Bill Miller

Ashton, just because one doesn't understand something because they haven't either the ability or have yet acquired the knowledge so to understand it such as in the case of the photographical record - it does not mean that the record has then been altered. This anaology of yours is so twisted that you have to assume the films are fake or that everyone who saw the wound that you deny existed must all be participants in a conspiracy to make up such a wound. I would be curious to know just what experts you have talked to pertaining to whether or not the Zapruder film should show the level of detail that you claim should be seen? It is because researchers know better than to think their was a hole where you have placed it on your model. The wound was the bone plate that came off the top of President's Kennedy's head. That overturned plate showing its bloody underside caused such witnesses like Bill Newman to wrongly think that the side of the President's head had opened up causing JFK's right ear to fly off. Certaqinly at some point at Parkland - the bone plate was noticed. Dr. Baxter said this during his sworn testimony ... Dr. Baxter - The only wound that I actually saw--Dr. Clark examined this above the manubrium of the sternum, the sternal notch. This wound was in temporal parietal plate of bone laid outward to the side and there was a large area, oh, I would say 6 by 8 or 10 cm. of lacerated brain oozing from this wound, part of which was on the table and made a rather massive blood. loss mixed with it and around it. Bill Miller

JFK was out of Zapruder's view for a total of about one second, which seems hardly enough time to cause confusion as to what Abe witnessed beforehand in conjuntion with what he saw after JFK came from behind the road sign. What does that equate - one, maybe two blinks of an eye? Bill Miller

