Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

PANZA: The temple wound is the one that caused the head snap.

CERVANTES: No one in Dealey Plaza reported such a head snap—unless, of course, they happened first to see an altered Z-film.[35] And what about Rather[36] and DeLoach,[37] who both reported that JFK actually went forward (on that early version of the Z-film)? You might also check out Finck’s comments on viewing the Z-film.[38] And did you read Altgens’s similar comments about this?[39]

Greg,

Are you saying that there was no "back-and-to-the-left" head snap? That the edited Z film just makes it appear there was?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder whether all photographs of the bone fragment which have been taken by Dr. Harper (allegedly some 10 pictures) are available for viewing in high quality. If so, it should be possible to make a realistic digital reconstruction of the Harper fragment as a 3D object. This would be unusually helpful for subsequent application of pattern recognition algorithms in which the outer plane of the segment would be digitally superimposed on the high-resolution MR images of the head (voxel size 1x1x1 mm3 or smaller), and the goodness of fit between the Harper fragment and the real head segment at a particular location would be computed for every 3D skull location in every orientation. This procedure would be applied to a large number of human MR images (at least a hundred), which would result in a probabilistic map of a human head (skull) highlighting the region of the skull showing the best (and statistically significant) fit with Harper fragment. I read Dr. Mantik's book, and I also read Mr. Speer's posts, and believe that both gentlemen are honest researchers and high experts. However, sometimes the data may not offer unequivocal solution in which case a statistical solution lends itself as an objective, unbiased approach. It is very likely that Kennedy's skull has been severely damaged prior to the official autopsy (Mr. Lifton's and Mr. Horne's research) meaning that any conclusion based on fitting Harper fragment to the existing X-ray images has a limited validity.

The procedure described here is neither simple nor trivial. I have sufficient number of human head MR data acquired in my previous research studies which could be used (after obtaining a fresh ethics approval for the use of MR images for a different purpose than the purpose of my original research) in this type of analysis. However, extensive programming and time capacity would be necessary. Naturally, the 3D volume rendering of Harper fragment would be the starting point.

Edited by Andrej Stancak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PANZA: The temple wound is the one that caused the head snap.

CERVANTES: No one in Dealey Plaza reported such a head snap—unless, of course, they happened first to see an altered Z-film.[35] And what about Rather[36] and DeLoach,[37] who both reported that JFK actually went forward (on that early version of the Z-film)? You might also check out Finck’s comments on viewing the Z-film.[38] And did you read Altgens’s similar comments about this?[39]

Greg,

Are you saying that there was no "back-and-to-the-left" head snap? That the edited Z film just makes it appear there was?

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi David Josephs,


Thanks for your reply and for sharing your work.


I don't think the mystery photo shows the top of the head and here is why.


According to the Moorman photo and the Secret Service/FBI reenactment film that was made, if Kennedy's head was in the position it was in (listing over to the left toward his wife) then even if the round beveled hole seen in the mystery photo is an exit or entrance, I don't see how the hole could have been made unless someone was way over on the left side of the scene shooting.


In my photo collage below, there are white and black arrows pointing at the approximate area of the top of the head to show where that mystery photo hole would be on impact. Based on the arrows, someone from way over on the left and in a tall building would have had to be up there making that hole (if the hole is considered an entrance hole).


I think Kennedy would have reacted a lot differently if he'd have taken a shot up there and I think we'd see it in the Z film which, for the record, I think is 100% authentic. I think it's authentic for two reasons:


1. Back when I was studying multimedia design in the 80's, I had to make an 8mm "story" film. I produced a short stop-action animation film. I've always been fascinated with the technology of media too so I clearly remember how fascinating it was that images could be captured on a frame of film the size of your pinky nail. As for the Z film, and using 1960's technology, there's no way they could have made alterations to the film, and because the government knew that the public was not going to see the film in its entirety, this brings me to #2...


2. There simply was no reason to fake the Z film as long as it was kept from the public. And it was indeed kept from the public until 1975 when Groden snuck a copy on a late-night talk show for all to see.


But getting back to the hole in the photo, and because I think Kennedy's violent backward slam onto the seat that you see in the Z film is authentic, this is what we're seeing - a bullet ripping into the temple area and exiting out that hole you see in the mystery photo. The hole you see has to be from a bullet - it's almost too round to simply be broken bone and the outward beveling also indicates exit.


In my collage below, I've tilted that mystery/autopsy combo photo so his head is listing to the left as seen in Moorman and the reenactment.


One other thing to remember - minutes after Kennedy's death, his press secretary pointed to his temple when reporters asked him where he was shot. Someone in the trauma room had to have told him where the shot came from, which means he was repeating something that he was told, most probably from the doctors who actually saw the wounds. Keep in mind this happened mere minutes after his death, so there is absolutely no way anything could be fudged, covered up, or whitewashed.


I think this was a very telling moment because based on the photo below, and based on the Z film and where he pointed to his head during that press conference, I think that head shot hit in the temple area and exited out of that hole you see in the mystery photo. Here's my collage:



Edited by Michael Walton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy:

I am not so sure about your post at 16.

