Another proof the Zapruder film has been faked

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Another proof the Zapruder film has been faked

The "black patch" on the back of JFK's head

Jim Fetzer

Tink made it a theme of his thread on "The Law of Unintended Consequences" that the MPI slides are supposed to be the "gold standard" for Zapruder film research, where I have faulted that claim on multiple grounds: The MPI version of the film has reversed the order of frames 331 and 332; does not include what ought to be frames 341, 350, and 486; does not include frames 155 and 156; and does not include frames 208, 209, 210, and 211. But there are other, more subtle, problems with MPI that have not been addressed here, in particular, because of which the claim that these are "state of the art" reproductions is not remotely defensible. Since many of those who post on the film do not show any signs of having read THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), I want to share some important passages that were authored by John Costella:

"The MPI saga seemed to me to be a bizarre one--but in time I realized that it fit neatly into the pattern of supposed incompetence with which the entire assassination has been whitewashed, by those ascribing to the U.S. government's official view of the crime.

"The first problem was that MPI had ostensibly been somewhat at a loss in preparing their material for video reproduction. Images had obviously been resized and reframed a number of times resulting in a loss of clarity. And, in the end, the images were produced with the wrong dimensions: images of complete frames were overstretched, horizontally, compared to the real frames; highly zoomed images of JFK, in contrast, were compressed horizontally.

"The second problem was the MPI had, somehow, completely omitted three frames of the film (including the very last frame), resulting in incorrect numbers being allocated to the last 143 frames being shown, including two frames that were also interchanged in two of the sequences, but not in the others.

"The resulting DVD was, perhaps, of suitable quality for an average home video collection. I was flabbergasted to discover that it was also intended to be the final "reference" digitization for assassination researchers of the camera-original Zapruder film, because the latter was sealed and locked away in the National Archives. Apart from a small region surrounding JFK in a number of frames (shown in a highly zoomed sequence on the DVD), the resolution of each image was inferior to that published in Life magazine just two weeks after the assassination, as well as that already available from other sources." (HOAX, pp. 147-148)

Notice that the resolution of the individual frames is INFERIOR to those published in LIFE just two weeks after the assassination. We have already been told by Josiah that the "black patch" so conspicuous in frame 317 on other versions of the film, including the 3rd generation copy obtained by Sydney Wilkinson from the NARA, is not on the MPI slides, which by itself is extremely suspicious. Tink has told us that "downstream copies" display "contrast build up" and that this is supposed to explain the "black patch" at the back of JFK's head. But since John Connally is also in the same frames of the same generations of these films, why is there no "contrast build up" on the back of his head? And that is not the only suspicious problem with the MPI slides that Tink continues to tout. There is more.

Doug Horne personally witnessed the true original MPI slides photographed from the extant film in the Archives. It took over three days of effort to accomplish. Each frame, and portions of the preceding frame and following frame, were photographed on a 4 x 5 inch Ektachrome color positive transparency. Horne was the ARRB's representative at this event and was a neutral observer at the time, because he had not yet done research on the authenticity of the film. Silverberg also had a junior attorney there representing LMH Co. interests, where McCrone Associates was the Chicago company that did the work. The images went from the "camera original" to large transparencies and were then scanned digitally, which puts their RAW SCANS already one or two steps away from the "camera original".

The more serious question is why the black patch should be absent from the current MPI frames, when it is not only visible on the 3rd generation copy obtained from the Archives but is also present in the MPI re-created motion picture film that was produced by MPI and marketed to the public in 1998! This 1998 video shows the black patch -- not completely clearly, but it is definitely there -- in frame 317. Since Tink says it is not present on the MPI slide at The 6th Floor Museum, as I have asked before, just what could this portend other than ever more alteration? If other observers confirm that the black patch is no longer present (now) on the MPI slide of frame 317, then how can this be explained when IT IS PRESENT ON THE MPI MOTION PICTURE SOLD IN 1998, especially in the close-up version?