REAR HEADWOUND WITNESS STATEMENTS Diana Bowron, Nurse, Parkland Hospital Mr. SPECTER - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy's condition? Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head. Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what? Miss BOWRON - The back of his head. Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition? Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know. Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see? Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole. Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole? Miss BOWRON - No, sir. BOWRON. There was a gaping wound in the back of his head. Q. So, in this massive hole, was there a flap of scalp there, or was scalp actually gone? BOWRON. It was gone. Gone. There was nothing there. Just a big gaping hole. Q. We're talking about scalp first, and then bone, right? BOWRON. Yeah. There might have been little clumps of scalp, but most of the bone over the hole, there was no bone there. Bowron was among the nurses who, after JFK's death, washed the body and prepared it for the casket. It was at that time that she got her best view of the body. Letter from Diana Bowron to Harrison Livingstone 24th January 1993 The following is in answer to your questions. When the president expired everyone left the room apart from Miss Hinchcliffe, a male orderly and myself. We tidied the room and changed the linen on the gurney and washed the body as best we could. Miss Hinchcliffe and the orderly left the room, but I was told to remain with the body until the casket arrived. I was told that I had to stay because I had been one of the people who had taken the body from the car. I remained in the room while the widow paid her respects. After she had left I was asked, by a man I assumed was Secret Service, to collect all pieces of skull and brain I could find and place them in a plastic bag which he gave me. This I did and returned the bag to him (there were only a few fragments of bone that had stuck to the dressings and towels that we had used to pack the hole in the back of the head). I remained in the room until the people from the funeral home arrived. After we had placed the body in the casket and it had been closed I was allowed to leave. During the time I was with the body only the widow and the priest came into the room, any dealings I had with the Secret Service were done in the doorway; no one else entered the room and no photographs were taken. Apart from 2-3 mins, when I left the trauma room to collect blood from the Blood Bank, I was with the body from the car until it was placed in the casket. Being new to the establishment, I was assigned to Minor Medicine and Surgery, which was across the hall from the Triage desk and the major sections of the Emergency room. It being very quiet, there were only two or three patients waiting for the results of tests, I was talking with the Triage nurse when the call went up for gurneys. I grabbed a gurney in the hall and together with an orderly ran to the entrance. I saw that the person in the back of the car was injured so I climbed in to render what assistance I could until such time as we could move him to a trolley, then to the trauma room (others were assisting the Governor in the front seat). I saw that there was a massive amount of blood on the back seat and in order to find the cause I lifted his head and my fingers went into a large wound in the back of his head; I turned his head and seeing the size of the wound realized that I could not stop the bleeding. I turned his head back and saw an entry wound in the front of the throat, I could feel no pulse at the jugular and having seen the extent of the injury to the back of the head I assumed that he was dead. (not my job, only a Doctor can certify death) When we got the President to the Trauma room, word had reached the Trauma team and they were ready with I.Vs etc. I worked with the team, assisting where needed for about 10 mins (time is difficult to judge in those circumstances), when I was told to go to the Blood Bank. I was away 2-3 mins and on my return I continued to assist where needed until the President was declared dead. Miss Margaret Hinchcliffe and an African-American orderly and I prepared the body for the coffin. [Marginal note: David Sanders] I observed no strange activity of any kind and saw no bullets. As explained above, I thought after examination in the car that he was dead. There was no damage to the front of his face, only the gaping wound in the back of his head and the entry wound in his throat. When we prepared the body for the coffin we washed the face and closed the eyes; there was no damage to the face, there was no flap of scalp on the right, neither was there a laceration pointing toward the right eyebrow from the scalp. When we were preparing the body for the coffin we rolled it over in order to remove the bloodstained sheet from underneath and to wipe away the blood from the back of the body. I saw another entry wound in the upper back (the other entry wound being in the front of the throat). I first saw the large wound in the back of the head in the car; when we were preparing the body for the coffin I had the opportunity to examine it more closely. It was about 5ins in diameter, there was no flap of skin covering it, just a fraction of skin along part of the edges of bone, there was however some hair hanging down from the top of the head which was caked with blood, and most of the brain was missing. The wound was so large I could almost put my whole fist inside. When we prepared the body I washed as much blood as I could from the hair; while doing this I did not see any other wound either in the temples or in other parts of the head. I did not see anything suspicious about any of the doctors, though there were far more doctors there than they should have been; perhaps because it was the president they all wanted to get in on the act. You must remember that I had only been there a short time and I did not know all the doctors, some I never saw again, but they were all known to each other. With regard to a post: in this context I think it would refer to a gathering of the doctors after the event, to discuss the case. This was standard practice, when more than one or two doctors were involved. When the body was placed in the coffin the wound at the back of the head was packed with gauze squares and wrapped in small white sheet, there was no terrycloth or other type of towel used. The coffin or casket was bronze with plain fittings. I don't think the body was removed from the coffin. After I left the Trauma room I was in a position to see if any one entered or left the room. No one entered or left until they removed the coffin. A clear plastic sheet was placed in the bottom of the coffin, which may have been a mattress cover; the body was wrapped in at the most two sheets plus the one around the head, all the sheets were white and none had zips. There was no "body bag". Perhaps the following will be of interest to you. As soon as the coffin left the trauma room, I went back to Minor Med. and Surg. to resume my work: I don't know anything about the fight with Earl Rose, which happened at that time. When I arrived there I found that the patients had been moved elsewhere, and the department had been taken over by the Vice President and his staff. They were getting ready to leave when I got there, as they passed me I heard the Vice President say to his wife "Make a note of what everyone says and does". Again I hope this is of some help to you. [signed] Diana Bowron Pat Hutton, Nurse, Parkland Hospital Several people helped put the President on the cart, and we then proceeded to the Major Surgery section of the Emergency Room to Trauma Room #1. Mr. Kennedy was bleeding profusely from a wound on the back of his head, and was lying there unresponsive. As soon as we reached the room, a doctor placed an endotracheal tube, and prepared for a tracheostomy. Within a few minutes, there were numerous doctors in the room starting I.V.'s, placing chest tubes and anesthesia with O2. A doctor asked me to place a pressure dressing on the head wound. This was of no use, however, because of the massive opening on the back of the head. Dr Malcolm Perry, Parkland Hospital Mr. SPECTER - Will you continue, then, Dr. Perry, as to what you observed of his condition? Dr. PERRY - Yes, there was blood noted on the carriage and a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium. I cannot state the size, I did not examine it at all. I just noted the presence of lacerated brain tissue. Dr Robert McClelland, Parkland Hospital: Mr. SPECTER - Before proceeding to describe what you did in connection with the tracheostomy, will you more fully describe your observation with respect to the head wound? Dr. McCLELLAND - As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral haft, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly from the large venous channels in the skull which had been blasted open. Mr. SPECTER - What were your initial impressions? Dr. McCLELLAND - The initial impression that we had was that perhaps the wound in the neck, the anterior part of the neck, was an entrance wound and that it had perhaps taken a trajectory off the anterior vertebral body and again into the skull itself, exiting out the back, to produce the massive injury in the head. However, this required some straining of the imagination to imagine that this would happen, and it was much easier to explain the apparent trajectory by means of two bullets, which we later found out apparently had been fired, than by just one then, on which basis we were originally taking to explain it. Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe the condition of the back of the President's head? Dr. McCLELLAND - Well, partially; not, of course, as I say, we did not lift his head up since it was so greatly damaged. We attempted to avoid moving him any more than it was absolutely necessary, but I could see, of course, all the extent of the wound. Mr. SPECTER - You saw a large opening which you have already described? Dr. McCLELLAND - I saw the large opening which I have described. Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe any other wound on the back of the head? Dr. McCLELLAND - No. Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe a small gunshot wound below the large opening on the back of the head? Dr. McCLELLAND - No. Dr Marion Jenkins, Parkland Hospital Mr. SPECTER - Now, will you now describe the wound which you observed in the head? Dr. JENKINS - Almost by the time I was--had the time to pay more attention to the wound in the head, all of these other activities were under way. I was busy connecting up an apparatus to respire for the patient, exerting manual pressure on the breathing bag or anesthesia apparatus, trying to feel for a pulse in the neck, and then reaching up and feeling for one in the temporal area, seeing about connecting the cardioscope or directing its being connected, and then turned attention to the wound in the head. Now, Dr. Clark had begun closed chest cardiac massage at this time and I was aware of the magnitude of the wound, because with each compression of the chest, there was a great rush of blood from the skull wound. Part of the brain was herniated; I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound; there was part of the brain tissue, broken fragments of the brain tissue on the drapes of the cart on which the President lay. Dr Ronald Jones, Parkland Hospital Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe as precisely as you can the nature of the head wound? Dr. JONES - There was large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood. Dr Paul Peters, Parkland Hospital Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe as to the nature of the President's wound? Dr. PETERS - Well, as I mentioned, the neck wound had already been interfered with by the tracheotomy at the time I got there, but I noticed the head wound, and as I remember--I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput. Mr. SPECTER - What did you notice in the occiput? Dr. PETERS - It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect. There appeared to be bone loss and brain loss in the area. Mr. SPECTER - Did you notice any holes below the occiput, say, in this area below here? Dr. PETERS - No, I did not and at the time and the moments immediately following the injury, we speculated as to whether he had been shot once or twice because we saw the wound of entry in the throat and noted the large occipital wound, and it is a known fact that high velocity missiles often have a small wound of entrance and a large wound of exit, and I'm just giving you my honest impressions at the time. Dr Kemp Clark, Parkland Hospital Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe the President's condition to be on your arrival there? Dr. CLARK - The President was lying on his back on the emergency cart. Dr. Perry was performing a tracheotomy. There were chest tubes being inserted. Dr. Jenkins was assisting the President's respirations through a tube in his trachea. Dr. Jones and Dr. Carrico were administering fluids and blood intravenously. The President was making a few spasmodic respiratory efforts. I assisted. in withdrawing the endotracheal tube from the throat as Dr. Perry was then ready to insert the tracheotomy tube . I then examined the President briefly. My findings showed his pupils were widely dilated, did not react to light, and his eyes were deviated outward with a slight skew deviation. I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. Clark on the 2:30 press conference: Mr. SPECTER - What, if anything, did you say then in the course of that press conference? Dr. CLARK - I described the President's wound in his head in very much the same way as I have described it here. I was asked if this wound was an entrance wound, an exit wound, or what, and I said it could be an exit wound, but I felt it was a tangential wound. Mr. SPECTER - Which wound did you refer to at this time? Dr. CLARK - The wound in the head. Mr. SPECTER - Did you describe at that time what you meant by "tangential"? Dr. CLARK - Yes, sir; I did. Mr. SPECTER - What definition of "tangential" did you make at that time? Dr. CLARK - As I remember, I defined the word "tangential" as being---striking an object obliquely, not squarely or head on. Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe at this time in somewhat greater detail the consequences of a tangential wound as contrasted with another type of a striking? Dr. CLARK - Let me begin by saying that the damage suffered by an organ when struck by a bullet or other missile--- Mr. SPECTER - May the record show that I interrupted the deposition for about 2 minutes to ascertain what our afternoon schedule would be here because the regular administration office ordinarily closes at 12 o'clock, which was just about 15 minutes ago, and then we resumed the deposition of Dr. Clark as he was discussing the concept of tangential and other types of striking. Go ahead, Doctor. Dr. CLARK - The effects of any missile striking an organ or a function of the energy which is shed by the missile in passing through this organ when a bullet strikes the head, if it is able to pass through rapidly without shedding any energy into the brain, little damage results, other than that part of the brain which is directly penetrated by the missile. However, if it strikes the skull at an angle, it must then penetrate much more bone than normal, therefore, is likely to shed more energy, striking the brain a more powerful blow. Secondly, in striking the bone in this manner, it may cause pieces of the bone to be blown into the brain and thus act as secondary missiles. Finally, the bullet itself may be deformed and deflected so that it would go through or penetrate parts of the brain, not in the usual direct line it was proceeding. Mr. SPECTER - Now, referring back to the press conference, did you define a tangential wound at that time? Dr. CLARK - Yes. Mr. SPECTER - And what else did you state at the press conference at 2:30 on November 22? Dr. CLARK - I stated that the President had lost considerable blood, that one of the contributing causes of death was this massive blood loss, that I was unable to state how many wounds the President had sustained or from what angle they could have come. I finally remember stating that the President's wound was obviously a massive one and was insurvivable. Audrey Bell, Nurse, Parkland Hospital Interview by Jeremy Gunn and Douglas Horne of the ARRB 3/20/97(MD184): In the ER, Bell asked Dr Malcolm Perry where the wound was. "Dr Perry turned the President's head slightly to the President's anatomical left so that she could see a right posterior head wound, which she described as occipital..." http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...md184_0001a.htm Doris Nelson, Nurse, Parkland Hospital She was an ER Supervisor in 1963, later became the Nursing Supervisor of Parkland Hospital. She assisted in treating JFK, and helped, along with three other nurses, in the preparation of the body for the casket. In the revised edition of High Treason, Harrison Livingstone, on p.38 states: "Nurse Nelson drew a picture of the head wound, mostly in the parietal area, but well towards the rear of the head (Parietal/Occipital). Her drawing conflicts strongly with the official autopsy photograph. When she saw the picture she said immediately, 'It's not true---There wasn't even hair back there. It was blown away. All that area was blown out.'" Margaret Hinchcliffe, Nurse, Parkland Hospital Margaret M. Hinchcliffe (shown in the WR as Henchcliffe), was a nurse who helped wheel JFK from the limousine into the emergency room,and later helped prepare the body for the coffin. She told reporters in 1981 that the President had a gaping wound in the back of his head and an entrance wound in his throat. With nurse Diana Bowron, she used surgical shears to cut off JFK's clothes upon his arrival, removing everything except his underwear and his back brace (someone later removed the back brace). According to Jim Bishop, after Kennedy's death, she was ordered to clean the body (along with Diana Bowron): "The body was sponged carefully, the legs and arms still pliant. The cart drapes on the right hand side were heavy with brain matter. This was cleaned up and the edges of the massive wound in the head were wiped The brown hair was slicked back. The body was lifted off the carriage and white sheets were placed underneath. Enough loose material was allowed to hang off the left side so that, when the President was placed in the box, the head and neck wounds would not soil the white satin interior." SSA Clint Hill: 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. DP witness Phil Willis: It took the back of his head off DP witness Marilyn Willis: Matter was coming out the back of his head Nurse Diana Bowron: There was a gaping wound in the back of his head. It was gone. Gone. There was nothing there. Just a big gaping hole. There might have been little clumps of scalp, but most of the bone over the hole, there was no bone there. There was no damage to the front of his face, only wound in the back of his head and the entry wound in his throat. The wound was so large I could almost put my whole fist into it Nurse Doris Nelson: There wasn’t even hair back there. It was blown away. All that area was blown out(when shown the rear of head autopsy photo) Nurse Pat Hutton: A doctor asked me to place a pressure dressing on the head wound. This was of no use, however, because of the massive opening on the back of the head. Dr Malcolm Perry: there was blood noted on the carriage and a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium. Dr Robert McClelland: I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted… we did not lift his head up since it was so greatly damaged. We attempted to avoid moving him any more than it was absolutely necessary, but I could see, of course, all the extent of the wound. Dr Marion Jenkins: Part of the brain was herniated; I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound (note "cerebellum", and where it is located) Dr Ronald Jones: There was large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood. Dr Paul Peters: I noticed the head wound, and as I remember--I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput. It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect. There appeared to be bone loss and brain loss in the area…we speculated as to whether he had been shot once or twice because we saw the wound of entry in the throat and noted the large occipital wound Dr Kemp Clark: I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. Nurse Audrey Bell: Dr Perry turned the President's head slightly to the President's anatomical left so that she could see a right posterior head wound, which she described as occipital Nurse Margaret Hinchcliff: the President had a gaping wound in the back of his head and an entrance wound in his throat. Dr. Charles Crenshaw: The wound was the size of a baseball(photo depicts Crenshaw indicating right rear) Dr. Kenneth Salyer: This wound extended into the parietal area(a photo depicts Salyer indicating right rear) Dr. Charles Carrico: There was a large, quite large, defect about here(a photo depicts Carrico indicating right rear) Aubrey Rike(Oneal Funeral Home, Dallas):You could feel the sharp edges of the bone at the edge of the hole in the back of the head Bethesda photographer Floyd Riebe: a big gaping hole in the back of the head FBI SA Frank O’Neill: a massive wound in the right rear Petty Officer Saundra Spencer: They had one(autopsy photo) showing the back of the head with the wound at the back of the head. It was just a ragged hole. Mortician Thomas Robinson: about the size of a small orange…Circular…ragged… directly behind the back of his head…they brought a piece of heavy duty rubber, again to fill this area in the back of the head…it had to be all dried out, packed, and the rubber placed in the hair and the skin pulled back over…and stitched into that piece of rubber. FBI SA James Sibert: it was a good size, in the back part of the head there. Well, I think about 3 1/2 inches one way then quite a bit the other...they showed the pictures at that deposition that were neat in appearance, and boy, I don't remember anything like that ...but my recollection of the way the head looked is nothing that would appear as this photograph shows. This photograph is too neat. Right back here is where you would have had that massive wound, right in here, and you see that's neat. My thought was that that was probably taken after reconstruction was done... there was a big cavity there. I mean that you could look in to. The skull wasn’t intact, the bones weren’t in place…there definitely was a large cavity. It was just that apparent that there was so much skull missing

