Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sandy Larsen

David Lifton spots a piece of scalp in the Moorman photo.

Recommended Posts


Kennedy seems to have a shoulder pad in the Moorman photo:
 

jfkmoorman.jpg?quality=90&strip=all

 

David Lifton believes this is a piece of scalp flying in the air, about to drop down onto the seat.  (He has a higher resolution photo, BTW.)

I thought that maybe the object was an illusion created as follows:  Kennedy's head casts a shadow on the shoulder of his jacket. However the corner of the shoulder extends out into the sunlight. And this appears to be an object.

So I decided to check frames of the Muchmore film at about the same time frame to see if they showed the shadow as I imagined it. Here is one of the frames:

 

BJ+Martin+ahead+after.jpg

 

My hypothesis is shown to be wrong.

So maybe David Lifton is right.

Any thoughts or opinions?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

REVISED/EDIGED, 5/16/2020 - 7:15 AM PST

Sandy: I was not aware of your post until now (5/16/20: 430 AM PST)  Best Evidence describes my discovery of the images in the Moorman photo in Chapter 1.  What is not included in the book (first published in Jan 1981) --because I discovered it years later-- is the image located on JFK's right shoulder, and which (for purposes of description) I have described as a "shoulder patch."  In fact, that's a fragment of scalp and bone from the right rear portion of JFK's head, caught in flight by Moorman's camera, as she snapped her photo.  Pulled downward (by gravity), that fragment then fell (or "descended") into the rear seat of the limo, and is (apparently)  the one described by SS Agent Clint Hill when he wrote (in his report, and then later testified  to that same effect): that the "back" of JFK's head was "missing" and that it was "lying in the rear seat of the car." (Approx., from memory).  

Now lets turn to 1965 (approx - date uncertain), and my discovery of important photo corroboration, and what I will now describe is how I came into possession of an important photo negative, which bears on the question of the authenticity (and relevance) of that image (of the "shoulder patch").

Around 1965 (or perhaps July 1966, in connection with my temporary residence in San Francisco, when I drafted "The Case for Three Assassins" [which was punished in January 1967 as a Ramparts Magazine cover story],   I was living in San Francisco, and was working out of Ramparts' offices located at 301 Broadway.  While there-- I decided to visit the office of Associated Press.  My purpose--or at least one purpose--was to see what photos (i.e.,what prints)  they might have (on file)  of the Moorman photo -- because I was aware that her original had been copied (on 11/22, in the afternoon, as I recall) and transmitted via wire by both wire services--i.e., by both AP and UPI.  

To my considerable surprise, the AP office had wire service prints-- and negatives--of lots of photos; and one of them was of the Moorman photo.  (In other words, they had the wire-service negative of the Moorman photograph, as received over the wire-service photo machine).  This wire service negative, having been created by the wire-service telephoto machine, had horizontal scan lines -- that is, it consisted (on magnification) of horizontal scan lines; but, (my reaction was) "so what?"  The scan lines weren't even visible unless you enlarged the photograph to a fairly high magnification.  In any event, the basic content (i.e., the basic image)  was clearly visible--- and there, on JFK's shoulder, was the image of that "shoulder patch."  The person in charge --call him the "supervisor"--noted my intense interest, and said words to the effect that if wanted that negative I could have it. Because (get this) he said that there were a whole bunch of these negatives, they did not save them, and if I didn't want it, they were just going to discard them. 

When I was studying the image, probably using a magnifying glass, the person in charge said something like: "We don't save that stuff, so if you want it you can have it. Its yours."  (Really!  That's what he said.)  Obviously, I accepted the offer, and that's how I came to possess the San Francisco wire-service negative of the AP Wire photo designated "DN-22," a negative created (in San Francisco) when the Moorman photo was first transmitted -- nationally-- on the afternoon of November 22, 1963.  The shoulder patch --which I don't believe I was aware of at the time-- was right there on the negative, but so were the various images of "the men" behind the wall,  which was my main focus.  These were the images that had so excited me and started me down the path of my original research -- as described in Chapter 1 of B.E.

So that's how I came into possession of San Francisco (AP) wire service negative labeled "DN-22" of the Moorman photo.  

Again, I don't (presently) recall what year it was that I first became aware -- on the image of the  Moorman photo  -- of what I (later) came to call the "shoulder patch," but  its significance has only increased with the passage of time.  

WHAT I BELIEVE TODAY:

Today, I believe Kennedy was struck in the head twice from the front-- once in the left temple (per the statement by Dr Robert McClelland, that JFK died "of a gunshot wound of the left temple).  ); and once in the right temple (or on the right side).  (See Chapter 2 of B.E.)  Because the car-stop occurred (and some 30 frames, or more, on the Z film, have been eliminated, to "eliminate" the car stop  (as I discussed in my essay, "Pig on a Leash", published around 2003) its obvious (to me, anyway)  that the Zapruder film has been altered (and thats a whole other subject).  I bring up that subject (of Z film alteration)  because that (doctored) film record is the only one (or at least the most important one) that provides a detailed pictorial record of the Kennedy head wounding during those crucial few seconds (Z-232 on out to 330).  And what does it show? Basically, that the back of the head has been "blacked out"  (rather obvious in frames 309 - 330, approx)--another manifestation of film alteration.  But, setting aside the actual imagery as shown on individual Z frames, and now considering the frames as a sequence,  it also shows the rapid backward movement of the head after the impact of the fatal shot (i.e., the "head snap") --a subject I discussed at length in B.E. (Chapter 2).  Of course, its the (backward) "head-snap" which attracted so much public attention, starting with the 1975 Geraldo Rivera broadcast (on his TV show)  which --IMHO--played such an major role in leading to the several re-investigations of the Kennedy case.