Edited January 22, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Josiah Thompson]

"Proof?" You mist be kidding. When you first put this up in another thread, I saw nothing in it to reply to. Now when you try to get a response by putting it up in a separate thread,it looks the same to me. I have better things to do than get ensnarled in quotes from John Costella from your own book and the opinions he expresses. Or for that matter, other opinions you express. Try citing some evidence sometime and, who knows, someone might respond. Or than again, they might not.

JT

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Are you claiming the MPI slide set does not have frames 331 and 332 reversed and is not missing frames 155 and 156, 208, 209, 210, and 211, as well as 341, 350, and 486? that some frames were not extended horizontally and others compressed? that the quality of the MPI images is not actually inferior to those published in Life? Is that your position?

You have attempted to "explain away" the black patch at the back of JFK's head as a consequence of "contrast build-up" across generations. But if that were true, then why is there no "contrast build-up" at the back of John Connally's head? Do you think it is merely coincidental that the shape of this "patch" is irregular and not natural?

Didn't they teach you at Yale that denials are not rebuttals and that evasions are not refutations? Did you only study rhetoric and never study logic? Don't you know that arguments are independent of their source and that this source is an expert, where this evasion is on a par with your refusal to look at Sydney's 3rd generation copy? What is it you fear?

This is your baby, Tink. You are the undisputed champion of the authenticity of the film(s). Are you going to bow out when the going gets tough? Here is a short and sweet IQ test for you as a student of JFK. Please answer the questions as I have asked them in as simple and direct a fashion as you can. It should be effortless for you to answer them for us:

(1) Clint Hill has described his actions in pushing Jackie down, lying across their bodies, and peering down into "a bloody, gaping, fist-sized hole clearly visible in the back of his head", where only he was in the position to make that observation. QUESTION: Has Clint Hill been mis-describing his actions and observations for nearly 48 years now?

(2) During the course of this thread, there has been extensive discussion of whether or not Officer Chaney motored forward to advise Chief Curry that JFK has been shot BEFORE OR AFTER the limo had reached the Triple Underpass. QUESTION: Does the weight of the evidence support that Chaney rode forward before the limo reached the TUP?

(3) There has also been extensive discussion of the "black patch" on frame 317, which Tink insists IS NOT PRESENT on the MPI set at The 6th Floor Museum, yet it is on Sydney's 3rd generation copy and even the MPI motion picture film released in 1998. QUESTION: Should the "black patch" also be present on MPI slide set at The 6th Floor Museum?

You are a master of the art of evasion, Tink. These questions are ones that you ought to be able to answer. Why am I not surprised that you "cut and run" when logic and evidence are against you? So do us all a favor and answer them. The members of this forum are entitled to know. Step up to the plate. Think of this as, "Three strikes and you're out!"

"Proof?" You mist be kidding. When you first put this up in another thread, I saw nothing in it to reply to. Now when you try to get a response by putting it up in a separate thread,it looks the same to me. I have better things to do than get ensnarled in quotes from John Costella from your own book and the opinions he expresses. Or for that matter, other opinions you express. Try citing some evidence sometime and, who knows, someone might respond. Or than again, they might not.

JT

Edited January 22, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

You have attempted to "explain away" the black patch at the back of JFK's head as a consequence of "contrast build-up" across generations. But if that were true, then why is there no "contrast build-up" at the back of John Connally's head? Do you think it is merely coincidental that the shape of this "patch" is irregular and not natural?

Lets just deal with this little phlegm gem you coughed up....

Please explain to us HOW you he decided that there is no contrast build up on JC's head? Then explain to us why the tonal values of JC's hair in shadow MUST be similar to the shadow values of JFK's hair. Explain what "natural shape" means in respect to shadows.

Then explain to us how contrast build in generations copies of film. Do you know the film stock chain from the original to the MPI 4x5"? How about from the original to the 6K scan? Do you for example understand what a characteristic curve is?

Long and short of it Jim, is that you don't know crap from shinola here . And don't look to Costella. Great at math, truly sucks at things photographic.

