David Josephs

John... well put.. We need to remember that a lot of work from Mr Speer would be rendered moot should the postion we represent prevail in his mind... just like so many others who hinge their conclusions on assumptions which have no basis in factual evidence, only derived speculation based on their desired conclusions. If HUMES did what Horne and others say he did, Pat is SOL in proving this same evidence supports a conlcusion from Dealey Plaza.. so he cannot accept that premise and stay true to his work. Presents a real problem. If David and Custer are correct about Pitzer taking an 8mm movie of the arrival and condition of the head... at 6:45, the resulting medical evidence - as WE have speculated - does not reflect this condition.. He claims REED is reliable yet forgets that these cuts thru the forehead by HUMES was done prior to ANY official photos and xrays... When you actually LOOK at the brain, skull, and scalp - understand how they connect - and understand what is done in an autopsy to free the brain from the skull... it is VERY OBVIOUS that most of the brain was cut away and the remainder of the head was destroyed - Since this is not Adric's work, he may be a little more realistic in his review and analysis... sadly Pat has to defend his work and would rather not find out the basis for all of his time and effort is incorrect. “Jenkins stated that the standard incisions in the cranium required to remove the brain — a ‘skull cap’ (his term for a craniotomy) — were not done, because they were not necessary. He thought this might be explained by prior incisions, meaning that some surgery had been done prior to the autopsy [emphasis added by Horne]. He recalled that the damage to the top of the cranium was much more extensive than the damage to the brain itself, which he found unusual. Jenkins recalled Dr. Boswell asking if there had been surgery at Parkland Hospital. He recalled Dr. Humes saying: ‘The brain fell out in my hands,” as he removed the brain from the body.’” Jenkins spoke about the nature of Kennedy’s head wound: “Jenkins recalled the large posterior hole in JFK’s head, but also recalled a small (approximately 5 mm in diameter) hole in the right temporal bone, just forward of and just above the right ear. He saw this quite early in the autopsy, and recalls that Dr. Finck saw this and commented on it. The circumference was gray, which suggested to Jenkins the passage of a bullet. He said that even Dr. Finck speculated that a bullet might have caused this hole.”