Somewhere in my personal records may be one or more memos I wrote when (years later) I discovered the image of the "shoulder patch."   That discovery looms more and more-- with the passage of time --to any complete and thorough "micro-study" of the JFK assassination.  (DSL, 5/16/20; 5:45 AM PST; Revised, 7 AM PST).

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

 Because the car-stop has been eliminated  (as I discussed in my essay, "Pig on a Leash", published around 2003) its obvious (to me, anyway)  that the Zapruder film has been altered (and thats a whole other subject).

Have you or anyone else (I'm not familiar with your essay "Pig on a Leash") researched how many witnesses said the car stopped and how many said it didn't? And is there any real evidence besides witness statements? While I believe the car slowed down, I find it hard to believe it stopped, for the simple reason that it would make complicity of the driver so obvious. I mean, why in the world would you completely stop a car in the middle of an ambush (instead of taking off as trained) if you didn't want to be implicated by doing so? And if Greer did stop the car, he got away with it, but why in the world would he or anyone else assume beforehand such an improbability? I just don't think it happened unless I see evidence otherwise which I don't think I've seen yet.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 12/16/2017 at 9:06 AM, Sandy Larsen said:


Kennedy seems to have a shoulder pad in the Moorman photo:
 

jfkmoorman.jpg?quality=90&strip=all

 

David Lifton believes this is a piece of scalp flying in the air, about to drop down onto the seat.  (He has a higher resolution photo, BTW.)

I thought that maybe the object was an illusion created as follows:  Kennedy's head casts a shadow on the shoulder of his jacket. However the corner of the shoulder extends out into the sunlight. And this appears to be an object.

So I decided to check frames of the Muchmore film at about the same time frame to see if they showed the shadow as I imagined it. Here is one of the frames:

 

BJ+Martin+ahead+after.jpg

 

My hypothesis is shown to be wrong.

So maybe David Lifton is right.

Any thoughts or opinions?

 

 

Sandy. . thanks. See my separate post, which is posted "above".  DSL (5/26/20 - 7:15 AM PST)

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Ron Ecker said:

Have you or anyone else (I'm not familiar with your essay "Pig on a Leash") researched how many witnesses said the car stopped and how many said it didn't? And is there any real evidence besides witness statements? While I believe the car slowed down, I find it hard to believe it stopped, for the simple reason that it would make complicity of the driver so obvious. I mean, why in the world would you completely stop a car in the middle of an ambush (instead of taking off as trained) if you didn't want to be implicated by doing so? And if Greer did stop the car, he got away with it, but why in the world would he or anyone else assume beforehand such an improbability? I just don't think it happened unless I see evidence otherwise which I don't think I've seen yet.

 

DSL RESPONSE: Ron: In 1971 --approx. November--I spent an evening with the Newmans --Bill and Gayle Newman -- at their home, and with my brand new reel-to-reel SONY recorder. The Zapruder film had not yet been shown nationally at that time (but I was well aware of the head snap, because of the writings of, and communication with, Vincent Salandria; and also Ray Marcus. . The entire interview was recorded (and I'm sure excerpts are included in Pig on a Leash, published some 15 years ago, after the Fetzer conference on the Z film). When I was with the Newmans, I deliberately made a strong devil's advocate argument (that the car did not stop), and was met with robust exclamations --especially from Bill Newman, to this effect: "I don't care what the film shows!  The car stopped!" (from memory; I have the tapes). Theorizing about this is besides the point. Its irrelevant, really. That's what I was told--emphatically--- by Bill Newman, with his wife in full agreement.   Of course I could cite many other witnesses who said the car stopped--there are at least 15 of them. Also --and as I recall--Vince Palamara constructed a list of some 50 or more (if one used "slowed" instead of "stopped.")  Anyway . the car-stop witnesses are the key to understanding Z film alteration (and other films, as well; because the Z film could not have been altered without Muchmore and Nix and Bronson also having been altered). In other words the civilian film record was altered.  Furthermore, records of the "stop" are to be found throughout the official records of the JFK assassination (see, for example, the testimony of Roy Truly).  Enough said.  DSL, 5/16/2020 - 7:35 AM PST

 

 

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David,

Thanks. Then all I can say is, if the car stopped it's remarkable that so little was made of it. But I guess that would have been a major reason to alter the Z film, to remove the stop to protect William Greer and the Secret Service. Of course what they couldn't remove was the head snap, so enter - what was it? - a "neuromuscular reaction."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little off subject, but while I see you online David, I was wondering if you have any updates on Final Charade? I haven't heard anything in awhile and was wondering if you have a time frame for release. Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This photo has the contrast adjusted to enhance the blacks and whites:

moorman-photo-3a-1.jpg

With the contrast adjusted it appears to look more like Zapruder frames Z313-316.  But, since the Polaroid is so vague it could be anything.  There are other spots like that elsewhere in the photo.