When you have purchased your first clue, why don't you get back to us on this alteration issue

Edited January 22, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

At times, you are amusing, Lamson. No one who has taken a good look at the black patch finds it "natural". And it is obviously not an effect of "contrast build-up". Since the black patch is on the 3rd generation film and also on the MPI movie released in 1998, how do you, Craig, account for the differences between them? Consider that question to be a little test of your intellectual integrity. Tink says, "It's not there!" Well, then where did it go? Inquiring minds want to know.

You have attempted to "explain away" the black patch at the back of JFK's head as a consequence of "contrast build-up" across generations. But if that were true, then why is there no "contrast build-up" at the back of John Connally's head? Do you think it is merely coincidental that the shape of this "patch" is irregular and not natural?

Lets just deal with this little phlegm gem you coughed up....

Please explain to us HOW you he decided that there is no contrast build up on JC's head? Then explain to us why the tonal values of JC's hair in shadow MUST be similar to the shadow values of JFK's hair. Explain what "natural shape" means in respect to shadows.

Then explain to us how contrast build in generations copies of film. Do you know the film stock chain from the original to the MPI 4x5"? How about from the original to the 6K scan? Do you for example understand what a characteristic curve is?

Long and short of it Jim, is that you don't know crap from shinola here . And don't look to Costella. Great at math, truly sucks at things photographic.

When you have purchased your first clue, why don't you get back to us on this alteration issue

Edited January 22, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[David Josephs]

Craig... on the one hand you assert these people "haven't a clue" about photography...

and in the very next you as ask THEM to explain that which you KNOW thay can't...

Since you ask the questions, knowing full well their answers... why not just answer them here...

Why 317 is the focus and not 323... I am at a loss... 323 shows this blackout much more clearly and looks much more artificial than any other frame...imo..

So explain Craig... why, if the blackness in this frame is all the result of shadow... why do they ALL not blossom out like what we see at the back of his head...

Greer's hair is still n place, Nellie's, JC's Jacket, Jcakie's hair... ALL are blackened by the shadows yet do not grow to extend past their recognized boundaries

The right side of JAckie's face is in the exact position that the back of JFK's head... why are we not seeing a dark shadow there or her hair contrasted out to bleed into her face...

JFK shows blackness on the back of the head right above and below very light areas... sincere question here CL... why, of all these shadows... does JFK's look so artificial?

thanks

DJ

[Ron Ecker]

If the black patch was added to hide something, what is it hiding? Specifically, what does the MPI set in the museum show, if, as is stated, the black patch is not there? Does the MPI set show a gaping hole in the back of the head, or what?

[Craig Lamson]

Craig... on the one hand you assert these people "haven't a clue" about photography...

and in the very next you as ask THEM to explain that which you KNOW thay can't...

Since you ask the questions, knowing full well their answers... why not just answer them here...

Why do they claims things without knowing WHY?

Why 317 is the focus and not 323... I am at a loss... 323 shows this blackout much more clearly and looks much more artificial than any other frame...imo..

So explain Craig... why, if the blackness in this frame is all the result of shadow... why do they ALL not blossom out like what we see at the back of his head...

Greer's hair is still n place, Nellie's, JC's Jacket, Jcakie's hair... ALL are blackened by the shadows yet do not grow to extend past their recognized boundaries

The right side of JAckie's face is in the exact position that the back of JFK's head... why are we not seeing a dark shadow there or her hair contrasted out to bleed into her face...

Are you comparing APPLES AND ORANGES David? If you don't know, why don't you learn?

JFK shows blackness on the back of the head right above and below very light areas... sincere question here CL... why, of all these shadows... does JFK's look so artificial?

thanks

DJ

All in do time David, and now is just not the time.

[Craig Lamson]

At times, you are amusing, Lamson. No one who has taken a good look at the black patch finds it "natural".

That is simply a false statement.

And it is obviously not an effect of "contrast build-up".

Based on what? "I see it, believe me?" LMAO!