My experience has been that 'Not being as knowledgeable' and the 'probable" altering of the film' are two statements that seem to go hand in hand. Bill Miller

This is a statement of stunning naivete. I agree. It's like listening to Baghdad Bob telling us the Americans are nowhere in sight while standing in front of a U.S. tank with its guns pointed directly at him. Dennis David saw some autopsy photos that were shown to him by William Pitzer that clearly showed the avulsion to the back of JFK's head. Those photos have since disappeared. Dennis has since gone into what I believe was "regressive hypnosis" and I have personally viewed the session and the emotion Dennis showed to the point of being in tears convinced me that Dennis David was and is telling the truth ... a truth that is supported not only by the Dallas Doctors and so many witnesses at Bethesda, but by Secret Service agent Clint Hill and FBI agents Sibert and O'neil. So it seems that we are to believe that the mass hallucination theory concerning the rear wound to President Kennedy's head had spread itself out to people outside of the Parkland medical staff, not excluding the mortician who painstakingly had to create a rubber pad to fit over the hole that we are told by Ashton and Pat that it never existed. Insult to injury is then pushed on us by asking us 'Why would the official story move a back wound and hide the rear head wound?' It would seem to me that a reasonable person would see that the official position on the assassination was that the murder of JFK was the act of one man alone. (Whether that position was sincere or less than honorable doesn't matter because it came within hours of the murder when no investigation had been conducted, let alone even been completed - how odd is that!) So once we come to grips that a mass hallucination pertaining to the President's damaged occipital bones did not occur, we then have to get back to the Zapruder film and why we cannot see the wound with any clarity? The fact that the Zapruder camera doesn't even show the occpants of the limo's faces clearly seems to go unnoticed, but yet they want to believe that we should see fractured protruding bones through the President's out of focus hair covered head. Rather than to face the facts before them, they will look for film frames showing the President's head turned in such a way that the avulsion can't be seen so to salvage their poorly thought out position. They create out of scale cartooned 3D images that cannot be made to replicate actual assassination images so they can show us views of line of sights that can't be found by actually going to Dealey Plaza, only to then take offense to anyone pointing these flaws out to them. In the end, they continue to ignore the witnesses who were there and are eventually forced to fall back on their flawed positions so not to admit they may have been in error. An example of what motion blur can do ... As I said before, one must first decide what level of truth they are seeking and then find a path that leads to it. Bill Miller

Deleted duplicate post. Bill Miller

Jack, smart people have examined the evidence and found your position to be terribly flawed. David Healy stated that even a first generation copy will show slight fuzziness to the images ... Zavada and Groden both have examined the alleged camera original and said those said signs of it being a copy was not there.

Look Pat, when a replica 3D model of a Zapruder film frame is said to be accurate and it cannot be overlaid onto an actual Zframe and made to align properly, then the data ued for the model was in error (purposely or not purposely) does not matter. The wound location was stated by the Dallas doctors and is seen on the Zapruder film. Unless it is your position that the Zapruder film is altered - all other contradictory assumptions must be in error .... it doesn't matter to me which one you or Ashton choses to take, but you cannot have it both ways. And it is those people who must think that all the witnesses were wrong about where the wound was right up to the mortician who made the rubber covering it ... are all right and everyone else was part of a conspiracy to lie about it or all fell victim to a mass hallucination. (Give me a break!) Bill Miller