Kennedy's shoulder does look unnatural and not like the rounded shoulder pad of a suit.  There appears to be a pointed, upper section indicating there may be something there.  But, once again the overall Polaroid is simply to vague to make out anything in great detail. 

If you blow this up you can see that Kennedy's head looks as if something is missing there and it could be whatever is distorting the right shoulder.

moorman-crop-blowup.jpg

PS

It's awful easy to see things in vague, distorted photos.  Look at the driver's side rear wheel.  The one that shows a half white wall with the upper part in shadow.

If you're not careful you will see a woman with a large straw hat framed in that tire.  Once you see something like that it is hard to get it out of your mind and you simply keep seeing it.

Edited by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

Have you or anyone else (I'm not familiar with your essay "Pig on a Leash") researched how many witnesses said the car stopped and how many said it didn't? And is there any real evidence besides witness statements? While I believe the car slowed down, I find it hard to believe it stopped, for the simple reason that it would make complicity of the driver so obvious. I mean, why in the world would you completely stop a car in the middle of an ambush (instead of taking off as trained) if you didn't want to be implicated by doing so? And if Greer did stop the car, he got away with it, but why in the world would he or anyone else assume beforehand such an improbability? I just don't think it happened unless I see evidence otherwise which I don't think I've seen yet.

 

Hi Ron, I don't think you got an answer to your request for evidence on the car stop. There is film footage showing that the limo brakelights came on. Analysis of the extant Zfilm shows the car speed changed before Z313 (Alvarez and others) and analysis also that all occupants show at Z312 they are all reacting to braking (Analysis by David Wimp I think).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Wilson found a hole in the back of the President's head in his investigation of the Moorman photo as follows:

moorman-back-of-head-hole.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the most convincing testimony involving the limo stopping relates to Chaney's ride forward to tell Chief Curry that the president had been mortally wounded. The Zapruder film and the Orville Nix film contradict Chaney's claim that he rode forward after the headshot. But if the limo stop had been taken out they would have to take out Chaney's ride forward too. There would be no time for Chaney to ride forward and stop at Curry's car to have a chat. Because Chaney's claim was corroborated by Hargis, Chief Curry, Sorrels, Winston and I believe Stovall it is fairly compelling evidence that the films were altered, that the limo stop and Chaney's ride were removed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Hi Ron, I don't think you got an answer to your request for evidence on the car stop. There is film footage showing that the limo brakelights came on. Analysis of the extant Zfilm shows the car speed changed before Z313 (Alvarez and others) and analysis also that all occupants show at Z312 they are all reacting to braking (Analysis by David Wimp I think).

Eddy, yes, that is certainly evidence that the car slowed down. The Newmans were obviously convinced that the car stopped. But there were other witnesses who said otherwise. In any case, slowing down or stopping instead of speeding away was incriminating.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it's established fact that officer Hargis and the driver's side tail light area were sprayed with material coming out of the hole at the back of the President's head.  The Moorman photograph was a polaroid, developed on-site within 60 seconds, and not subject to manipulation before it was published over the wire services.  It shows the President's head turned in a direction that, if the rear head wound had been inflicted, would have sprayed material onto the passenger's side or the spare tire area.  This means that the President's head isn't yet turned in the right direction to receive the wound at the rear of his head in the Moorman photo (his head would have to be turned in the direction of the Knoll for the hole to be pointing at the driver's side tail light and officer Hargis).  So the Moorman photo appears to be taken a split second before the hole in the rear of the President's head was created; in that split second, the President's head must have been spun very rapidly to the right in order for a bullet to exit the back of his head and spray material onto the driver's side tail light and officer Hargis).  There's an ABC TV video of a police officer covering the driver's side tail light of the limo with what seems to be a jacket soon after it got to the Parkland ER lot.  So I guess that's yet more evidence of alteration of the Zapruder film, but it doesn't help to explain the "shoulder patch" in the Moorman photo.  That artifact seems to be a result of the first head shot (dislodging part of the President's head and ejecting it toward his right shoulder).  The spraying of officer Hargis & the driver's side tail light seems to be a result of second head shot coming from the Knoll hitting JFK in the right side of his head a split second (3-4 Zapruder frames) after Moorman's photo was snapped and exiting from the right rear of his head.  Would love to see all of these details reconciled somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was struck by a bullet that lodged behind the right ear, according

to the Belmont FBI memo on the night of Nov. 22, a bullet that

was never entered into evidence. That report is backed up by eyewitnesses

and destroys the WR. And that shot most likely caused the wound that blew out

the back of his head. The wound at the top right hairline could have

done so as well. Neither required his head to be spun around.

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...