Since the black patch is on the 3rd generation film and also on the MPI movie released in 1998, how do you, Craig, account for the differences between them? Consider that question to be a little test of your intellectual integrity. Tink says, "It's not there!" Well, then where did it go? Inquiring minds want to know.

The test of intellectual integrity falls on you Jim and you fail. As I have clearly stated to you before (and which you willfully ignore...the integrity thing again) This is NOT a question of if a "thing" exists or not.

Everyone agrees there is a "black something, either a patch or a natural shadow. The question is not the existence, but rather the cause. If this line of questioning is too difficult for you to understand, and I can imagine it is, perhaps you should move along. Clearly you are at a loss to understand any of this.

As it stands, we have those who have stated it is a natural shadow, like Tink based on his visual observation. And we have those like Mantik and Block who say it is a "patch, also based on personal observation. All of this is fine and dandy but it means and more importantly PROVES nothing. We have the Hollywood group also saying they SEE it, but they provide no TESTABLE proofs either.

IF and WHEN they publish these proofs, if they even exist, we can all either verify or falsify their results.

UNTIL that happens this is just more silly FETZERING...

You have attempted to "explain away" the black patch at the back of JFK's head as a consequence of "contrast build-up" across generations. But if that were true, then why is there no "contrast build-up" at the back of John Connally's head? Do you think it is merely coincidental that the shape of this "patch" is irregular and not natural?

Lets just deal with this little phlegm gem you coughed up....

Please explain to us HOW you he decided that there is no contrast build up on JC's head? Then explain to us why the tonal values of JC's hair in shadow MUST be similar to the shadow values of JFK's hair. Explain what "natural shape" means in respect to shadows.

Then explain to us how contrast build in generations copies of film. Do you know the film stock chain from the original to the MPI 4x5"? How about from the original to the 6K scan? Do you for example understand what a characteristic curve is?

Long and short of it Jim, is that you don't know crap from shinola here . And don't look to Costella. Great at math, truly sucks at things photographic.

When you have purchased your first clue, why don't you get back to us on this alteration issue

Edited January 22, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Josiah Thompson]

Let me try to answer your very direct and very simple questions,Ron.

Fetzer and company claim that the "black patch" was added to cover up an avulsive wound in the back of Kennedy's head. No witness saw such an avulsive wound in Dealey Plaza and no film shows it. It was observed at Parkland Hospital by numerous medical personnel. By that time JFK had been hit a second time in the head and his body and head had been bounced around. Secondly, why would conspiritors cover up the back of Kennedy's head to conceal a shot from the front while leaving alone the whole left, backward snap that points unambiguously to a shot from the right front? For Fetzer's "black patch" scenario to work you have to assume that the mysterious co-conspiritors who doctored the film were both stupid and ineffective.

What does the MPI set in the museum show? It shows the same thing that David Lifton's frame of 317 shows and my own copies of 317 shows. The back of Kennedy's head is in shadow as is his back and Connally's back, etc. The MPI set (which anyone can view and which Doug Horne claimed in his book was much superior to Wilkinson's downstream copy)shows no abnormalities in frame 317 or any other frame?

Does it show any gaping hole in the back of Kennedy's head? No, it shows just a shadow like other shadows in the frame.

So Fetzer huffs and puffs to no effect. Since the MPI transparencies were made direct from the camera original film,they do not include frames that are preserved only on the three first-day copies. Do the transparencies have frames 331 and 332 reversed? Well, since the tranparencies are individual transparencies I imagine the Sixth Floor Museum was alert enough to remedy any mistake made in the production of the MPI video.

Did Officer Chaney immediately motor forward to warn Chief Curry and passing the limousine in the process? Since Chief Curry explained that this encounter occurred on the on-ramp to the Stemmons Freeway this is consistent with the film evidence that shows Chaney falling behind and only catching up with Chief Curry and the lead car later. Chaney recalled later that he saw Officer Hargis run across the street in front of him and this meant to Chaney that he must have stopped and only then proceeded forward after Chief Curry. This is exactly what the film record shows in Zapruder, Muchmore, Bell, Daniel and in the still photos of Altgens and McIntire.

