shots, or what you later learned to be shots as the motorcade passed you there?

Miss Willis: Yes; I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then there were two real fast bullets together. When the first one hit, well, the President turned from waving to the people, and he grabbed his throat, and he kind of slumped forward, and then I couldn't tell where the second shot went.

If there is a logical reason why we shouldn't conclude that JFK was struck in the throat from the front I haven't seen it. Are we to believe that the Parkland witnesses who described a throat entrance wound got it wrong? Why?

I'm frankly mystified by those who arbitrarily dismiss the wound descriptions of witnesses who were quite expert, such as the Parkland doctors, whether it be the throat entrance wound or the occipital-parietal head exit wound.

What was it about JFK's wounds, Tink, that made everyone who saw them get it wrong?

I would point out that Don Thomas relates JFK's elbows coming up as reaction not to a throat wound but from being hit in the back of the head by a ricocheting fragment from a miss that hit the street.

Don Thomas? Is that your argument, the speculations of Don Thomas?

I'm not much impressed with Don Thomas' area of research, and I've seen some ludicrous assertions attributed to him. Since he's not a witness in the case I fail to see where his views have any merit whatsoever.

Are we to honestly believe that JFK reacted to a blow at the back of his head by grabbing in the area of his throat?

Seriously, Tink, does that make any sense?

[Pat Speer]

Well Pat, I disagree that there was no inkling of a problem with the wounds to the head.

A large avulsive wound to the rear of the skull would betray a shot from the front and contradict the autopsy report.

ANd we also know that Moore, before he stationed himself at Parkland, was working on a shot sequence in Dealey Plaza.

Concerning the points brought up by Ecker and Varnell, I think this is a valid concern.

Two things brought up in Horne's book which go to the heart of this matter are:

1.) The alleged role of Knudsen in taking any additional or supplemental photos. I disagreed with Horne's conclusions in this matter. But there is no doubt this was a legitimate concern that the HSCA never got to the bottom of. (Which was par for the course with them.)

2.) THe stunning testimony of Stringer where he disowns the pictures of Kennedy's brain.

You would have problems getting these admitted in court.

Jim, I urge you to read Knudsen's HSCA testimony, here...

Knudsen's HSCA testimony

He did not take any autopsy photos. While he might have said as much to his wife, and his children, he wouldn't be the first man to lie or exaggerate the importance of his work to his family, now would he? As you know, the main source for "the Knudsen took photos" myth is Joe O'Donnell, who was later shown to have been suffering from dementia during the last years of his life, and to have made numerous false claims about his connection to the Kennedy family. I mean, you don't really believe he gave Jackie a private screening of the Z-film, do you?

As far as the WC and the head wounds...I think you should re-think your position. Most of the descriptions suggesting an occipital wound came in the WC testimony of the Parkland witnesses, after Elmer Moore met with them. None of them have ever said anything about anyone trying to convince them the large wound was by the temple. Meanwhile, there is ample evidence that Moore and the WC tried to influence the testimony regarding the nature of the throat wound and the back wound location. For example, while there is discussion on the Exec sessions by Rankin of problems related to the back wound location on the face sheet, there is no similar reaction to the location of the head wound as described in the original Parkland statements. When one reads the Parkland testimony, in fact, one will see all sorts of leading questions designed to hide that the doctors originally thought and SAID the throat wound was an entrance. There are no similar questions relating to the head wound.

The only clear-cut deceptions in the WC testimony of the head wound that spring to mind relate to the Rydberg drawings. Humes had them drawn to depict a shot striking low on the head and exiting from the top. Specter had him claim this drawing was consistent with JFK's position at Z-312, which is malarkey. He also had them drawn to suggest the entrance wound was longitudinal, when it was, according to the photos and Finck's private correspondence, transversal.

So...there was plenty of deception going round, but there's nothing to suggest moving the head wound from front to back was part of it.

If you still disagree, and can steer me to questions in which Specter tried to get the Parkland witnesses to change their testimony on the head wounds, I'll take another look.

[Pat Speer]

"I am sorry to say, Pat, that you are either the most dishonest student of JFK or else the most incompetent to ever address the medical evidence, bar none."

You are so predictable, Professor. Pat has made some excellent points concerning what the witnesses actually said. He made these points by citing real evidence. You just can't leave it at debate can you? You have offer your own opinion as to Pat's honesty and competence. Apparently, you don't yet get it. We've all seen you pull this again and again and no one really gives a damn what sort of pompous judgments you choose to make about others.

JT

Since Pat and Tink are both on this thread, I'd like discuss a position Pat referred to upthread claiming the throat wound was caused by an exiting skull fragment, a position Tink has taken in the past.

Gentlemen (Pat and Tink), are we to believe that JFK started reacting to throat trauma intuitively 6 seconds before he suffered said throat trauma, or did the witnesses who described him as reacting to throat trauma (Nellie Connally, Linda Willis) in response to the first shot get it wrong?

And how do we account for the Zapruder film showing JFK reacting to throat trauma 6 seconds before the head shot?

I've never been able to figure out any argument for your positions on this.

Thanks in advance.

Cliff, in my case, I suspect Kennedy was hit in the back of the head by a low velocity missile circa frame 224, and that this bullet traveled down his neck and exited his throat. So there is no contradiction between my theory (more like my suspicion, based upon my study of the evidence) and the Z-film.