From what I know, Carrico was the first witness to see the throat wound. He then testified that the wound was above the collar. (See Gary Aguilar's essay in Murder in Dealey Plaza, p. 194) He then told the same thing to Weisberg in 1975. (ibid) Weisberg concluded that the slits in the shirt were from scalpel slits.

The location of that wound was distorted by both the tube that was stuck down it, and then Perry's tracheotomy. This was done because the endotacheal tube failed to increase oxygen intake into Kennedy's lungs. (Trauma Room One, by Charles Crenshaw, pgs 62-63)

Also, almost every serious student of the ARRB understands that there are missing internal chest photos. Because many people recalled them i.e. Humes, Boswell, Stringer and Riebe. (ibid p.. 233)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PANZA: The temple wound is the one that caused the head snap.

CERVANTES: No one in Dealey Plaza reported such a head snap—unless, of course, they happened first to see an altered Z-film.[35] And what about Rather[36] and DeLoach,[37] who both reported that JFK actually went forward (on that early version of the Z-film)? You might also check out Finck’s comments on viewing the Z-film.[38] And did you read Altgens’s similar comments about this?[39]

Greg,

Are you saying that there was no "back-and-to-the-left" head snap? That the edited Z film just makes it appear there was?

Yes.

Greg, when everyone moved forward in the car, it was because Agent Greer hit the brake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy:

I am not so sure about your post at 16.

From what I know, Carrico was the first witness to see the throat wound. He then testified that the wound was above the collar. (See Gary Aguilar's essay in Murder in Dealey Plaza, p. 194) He then told the same thing to Weisberg in 1975. (ibid) Weisberg concluded that the slits in the shirt were from scalpel slits.

The location of that wound was distorted by both the tube that was stuck down it, and then Perry's tracheotomy. This was done because the endotacheal tube failed to increase oxygen intake into Kennedy's lungs. (Trauma Room One, by Charles Crenshaw, pgs 62-63)

Also, almost every serious student of the ARRB understands that there are missing internal chest photos. Because many people recalled them i.e. Humes, Boswell, Stringer and Riebe. (ibid p.. 233)

Jim,

Most of the evidence points to the throat wound being located just behind the knot in the tie. Dr. Carrico's later testimony conflicts with that evidence, and also conflicts with the testimony of SSA Roy Kellerman.

In Carrico's testimony before the WC, it seems like he is trying to say that the wound is located behind the tie. At the same time it appears that Allen Dulles is leading him to say above the shirtline instead.

DR. CARRICO: There was a small wound, 5- to 8-mm. in size, located in

the lower third of the neck, below the thyroid cartilage, the Adams

apple.

MR. DULLES: Will you show us about where it was?

DR. CARRICO: Just about where your tie would be.

MR. DULLES: Where did it enter?

DR. CARRICO: It entered?

MR. DULLES: Yes.

DR. CARRICO: At the time we did not know --

MR. DULLES: I see.

DR. CARRICO: The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here.

MR. DULLES: I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is?

DR. CARRICO: Yes, sir; just where the tie...

MR. DULLES: A little bit to the left.

DR. CARRICO: To the right.

Dr. Carrico is one of the few Parkland doctors who changed his testimony regarding the gaping back-of-head wound. This is indicative of the type of person he is -- "go along to get along." It is my opinion that he also changed his opinion on the location of the throat wound when he realized it was incompatible with the official story. (The single bullet theory requires a mangled tie knot if the throat wound is behind the knot. Yet the knot was not mangled.)

Anybody interested in quick summaries of the testimony and evidence regarding the location of the throat wound should take a look at:

For Testimony: Post 541 on this page.

For Evidence: Post 567 on this page.

Note that in Post 556 I remove from the Testimony list Weisberg's comment on what Carrico told him. And in Post 569 I explain why. Also in post 569 I offer to put Weisberg's comment back on the list if anybody feels strongly about doing so.

BTW, the slits in the shirt do not look like scalpel slits to me and at least two other forum members. And one should ask himself why scalpel slits would have been tested for metal residue, as though the holes might have been caused by a bullet or bullet fragment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PANZA: The temple wound is the one that caused the head snap.

CERVANTES: No one in Dealey Plaza reported such a head snap—unless, of course, they happened first to see an altered Z-film.[35] And what about Rather[36] and DeLoach,[37] who both reported that JFK actually went forward (on that early version of the Z-film)? You might also check out Finck’s comments on viewing the Z-film.[38] And did you read Altgens’s similar comments about this?[39]

Greg,

Are you saying that there was no "back-and-to-the-left" head snap? That the edited Z film just makes it appear there was?

Yes.

Interesting.

Do you disagree with any other evidence of a shot from the front?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PANZA: The temple wound is the one that caused the head snap.

CERVANTES: No one in Dealey Plaza reported such a head snap—unless, of course, they happened first to see an altered Z-film.[35] And what about Rather[36] and DeLoach,[37] who both reported that JFK actually went forward (on that early version of the Z-film)? You might also check out Finck’s comments on viewing the Z-film.[38] And did you read Altgens’s similar comments about this?[39]

Greg,

Are you saying that there was no "back-and-to-the-left" head snap? That the edited Z film just makes it appear there was?