I hope your very direct questions have been answered and don't get lost in bloviation.

JT

If the black patch was added to hide something, what is it hiding? Specifically, what does the MPI set in the museum show, if, as is stated, the black patch is not there? Does the MPI set show a gaping hole in the back of the head, or what?

[Ron Ecker]

Josiah,

Thanks for your reply.

Re your statement that "No witness saw such an avulsive wound in Dealey Plaza," didn't Clint Hill see it?

[Greg Burnham]

I think Ed Hoffman also reported seeing the wound from above. He said it looked like "bloody jello" --

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Tink is something else. Having "cut and run" from a thread he initiated himself, he is playing those on this thread. The most interesting outcome of "The Law of Unintended Consequences" is that I have finally disentangled why Pat Speer has been so far off the mark in discussing the wound at the back of JFK's head, as my most recent post explains. I will add other obvious refutations of the claims he is making here.

Pat, I believe I understand why we are having this protracted exchange. As you know, the HSCA diagram and photograph clearly show the skull flap as separate from the back of the head wound, which is shown at the top of the head (at the cowlick or crown). The phrase, "above the ear", actually fits the skull flap, even though it does not really fit the wound to the right rear, as the Dealey Plaza witnesses and the Parkland doctors describe it.

I believe that you have not sufficiently separated the skull flap, which Thomas Evan Robinson also described, from the back of the head wound to the right rear, which had to be low enough for cerebellum as well as cerebrum to have extruded. Clint has sometimes been describing the open skull flap, which Jackie appears to have pressed close, and at other times the right rear head wound, which you have inadvertently conflated. Is that possible?

P.S. Here's a short and sweet IQ test for you, professor. It's a two-parter. How many times has Clint Hill said the wound was on the "back" of the head? How many times has he said it was "above the ear"?

Notice that the wound described at Parkland, as David Lifton depicts it, is at the right rear of the head but also extends somewhat to the side. The Bethesda depiction includes the considerable enlargement of the wound by Humes using a cranial saw. Most interestingly, in relation to what I am now proposing, notice that the skull flap is easily seen in the HSCA drawing and is on the side of the head and above the ear. Can anyone doubt that these are not the same wounds?

* large gaping hole in back of head (the back-of-the-head-wound)

* smaller wound in right temple (the entry wound from the right/front)

* crescent shaped, flapped down (3") (the skull flap near his right ear)

* approx 2 small shrapnel wounds in face (from those tiny glass shards)

* wound in back (5 to six inches below shoulder) to the right of back bone

Notice that the mortician also separates them. Most importantly, therefore, here is my suggestion. You have simply conflated the skull flap with the wound at the back of the head. You have misconstrued some of the witness reports, including from the Newmans and Clint Hill, to create a merge of what were actually TWO WOUNDS caused by THE SAME FRANGIBLE (OR "EXPLODING") BULLET. Consider the consequences that follow if I am right about your conflating them:

(1) then the witnesses are all generally correct in their descriptions, but of two different skull wounds;

(2) the doctor are right about extruding cerebellum, which could not have come from the skull flap wound;

(3) Mantik's study of the X-rays is correct and well-founded and is always open to replication by others;

(4) frame 374 is accurate--you can see the skull flap (pink) extending beyond the (bluish) head wound.

On your account, Pat, most of the witnesses have to be deluded, lying, or making things up. You don't even trust the doctors, who are most unlikely to be wrong about cerebellum extruding. On your account, most of them are not telling the truth. On my account, virtually all of the witnesses--when you consider differences in perspective and such--are telling the truth. The confusion derives from the--to you, irresistible--mistake of conflating what were actually two different wounds.

Here is a short and sweet IQ test for you as a student of JFK. Please answer the questions as I have asked them in as simple and direct a fashion as you can:

(1) Clint Hill has described his actions in pushing Jackie down, lying across their bodies, and peering down into "a bloody, gaping, fist-sized hole clearly visible in the back of his head", where only he was in the position to make that observation. QUESTION: Has Clint Hill been misdescribing his actions and observations for nearly 48 years now?