Pat, I too, read Groden's stuff when I started out and he has since conceded some of his initiol misconceptions. I only know of two people at Parkland who saw the large bone plate and that was Baxter and Clark after the President had been declared dead. Treating doctor after doctor, as I recall, didn't see the large bone plate because it had been put back into place and the blood soaked hair must have concealed it. They did however, see the damage to the back of the President's head. Richard Smith has documented over 30 of those witnesses right up to the mortician. I am not a witness to the event, but a messenger. The bone plate came off the top of the head and is well documented on the Zapruder film, unless you also want to take the position that the Zapruder film has been altered. The large bone plate itself is not an entrance wound ... the entrance wound would be along the outer edge of that bone plate. The bone plate was the result of a fracture caused by the bullet entering the skull. I have stated this many times and I see no reason to misquoted at this point. Read this very carefully - Dennis David told me that they are taught at Bethesda that a bullet's entrance wound will be found along the outer edge of the bone plate when such a plate flies off. It's not in the middle of the plate, but on its edge. This is why the back spatter that Sherry teaches us about is visible on the assassination films. The back spatter is released first and has a wider pattern upon release than the exit wound which is traveling much faster. (several examples have been posted) I never seen where you address all the said witnesses or the science behind the back spatter, but instead you just promptly say the rear head wound never existed - which is ridiculous. Hell, not you or Ashton has tried to explain the large protrusion on the back of JFK's head other than to say that when someone flips their head back - the hair remains standing straight up - that analogy is also ridiculous. I recall some testimony where the Dallas doctors had even considered that the large wound on the back of the head was possibly due to a bullet entering the front of the neck and deflecting slightly upwards and exiting the back of the head. ( I guess they didn't consider your standing hair theory!) And when can someone see into standing hair and see the cerebellum? Dr. PERRY - Dr. Clark's arrival was first noted to me after the completion of the tracheotomy, .................................... I continued it as Dr. Clark examined the head wound and observed the cardiotachyscope. Dr. PERRY - As I mentioned previously in the record, I made only a cursory examination of the President's head. I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area, Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe as to the President's head, specifically? Dr. PERRY - I saw no injuries other than the one which I noted to you, which was a large avulsive injury of the right occipitoparietal area .... MR. GUNN: Dr. Baxter I've given the other doctors a little bit of background, and during a break I can talk to you about what we have said before and if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. This will not be a typical deposition format, but I'd like to have a discussion. At this point I just want to briefly refer to previous statements that had been made by you and the other doctors regarding the wound to President Kennedy's head. Going back to Dr. Carrico -- and again, this one is not present for you -- he said to the House Select Committee on Assassinations that there was a large wound in the right side of the head in the parieto-occipital area. One could see blood and brains, both cerebral and cerebrum fragments in that wound. Let me -- let me read this again. He said both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound. I stated that incorrectly. Later he said -- this -- still to the House Select Committee on Assassinations -- "The head wound was much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by seven centimeters, something like that, two-and-a-half by three. inches, ragged , had blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parieto-occipital region, and there was brain tissue showing through." The next testimony comes from Dr. Clark. This is MD 37. And in a summary that was typed up -- this is on Commission Exhibit 392 -- again, part of the package that I have given to you -- he refers to there was a wound, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull. And then on the second page Dr. Clark referred to "there was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region"Then in his testimony to the Warren Commission he refers on page 20 to a large gaping wound in the right posterior part with cerebral -excuse me -cerebral & cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. On Page 29 he says that there was a much larger wound in the right occipital region of the President's skull from which consider -- considerable blood loss had occurred, which stained the back of his head, neck, and upper shoulders. Then to Dr. Jenkins he refers -- this is from packet MD 96. He refers to a great laceration on the right side of the head temporal and occipital. He also says the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. In his testimony to the Warren Commission he said that -- on Page 48 he thought that this wound in the head was a wound of exit, although he wasn't sure. He said, quote, "I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound." MR. GUNN: Dr. Baxter I've given the other doctors a little bit of background, and during a break I can talk to you about what we have said before and if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. This will not be a typical deposition format, but I'd like to have a discussion. At this point I just want to briefly refer to previous statements that had been made by you and the other doctors regarding the wound to President Kennedy's head. Going back to Dr. Carrico -- and again, this one is not present for you -- he said to the House Select Committee on Assassinations that there was a large wound in the right side of the head in the parieto-occipital area. One could see blood and brains, both cerebral and cerebrum fragments in that wound. Let me -- let me read this again. He said both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound. I stated that incorrectly. Later he said -- this -- still to the House Select Committee on Assassinations -- "The head wound was much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by seven centimeters, something like that, two-and-a-half by three. inches, ragged , had blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parieto-occipital region, and there was brain tissue showing through." The next testimony comes from Dr. Clark. This is MD 37. And in a summary that was typed up -- this is on Commission Exhibit 392 -- again, part of the package that I have given to you -- he refers to there was a wound, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull. And then on the second page Dr. Clark referred to "there was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region" Then in his testimony to the Warren Commission he refers on page 20 to a large gaping wound in the right posterior part with cerebral -excuse me -cerebral & cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. On Page 29 he says that there was a much larger wound in the right occipital region of the President's skull from which consider -- considerable blood loss had occurred, which stained the back of his head, neck, and upper shoulders. Then to Dr. Jenkins he refers -- this is from packet MD 96. He refers to a great laceration on the right side of the head temporal and occipital. He also says the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. In his testimony to the Warren Commission he said that -- on Page 48 he thought that this wound in the head was a wound of exit, although he wasn't sure. He said, quote, "I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound." He then said that, "I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process." From Page 51 of his Warren Commission testimony he says, "Because the wound with the exploded area of the scalp, as I interpreted it being exploded, I would interpret it being a wound of exit, and the appearance of the wound in the neck, and I also thought it was it a wound of exit." Finally in his testimony to the House Select Committee on Assassinations he said, There was one segment of bone blown out. It was a segment of occipital or temporal bone. He noted that a portion of the cerebellum, lower rear brain, was hanging out from the hole in the right rear of the head. Then Dr. Jones in his testimony to the Warren Commission -- this is Packet MD 98. On Page 53 he says there was a small wound at the midline of the neck and a large wound in the right posterior side of the head, a large -- later, there was a large defect in the back side of the head. And then in-- testimony to the Warren Commission on Page 56 he said that there appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull. And, Mr. Specter referred to that as the top of the President's head. And finally in handwritten comment -- this is on the last page of the packet that I have given to you. It says there was a small -- that just refers to the -- to the neck wound. I won't read that. Then Dr. McClelland in his testimony to the Warren Commission said, "I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered apparently by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half. And this sprung open the bones that I had mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out,"