Yes.

Interesting.

Do you disagree with any other evidence of a shot from the front?

The question you pose is overly broad and cannot be answered adequately in a thread dedicated to the MEDICAL evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe a lot of JFK researchers have ever hunted game animals much. While the majority of them see JFK, in the Zapruder film, as being slammed violently back and to the left by a gunshot wound to the head, I see something quite different when I view the film.

What I see, at the moment of impact, is a brief and sharp recoil of JFK's head that moves it no more than an inch. I then see JFK's limp body falling to the left, not because the bullet "drove" it in that direction, but because that is the direction JFK was leaning before the bullet hit his head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It never ceases to amaze me that threads are so easily derailed. This is not about the head snap, per se. It is about the MEDICAL evidence. Although the article does mention the snap, it is not central. What of the many remaining red items that need to be answered?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using literary devices to sucker punch a highly respected JFK researcher at the website he helps moderates is, in my humble opinion, as counter-productive as it gets. There's a lot of people globally that admire you & your work & are standing behind you, Pat.

Brad

Speak for yourself, Brad. I think Pat is out to lunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy:

I am not so sure about your post at 16.

From what I know, Carrico was the first witness to see the throat wound. He then testified that the wound was above the collar. (See Gary Aguilar's essay in Murder in Dealey Plaza, p. 194) He then told the same thing to Weisberg in 1975. (ibid) Weisberg concluded that the slits in the shirt were from scalpel slits.

The location of that wound was distorted by both the tube that was stuck down it, and then Perry's tracheotomy. This was done because the endotacheal tube failed to increase oxygen intake into Kennedy's lungs. (Trauma Room One, by Charles Crenshaw, pgs 62-63)

Also, almost every serious student of the ARRB understands that there are missing internal chest photos. Because many people recalled them i.e. Humes, Boswell, Stringer and Riebe. (ibid p.. 233)

James,

There are a couple of observations I would make here. You are correct about what the references you cite state, but I am not sure those references are correct. There is an excellent oral history that Carrico made in August 1997. In that history he describes the sequence of events regarding John Connally's and JFK's entrance into Parkland.

As we all know John Connally entered first and was taken to Trauma Room 2. Initially Carrico also went to Trauma room 2 to see what he could do. Shortly after JFK enters and is taken to Trauma room 1. Shortly after JFK is brought in Carrico moves from Trauma room 2 to 1.

The importance about these movements is that Diane Bowran had already begun to remove JFK's clothes by the time Carrico entered Trauma room 1. Carrico is asked about the throat wound and does indeed suggest it was above the collar line however he goes on to explain that by that time much of JFK's clothes had already been removed and it was not possible to be positive.

I had thought Carrico had followed JFK into Trauma room 1 and therefore he must have seen where the wound was in relation to the shirt. However that did not happen. When JFK was wheeled into Trauma room 1, Carrico was still in Trauma room 2.

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It never ceases to amaze me that threads are so easily derailed. This is not about the head snap, per se. It is about the MEDICAL evidence. Although the article does mention the snap, it is not central. What of the many remaining red items that need to be answered?


Greg, I recently came across a website (I forgot which one) where there was an article about conspiracy and the JFK case. A commenter by the name of Russo said something to the affect of "CT-ers don't know what they're talking about." Below it you wrote a rebuttal to this person saying, in effect, "Likewise, LN-ers don't know what they're talking about, neither." I applaud you for that because it's those people who really are too stupid, too blind, or a little bit of both (or even paid shills) to see the full truth of JFK's murder.


But in relation to your recent comment above (#27), if you were really looking for answers, and had asked in a high-minded way, that's one thing. But you started this thread and you pretty much showed what your real motivation was - to throw one of your fellow CT-ers under the bus by starting off with a pretty snide headline and going from there. I mean, if you were really looking for answers, why don't you just ask Dr. Mantik, as you seem to hold his thoughts and opinions in high regard. Get answers from him, applaud him, and move on. But I really don't think that was your motivation.


Yes, I too, notice that threads tend to veer off track. I'm starting to realize that people are pretty passionate about this case, as am I. We all want to share our thoughts, ideas, opinions, and theories about what happened that day.


I agree, too, that it'd be nice if one single thread stayed on track and on topic. But when you really think about it, this entire case is all interrelated - the hole in the skull leads to the fragment found on the ground leads to the x-rays leads to the autopsy photos leads to the Z film snap...and so on and so forth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greg, I recently came across a website (I forgot which one) where there was an article about conspiracy and the JFK case. A commenter by the name of Russo said something to the affect of "CT-ers don't know what they're talking about." Below it you wrote a rebuttal to this person saying, in effect, "Likewise, LN-ers don't know what they're talking about, neither." I applaud you for that because it's those people who really are too stupid, too blind, or a little bit of both (or even paid shills) to see the full truth of JFK's murder.

I have never written such a thing anywhere. At least not in the context provided.

Now, back on track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...