The answer is NO--Clint Hill has not been misdescribing his observations for 48 years. He observed a large wound on Kennedy's head above his right ear, very close to where it appears in the autopsy photos. While his early statements were vague, his most recent statements have been quite clear on this point. He has also demonstrated this repeatedly in recent years. You seem to think his doing so is some sort of aberration, but you just don't get it--he NEVER said the wound was on the far back of the head where you'd like others to believe it was. The quote you love to cite in which he uses the words "back of the head," moreover, is not even an actual quote from Hill, but a quote from a book written by Lisa McCubbin and Gerald Blaine, with a foreward by Hill. You have no proof he said this, and you should really stop pretending he did.

Since it is the single most striking and important sentence in the book--for which Clint is the only possible source!--how can you seriously contest it? This is a nice illustration of your difficulties in thinking things through. This is about as simple as it gets: WHO ELSE COULD POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN THE SOURCE? DO YOU THINK THEY WERE JUST MAKING IT UP?

P.S. Here's a short and sweet IQ test for you, professor. It's a two-parter. How many times has Clint Hill said the wound was on the "back" of the head? How many times has he said it was "above the ear"?

Mrs. Kennedy shouted, "They've shot his head off;" then turned and raised out of her seat as if she were reaching to her right rear toward the back of the car for something that had blown out. I forced her back into her seat and placed my body above President and Mrs. Kennedy.

Do you grasp that Clint Hill is describing ACTIONS he took that are not present in the Zapruder and the Nix films? There is nothing confusing about what he says: HE PUSHED HER BACK INTO THE SEAT AND LAY ACROSS THEIR BODIES. Do you see that in either the Zapruder of the Nix films?

As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lieing in the seat...

AS HE LAY OVER THE TOP OF THE BACK SEAT . . . , again not seen in the films. If the wound really was at the side, then why does even bother with "right rear"? Are you incapable of seeing that this was a wound that was a the right rear of the head but extended somewhat forward on the right side?

I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column. I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull.

Here Clint Hill is confirming the back wound as having occurred "about six inches down . . . just to the right of the spinal column". While David Lifton believes that this wound was fabricated, do you agree that the observations of Clint Hill and Thomas Evan Robinson on the back wound converge?

The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.

Now if the wound really was PRIMARILY ON THE SIDE, then why does Clint Hill NOT SAY THAT? Instead, he says--again and again--that it was "in the right rear portion of his head". He says it twice here. He says NOTHING about the side. Don't you understand that it was PRIMARILY AT THE BACK OF HIS HEAD?

(When asked if he saw any wound other than the head wound at the autopsy) "I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column."

So again he confirms the existence of the wound to the back, which was "about 6 inches below the neckline and to the right-hand side of the spinal column."

I got up on the back of the car and placed her back in the seat. The President at that time had slumped down into her lap. And I could see the back of his head. And there was a gaping hole above his right ear about the size of my palm. And there was white brain matter and red blood throughout the entire car."

What would you describe the size of the skull flap to be? About the size of your plam? Robinson says that it was "crescent shaped" and about 3" high. Since Clint is not talking about the right/rear of the head, isn't it likely that, in this instance, he was talking about the skull flap?

"Mrs. Kennedy came out of her seat and onto the trunk to try to retrieve that material. I slipped, I tried to regain my position. I got up on the trunk. She did not know I was there. And I grabbed her, and put her back in the seat when the president fell to his left onto her lap."

Do you see Clint Hill GRAB JACKIE AND PUT HER BACK IN HER SEAT IN EITHER THE ZAPRUDER OR THE NIX FILMS? That is my point about his ACTIONS in contrast with his OBSERVATIONS. His ACTIONS contradict what we see in the extant film, because they have been removed from it.

"I saw that there was a portion of his skull removed from the upper rear above the right ear about the size of my palm and there was a hole was in the upper right portion of his head.