Ashton, I refuse to believe that you can be as stupid as you are pretending to be. The avulsion was on the right posterior half of the President's head and this is why I used the term over and over again "silhouette". Even an idiot can turn a football until its pointed end disappears. You have chosen to use frames where the President's head was turned in such a way that you were not seeing the avulsion because of the angle the camera had at it. Did you really think you could get away with such deception? Maybe instead of trying to figure out ways to decieve the reader - just spend some of that time and energy addressing the blood spray evidence that Sherry Gutierrez presented to you on Lancer's forum. Bill Miller

Maybe Don Diabo is impressed with a guy who uses incorrect data and grossly misinterprets the photographical record because he won't cross reference the available information so to strive for accuracy, but it is unethical for someone to have their 3D model data shown to be in error and yet they continue to come up with the same conclusions by refusing to correct it. (the proof is shown below) It's nice that you make images of the plaza, but if you do not have the correct data put into your model, then the angles that you argue are wrong, thus you have no valid argument. For instance, your so-called 3D diagram is so far off that you don't even have JFK's head tilted properly. You stated that Jackie's hand was on the back of JFK's head in my clip and the Nix film proves that you were totally in error about that, yet you still post as if you were correct. Jackie's hand passed between her and JFK's head and the Nix film proves it, unless of course you wish to take the position that the Nix film is altered. To my knowledge, the WC never took the position that there was a large gaping hole in the back of JFK's head. Once again you have recklessly misstated part of the facts that supposedly led to the conclusion you are posting about. (you remind of someone who says that 3 + 6 = 11 and to prove it you then say that 11 - 6 = 3) So the Dallas doctors were in error - is that your position? The Chief Neurosurgeon at Parkland who's job would have been to correct the damage to the President's head had they been able to stabilize JFK's condition said this under oath .... Dr. CLARK - The President was lying on his back on the emergency cart. Dr. Perry was performing a tracheotomy. There were chest tubes being inserted. Dr. Jenkins was assisting the President's respirations through a tube in his trachea. Dr. Jones and Dr. Carrico were administering fluids and blood intravenously. The President was making a few spasmodic respiratory efforts. I assisted. in withdrawing the endotracheal tube from the throat as Dr. Perry was then ready to insert the tracheotomy tube . I then examined the President briefly. My findings showed his pupils were widely dilated, did not react to light, and his eyes were deviated outward with a slight skew deviation. I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. Tannenbaum is on record as pointing out that the report given to the HSCA said that no large wound was seen on the back of JFK's head at Bethesda, yet he goes on to point out that the sign off sheet with the signatures of those Bethesda personnel all said that it was there. The mortician who prepared the body for burial said he had to fit a rubber pad over that hole to cover it, so you keep denying it if it makes you feel good. I personally cannot see how all those independent witnesses can be wrong, but I can see why some disgruntled jerk-off would dismiss them all in an effort to spread propaganda to the contrary. I have explained the process of motion blur and what it can do ... I cannopt make you smart enough to understand it and how it applies to the Zapruder film. After all, it was motion blur in the Weigman film that caused Jack White to think Zapruder and Sitzman were never on the pedestal and seeing how you do not hold to Jack's opinion, it tells me that you are actually aware of what motion blur can do. This is what bothers me the most. Any idiot who has ever built anything knows that if you are off at the starting point, then the degree of error increases with distance. That means that when you do your panorama swings - if the data you started with is incorrect, then your line of sights are not correct. Don't take my word for it ... contact any company that works in 3D animation building and ask them if I am not correct. Take your 3D views to the plaza sometime and compare them to the real world. You will find that they are way the hell off. That means that your views of angles going to said points are inccorect as well. Possibly try contacting Gary Mack who is familar with the individuals/comapnies who did this kind of work for the various documentaries and see if what I am saying is not true - truth is what you are looking for - right? And shame on those individuals who support such sloppy work when claiming to want to know the truth! Who among you would allow a carpenter to build you a home with a ruler that didn't have the inch markings spaced properly or some of them missing all together .... maybe an inch shows only .75 inches on the carpenters ruler, yet you find that John F. Kennedy doesn't deserve the same accuracy that you'd expect for yourselves. I applaud those who wish to implement 3D models into their investigation, but if the needed data so to have them be accurate so that the views are correct isn't there, then they are worthless. Bill Miller

Ashton says a lot of things that aren't accurate, but accuracy is not something he strives for anyway. Pat, you are another one who chooses not to fit all the pieces together. For you to take the position that the Dallas doctors, among the 30 witnesses who said the same, didn't see nothing but hair and mistook that for avulsed bones on the back of the President's head is ridiculous. Bill Miller

Thanks, Frank, but I do not wish to block anyone. I was thinking that possibly the software was thinking I wanted them blocked and that is why I get the message below each time I try to send a personal message. It is ridiculous! Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage Most likely causes: You are not connected to the Internet. The website is encountering problems. There might be a typing error in the address. What you can try: Diagnose Connection Problems More information Bill

Can anyone tell me why in the personal message part of the forum that the word "block" appears next to each name and what does it mean? Example - John Simkin [ Block ] Aug 10 2006, 09:03 AM When I look into the blocked secotion, it tells me that I have no blocked memebers. Bill Miller