Do you appreciate that, by separating the skull flap from the wound at the right rear of JFK's head, which extends somewhat to the front, there is a resolution of the conflict that you have created by your own fixation upon the side--where neither cerebral nor cerebellar tissue would have extruded?

I gained my footing again, got up on the car, and helped her get back in the seat. When I did that the President fell over to his left onto her lap and I could see the upper right portion of his head (he again places his hand above his right ear, only this time he places it directly above the ear, about an inch forward of where he'd placed it only 30 seconds before) had a large hole about the size of my palm.

Isn't it possible he first saw the skull flap, which was exactly where you claim there was a wound--above and even to the front of the right ear--but which you have run together with the larger wound at the back of his head to the right rear, which slightly extends forward? Isn't that a possibility?

Mrs. Kennedy at that had come out on the trunk. She was apparently trying to retrieve something that had come off the president's head, and had gone to the right rear. She didn't know I was there. And so I grabbed her as best I could and put her into the back seat. And as I did that the president fell to his left onto her lap, with his right side of his head exposed. I could see his eyes, they was fixed, with a hole in his head about the size of my palm above his right ear."

Again . . .

At that point I grabbed Mrs. Kennedy, put her in the back seat. The President fell over into her lap, to his left. His right side of his head was exposed. I could see his eyes were fixed. There was a hole in the upper right rear portion of his head about the size of my palm.

Again . . .

I grabbed her and put her back into her seat. When I did that, the president's body fell into her lap. The right side of his face was up, and I could see his eyes were fixed. There was a hole in the upper right rear of his head. It appeared to me that he was dead.

Notice how often he describes "a hole in the upper right rear of his head" and does not mention the side of his head or his ear? Doesn't that suggest that the wound was PRINCIPALLY to the rear of his head? and it cannot have been too high or cerebellum would not have been extruding. Do you understand how the gross anatomy of the human brain and wound descriptions have to fit together? You have been conflating two wounds.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Josiah appears to have COMPLETELY lost his way. Here is disproof of his absurd claim that no witness in

Dealey Plaza showed a blow out at the back of JFK's head. And what he says here about Chaney is simply

absurd, given the evidence, which I shall post here. No beginner would commit blunders of this low caliber.

On that same thread, I have repeatedly discussed Clint Hill's actions and observations that day, as I have reported them in "Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?" and offered multiple proofs confirming Officer Chaney's motoring forward. Just read the thread, "The Law of Unintended Consequences" as unintended consequences of this thread.

Anyone who is serious about getting to the truth of these matters has to take to heart what Clint Hill has been telling us for nearly 50 years now. Not only is there unimpeachable testimony of Officer Chaney motoring forward, but Clint's testimony confirms it. That Tink is IN SOME STATE OF DENIAL ABOUT ALL OF THIS is utterly beyond belief!

"As I approached the vehicle there was a third shot. It hit the President in the head, upper right rear of the right ear, caused a gaping hole in his head, which caused brain matter, blood, and bone fragments to spew forth out over the car, over myself. At that point Mrs. Kennedy came up out of the back seat onto the trunk of the car. She was trying to retrieve something that had gone off to the right rear. She did not know I was there. At that point I grabbed Mrs. Kennedy, put her in the back seat. The President fell over into her lap, to his left.

"His right side of his head was exposed. I could see his eyes were fixed. There was a hole in the upper right rear portion of his head about the size of my palm. Most of the gray matter in that area had been removed, and was scattered throughout the entire car, including on Mrs. Kennedy. I turned and gave the follow-up car crew the thumbs-down, indicating that we were in a very dire situation. The driver accelerated; he got up to the lead car which was driven by Chief Curry, the Dallas Chief of Police . . .”.

Not only does Clint's description of the wound contradict your characterization, but his account is consistent with what Bobby Hargis, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Jesse Curry have told us about about Chaney, which refutes the film's authenticity.

Tink has repeatedly claimed this happened AFTER the limo had already passed the TUP and that we have simply not been thinking about the temporal relationship here. My three favorites are Bobby Hargis, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Jesse Curry:

(1) Forrest Sorrels: "A motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled ‘Is anybody hurt?’, to which the officer replied in the affirmative, and Chief Curry immediately broadcast to surround the building. By that time we had gotten just about under the underpass when the President’s car pulled up alongside, . . ."

(2) Bobby Hargis: "I remembered seeing Officer Chaney. Chaney put his motor in first gear and accelerated up to the front to tell them to get everything out of the way, that he [the President] was coming through, and that is when the Presidential limousine shot off . . . .”

(3) Chief Jesse Curry: "at that time I looked in my rear view mirror and I saw some commotion in the President’s caravan and realized that probably something was wrong, and it seemed to be speeding up, and about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney rode up beside us and I asked if something happened back there . . ."

Let me try to answer your very direct and very simple questions,Ron.

Fetzer and company claim that the "black patch" was added to cover up an avulsive wound in the back of Kennedy's head. No witness saw such an avulsive wound in Dealey Plaza and no film shows it. It was observed at Parkland Hospital by numerous medical personnel. By that time JFK had been hit a second time in the head and his body and head had been bounced around. Secondly, why would conspiritors cover up the back of Kennedy's head to conceal a shot from the front while leaving alone the whole left, backward snap that points unambiguously to a shot from the right front? For Fetzer's "black patch" scenario to work you have to assume that the mysterious co-conspiritors who doctored the film were both stupid and ineffective.

What does the MPI set in the museum show? It shows the same thing that David Lifton's frame of 317 shows and my own copies of 317 shows. The back of Kennedy's head is in shadow as is his back and Connally's back, etc. The MPI set (which anyone can view and which Doug Horne claimed in his book was much superior to Wilkinson's downstream copy)shows no abnormalities in frame 317 or any other frame?

Does it show any gaping hole in the back of Kennedy's head? No, it shows just a shadow like other shadows in the frame.

So Fetzer huffs and puffs to no effect. Since the MPI transparencies were made direct from the camera original film,they do not include frames that are preserved only on the three first-day copies. Do the transparencies have frames 331 and 332 reversed? Well, since the tranparencies are individual transparencies I imagine the Sixth Floor Museum was alert enough to remedy any mistake made in the production of the MPI video.

Did Officer Chaney immediately motor forward to warn Chief Curry and passing the limousine in the process? Since Chief Curry explained that this encounter occurred on the on-ramp to the Stemmons Freeway this is consistent with the film evidence that shows Chaney falling behind and only catching up with Chief Curry and the lead car later. Chaney recalled later that he saw Officer Hargis run across the street in front of him and this meant to Chaney that he must have stopped and only then proceeded forward after Chief Curry. This is exactly what the film record shows in Zapruder, Muchmore, Bell, Daniel and in the still photos of Altgens and McIntire.

I hope your very direct questions have been answered and don't get lost in bloviation.

JT

If the black patch was added to hide something, what is it hiding? Specifically, what does the MPI set in the museum show, if, as is stated, the black patch is not there? Does the MPI set show a gaping hole in the back of the head, or what?

Edited January 22, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[B. A. Copeland]

I find it extremely odd that Thompson would even dare say that claim that no witness in Dealey Plaza showed such a wound......I mean the evidence of what many saw that day is astounding as far as the head wound. It honestly does not take any kind of rocket science to quickly conclude that those "patches" on JFK's head are just that, graphical additions to hide what many know as obvious and what many witnesses saw that day. If you have a grand coverup and official story painted up the wounds must agree, not the other way around. Not to the perps anyway.

I must also say, one thing I have always found odd (or off even lol) is the fact that I have never seen parts of JFK's head on the back of the vehicle at the moment he was shot. I mean the film seems clear enough to show (or indicate) if it were to take place, which it did (he was shot). You would think with the clarity of the film, one would see parts of JFK's head on the back of the vehicle, where Jackie went to pick up parts, etc. You seen nothing at the moment of impact or afterwards, as far as I can see anyway.

Edited January 22, 2012 by B. A. Copeland