Jack, with all due respect - the laws of physics and the application of science does not need to murder a second victim to know what happened to the first one. What I find unbelievable is that when you do not understand something, you simply deal with it by dismissing it. Instead, you take an approach that is so flawed that you come up with crap like Moorman and Hill were standing in the street while telling people that Altgens 6 (which shows Hill and Moorman on the south pasture as the Zapruder film does) is genuine and can be trusted. Another such example was the gap between the pedestal and the colonnade window that you claim Josiah Thomspson created with his drum scan and yet not one Moorman Polaroid copy print made decades before Thompson had the drum scan done shows the absence of the gap, nor have you produced one that does. Science deals with facts and you don't .... how can anyone take solace in your support for their following your way of thinking. Bill Miller

Gary, from where the exact location the shot came from cannot be pinpointed to a 100% degree of certainty, but the direction the shot was traveling can be determined by way of science. (see below) Below is an example of how a bullet could have hit the top of JFK's head. The bone plate is a fracture and the back pressure that releases the wide spray of cranial fluid dislodges the plate which is prevented from falling away because of a tether of scalp. (It should be noted that a tangental strike to the skull can cause the missile to change its path as it passes through the head, thus assuming that the bullet passed through the President's head in a straight line would more than likely be in error. In fact, Dr Clark stated that as a bullet sheds its energy, it shreads the brain and this is what was reported concerning the President's wound. If a bullet explodes upon impact, then the broken fragments would also shred the brain and take numerous paths through the head) The Bone Plate coming off the top of the head and then hangs upside down over the President's right temporal area of the head. (see below) So what happened and from where that would account for all the evidence to fit? Witnesses heard a loud shot come from the area of the Hat Man (west of the Hudson tree on the knoll) and simontaneously the President's head explodes. Immediately following is a smoke cloud thast comes drifting out through the trees. The smell of burnt gunpowder would soon be noted at the fence-line despite the wind blowing from the northwest, which means that it is impossible to blame the smoke and burnt gunpowder smell on a shot fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD a half a block away and to the east. The President's head is left with an avulsion in the right rear side of it in the occipital area. The avulsion is described by the Dallas doctors as the bone fractures being sprung open which allowed them to see down into the skull cavity. Both the Nix and Zapruder films are running too slow and from too far away to record crystal clear images through the President's hair so to see the fractured opening in the scalp. However, both films were capable of showing the bulging of the back of the President's head which is a key factor in support of the testimony given under oath by the Dallas doctors, as well as other witnesses in and around Parkland hospital who saw the wound to the back of the President's head. Modern day blood spatter science can be applied to explain the wide spray of cranial fluid that was released from President Kennedy's head. The phyics of what happens when a projectile puctures through an object can also be applied to the assassination films which in turn support the avulsion described by no less that 30 witnesses. What have we got in rebuttal .... misstated facts, erred photographical interpretations, flawed 3D models and catchy responses such as .. "I've had enough tea. Thanks for the party. He was hit by 15 shots from the front, all into the same hole in the head. Except, of course, for the throat shot. His head did not go forward, but sideways in a mobius circle—like Linda Blair on crack. All 15 outdoor shooters (all on the grassy knoll) were invisible policemen who went up in the rapture. And God bless us everyone." "So "what the hell" that statement means is that the FRONT of JFK'S head (that's the face side), above the right eye (which is on the FRONT of the head) EXPLODES (bursts open, bursts forth violently) OUTWARD (away from a central point, such as, e.g., the center of the skull) and in bursting OUTWARD does so TOWARD THE FRONT, meaning in the direction the limo is facing and traveling, in the direction that JFK facing. That OUTWARD BURSTING of the FRONT of the skull happens to take place just as JFK's head jerks FORWARD (toward the FRONT) violently at Zapruder 313." "Snakefeathers. Hooey. Flobbergobber. Gombligernicampoikananity. The shoulder does not go "rearward" when his head slams forward. At all. The only "rearwardness" in evidence comes in these giant zeppelin loads of 100% pure hootus that you manufacture around the clock, always based on "evidence" that isn't, and that can only, and inevitably does, result in page after page after page after page after page after page of just this kind of barking mad tail chasing that is your stock in trade." This is the rebuttal in a nutshell. An ill-tempered forum member who hasn't the character to admit when he has been proven wrong. It's not enough to say 'the head went forward, so the shot must have came from the rear'. In fact, the head has been shown to have only gone forward in 1/18th of a second or one Zapruder film frame. It is virtually impossible for a human being to take such a powerful blow from behind and then right their posture in that short of time span, so another explanation has to be found. A shot from the front and traveling downward hitting the President on the front top portion of the head and jolting the right shoulder rearwards as the energy is absorbed down the spine can account for this instant motion. It also accounts for the large avulsion noted on the back of JFK's head and the rel;ease of the blood (cranial fluid) spatter that has been shown in both the Nix and Zapruder films. Let each person first decide what truth is ...... and then determine the proper path to finding it. Bill Miller

In the past two days I have not been able to send a personal message. All that happens is that I get the screen that says what I posted in the opening of this thread. I would hope that John Simkin or Andy Walker will see this thread and either return the forum settings back to where they once were or correct the current ones so the function options work properly. Thanks, Bill Miller

Well Ashton, if you are not going to offer anything of substance ... you at least kept your last response short so not to waste forum space. Did you enjoy that Nix clip showing Jackie's white gloves as much as I liked pointing it out to you? Not studying the photographical record thoroughly is like trying to give a book review by only reading its cover. John F. Kennedy once said that a mistake isn't a mistake unless you refuse to correct it .... I hope you have learned something from all of this. Bill Miller

John, could you cite where you explained it because I must have nmissed it. I would like to see if it matches what the experts have told me. Thanks! Bill

Work it out, John, because Muchmore had her film in her possession until Monday the 25th of Novemeber where upon it was sold to UPI sight unseen - then flown to NY - then developed and aired on TV. Any tampering after that would have been disasterous considering the local TV station had already aired it. Bill Miller

I too, have had that problem and forgot to mention it. Bill

I have seen duplicate post made when only one was sent, I have seen double text in one response when it should not have been duplicated, and when sending personal messages - I constantly get the following message ... Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage Most likely causes: You are not connected to the Internet. The website is encountering problems. There might be a typing error in the address. What you can try: Diagnose Connection Problems More information Is this happening to anyone else and if so, what can be done about it? Bill Miller

Chris, you are welcome to save and use anything I ever post. Bill

What ever you did to them - they are riduculous! I can't see the space between two sections of a draw bridge when it is up, but I have enough brains to know that its there. John Kennedy didn't have the rear portion of his head looking like the butt-end of a watermellon before he took that shot to the head and out of copmmon sense I know for a fact that the head doesn't swell in milliseconds, but to be sure I've consulted some experts to verify what I already knew. If you cannot see the bulge on the back of JFK's head, then you are not capable of discussing the photographical evidence IMO. Let me see if I have this straight - you were afraid I'd ridicule your evidence, so you opted to use the poorer images to make your case .... and to think you were worried that I'd make you look foolish! Ashton, I welcome it, but my advice to you is not trying to do it with your poorer images. So the 30 witnesses in and around Parkland were all mistaken ... is that your official position? Ed Deloux in response #5 posted a blow-up of the back of JFK's head as seen from the Nix location - what to you think that bulge is all about ... possibly a beenie cap being worn by the President or is it the bones sprung opened on the occipital area of the head just as the Parkland doctors described it. Thanks to Ed for posting that view. I posted enhancements of the same on Lancer years ago and you saved me the trouble of having to go to my office and retrieve them. The hole was a result of the bone fractures being sprung opened - read the doctors testimonies. In Jim Garrisons's book "On the Trail of the Assassins" it reads ... "Let Justice be done, though the Heavens fall". Here is where you fall flat on your face, Ashton. I have spent countless hours studying all the assassination films and I am going to show you why I told you to go study the photographical record more before blowing off your mouth about things you know nothing about. The clip that you call a fraud was created to show that when Jackie's white glove pulled back away from JFK's head - the abrupt turn I spoke of was still there. If you took the time to follow Jackie's movements from Z255/Z256 (equal to Altgens 6) you would have noticed that she never slid her hand off her husbands left forearm until after the head shot. Jackie's white glove is passing over JFK's left shoulder and not on the back of his neck as you have wrongly claimed. The Zapruder film alone told me this, but lets not just take my word for it or the authenticity of the Zapruder film. Had you cross referenced the assassination images like I have done so many times, you would have seen Jackie's white gloved hand pass between JFK's head and the Nix camera as she brought it back and around the President's head from over his left shoulder. So your interpretation that Jackie's white glove was on the back of JFK's head is the result of you not being thorough in your research mixed with piss-poor photographic interpretation skills. From the "Missing Nix Frame" thread / post 266 / Frank Aqbat The full version of Frank's clip in real time can be seen at the link below. (Look for post #266) http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...8660&st=255 Is there any more allegations of deceit you'd like to make based on your lack of thorough research, Ashton? Bill Miller[/font]

Ashton, a first year student of the assassination knows about the accoustics evidence and where it was estimated to come from. And that Hat Man location is not correct either. Moorman's photograph makes him appear to be near the corner of the fence where you have placed him by the tree, but the Nix film shows that he is west of that tree. The Moorman photo gives off an illusion of his location due to the extreme angle at which he is seen. It would really help if you wish to debate the evidence if you would first learn it. Going to the plaza and walking it would be a helpful start. I will say this once so not to have to argue with a dumbass who isn't interested enough to care about the accuracy of the data he uses to draw his conclusions on. Dale Myers used a far more sophisticated program than what you are playing with. Dale used countless measurements from location to location and the known hieghts of many of the objects in and around the plaza and yet when he offered some of Zapruder's views - I did composite overlays of them onto the actual Zapruder film and what I found was unbelieveable. If one is going to talk about trajectories and where they lead, then the information has to be precise. If I got a part of the limo of Dale's 3D view from the Zapruder location to match the real limo on the Zapruder film, then the people didn't space out correctly both vertically and horizontally. So you do not have to care what I think, but you should care that your 3D model is not accurate, thus meaning your conclusions cannot be accurate. Study the Nix film and get back to me. Your model is in error, your placement of the Hat Man is in error, thus your view is in error. If you have to remove trees that were not in the way during the real assassination, then it just shows how flawed your model is, which makes it worthless. Not only did you half-ass the model, but JFK was not hit down on the head where you have located it with that red spot. The purported temple shot .... Bill Newman also said the right ear flew off, but these witnesses mistook the overturned bone plate as a side head wound. The bone plate came off the top of the head and you are looking at its underside in the Zapruder film. I don't think I have ever heard anyone ever try and represent that overturned bone plate as a hole in the front side of JFK's head once they have studied the most basic evidence of the case. I am beginning to think what others are saying about you and that is you are a disinformation agent of some sorts. Now we agree ... for the way you have misrrepsented the facts - no one could buy it. How could one not look at this clip and not see the missing scalp on the top of JFK's head from where that bone plate came from? To represent that wound where you have placed it is beyond reckless, but rather deceitful IMO. (study clip below) I love it when people like yourself make complete idiots out of themselves by pretending to know the facts. I supposed that a rebuttal isn't really necessary - I should have just posted Altgens 7 and a few frames of the Zapruder film in combination with the Dallas doctors statements saying the President's face was undamaged to rebut your nonsense. Read the quote below and see if you can't do a little better in the future. "Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but no one has a right to be wrong about the facts. Without the facts, your opinion is of no value.” Rene Dahinden, August 1999. Bill Miller