Sorry Pat - but you don't seem to be getting this at all... WHAT in the medical evidence strongly suggests there was more than one shooter which can be distinguished from the work HUMES did on the skull, brain and spinal cord? HOW would you know the difference between a scalpel cut of the spinal cord at the base of the brain... and second bullet? Were any of these paths illustrated and recorded in the medical evidence YOU are referring to here? And Pat, we don't NEED the medical eviodence to deduce there was more than one shooter... we need NOTHING PAST what was seen in DALLAS to prove this. EVERYTHING else was created to point to Oswald on the 6th floor... which, given the shot from the front that tore out the back of his head, was a pretty daunting task. Do you simply not understand that the skull does not FALL EASILY AWAY from the scalp, nor does the brain simply FALL out of the skull once opened? That there is connective tissue all around the brain... The LEFT SIDE of the brain was supposedly completely undamaged according to HUMES/BOSWELL HUMES: We found that the right cerebral hemisphere was markedly disrupted. (1)There was a longitudinal laceration of the right hemisphere which was parasagittal in position. By the saggital plane, as you may know, is a plane in the midline which would divide the brain into right and left halves. This laceration was parasagittal. It was situated approximately 2.5 cm. to the right of the midline, and extended from the tip of occipital lobe, which is the posterior portion of the brain, to the tip of the frontal lobe which is the most anterior portion of the brain, and it extended from the top down to the substance of the brain a distance of approximately 5 or 6 cm. The base of the laceration was situated approximately 4.5 cm. below the vertex in the white matter. By the vertex we mean--the highest point on the skull is referred to as the vertex. (DJ: Now Pat - Humes here is saying that this laceration - which runs the entire length of JFK's Brain - extends 5-6cms into the brain...yet he follows with the BASE of the same laceration, as measured from a point HIGHER than the brain, the VERTEX of the skull, and yet the depth is LESS than is seen within the brain itself.... what do you think "it extended from the top down to the substance of the brain a distance of approximately 5 or 6 cm" means?) The area in which the (2) greatest loss of brain substance was particularly in the parietal lobe, which is the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere. The margins of this laceration at all points were jagged and irregular, with additional lacerations extending in varying directions and for varying distances from the main laceration. In addition, there was (3) a laceration of the corpus callosum which is a body of fibers which connects the two hemispheres of the brain to each other, which extended from the posterior to the anterior portion of this structure, that is the corpus callosum. Exposed in this laceration were portions of the ventricular system in which the spinal fluid normally is disposed within the brain When viewed from above the left cerebral hemisphere was intact. There was engorgement of blood vessels in the meninges covering the brain. We note that the gyri and sulci, which are the convolutions of the brain over the left hemisphere were of normal size and distribution. Those on the right were too fragmented and distorted for satisfactory description. When the brain was turned over and (4) viewed from its basular or inferior aspect, there was found a longitudinal laceration of the mid-brain through the floor of the third ventricle, just behind the optic chiasma and the mammillary bodies. This laceration partially communicates with an oblique (4) 1.5 cm. tear through the left cerebral peduncle. This is a portion of the brain which connects the higher centers of the brain with the spinal cord which is more concerned with reflex actions. There were irregular superficial lacerations over the basular or inferior aspects of the left temporal and frontal lobes. We interpret that these later contusions were brought about when the disruptive force of the injury pushed that portion of the brain against the relative intact skull. Now - add that to the Boswell image post I made and the location of THOSE injuries - and once again please point to what in that evidence convinces YOU there is evidence of a shooter and not HUMES. Okay now Pat... here is a detailed image if the description offered above with the numbers listed matched to their locations...: The BLUE LINE is my best guess as to the single frontal shot that hit him, exploded and sent fragments in a variety of direction. The BLUE arrows at the back of the skull point to the EOP and Humes' entry point. PAT - you are claiming that the wounds labeled 1 and 3 were caused by other shots... that THIS is the evidence for additional shooters found in the medical evidence? I seem to rememebr one Dr described it as someone having taken an ax to the top of JFK's head, slightly to the right of midline, that a bullet does NOT dig a trough thru the body but leaves a path.. "it extended from the top down to the substance of the brain a distance of approximately 5 or 6 cm" That's a pretty DEEP trough for a single bullet no matter which direction it came... IMO this TROUGH is what HUMES cut to get the path of the bullet OUT of the brain... the EVIDENCE does not suggest another bullet, the EVIDENCE shows the obliteration of the shot people witnesses in DP... That WE KNOW it was a shot is not the same as the evidence proving it was... It is MY OPINION that the brain had to be "lost" since the right hemisphere would have shown the trail of particles from the right temple to the right rear... with the brain gone (huge portions removed prior to 8pm) there was only the TOP trail of particles remaining... if those are even JFK's skull. The LEFT SIDE shows no damage, andn o sawing was needed so maybe help us understand what separated the Brain from Skull from Scalp on the LEFT side so that virtually no craniotomy was necessary Q: Had any work been done on President Kennedy's body in regard to the performing of the autopsy by the time you got there? FINCK: As I recall, the brain had been removed. Dr. Humes told me that to remove the brain he did not have to carry out the procedure you carry out when there is no wound in the skull. The wound was of such an extent, over five inches in diameter, that it was not of a great difficulty for him to remove this brain, and this is the best of my recollection Your statement is that there is proof of multiple shooters in the medical evidence... all I see is proof of what Humes did... Can you link or paste or anything to convey your understanding of how these injuries are related to gunshots... Thanks DJ

They prove there was more than one shooter. Why should I NOT believe them? I mean, what kind of a conspiracy to convince us there was no conspiracy fakes evidence that prove a conspiracy? Isn't that a wee bit counter-productive? No sir, the work done by Humes on the skull which was photographed and xrayed does NOT prove anything about a 2nd shooter. The only thing the medical evidence proves is that the wound in DALLAS and the wounds as recorded in Bethesda are no where near the same and that any evidence for frontal shots was obliterated with the conclusion that one bullet from behind did ALL the damage recorded. The fact that there are entrance wounds on the front of the body and that JC was not hit with the SBT - and all the DP/Parkland witnesses who say so - PROVES there was more than one shooter. The medical evidence as prepared offers no such thing until it is put within the context of the event. The EVIDENCE proves conspiracy Pat, nothing else... Unless you know a bit about what happened in DP and what ALL the witnesses say you would have a tough time finding evidence of a shot from the front in the WCR evidence. The report and every report since has confirmed only one thing - Oswald shot three times from the rear. The medical conspiracy/cover-up had much more to do with hiding who did it and how, than proving Oswald did it... it doesn't SHOW anything it HIDES everything. Maybe help us out here Pat and show us one thing in the medical record which proves multiple shooters - that you can PROVE was seen in Dallas and not created in the morgue. and that you would believe the conspiracy was created to convince us there was no conspiracy is just sad... The conspiracy was designed to be seen thru so that we would spend 50+ years doing what we are doing while the perpetrators continue to do their thing - us none the wiser. To this day we still have very little real idea who did what, when and how... and Oswald is still guilty in the history books. I'd say the conspiracy worked just fine Pat... you should not believe them because they are not believable, they can't be authenticated, and it's as plain as the nose on your face... I sure hope you get around to finding that out... you defending the WCR medical evidence is just weird.

That's false. That's Zapruder above. In addition to him and the other witnesses mentioned by Speer, Vincent Palamara posted a letter in this forum from Parkland doctor Donald Seldin stating ""The bullet struck the President in the forehead and literally exploded in his skull, so that the entire frontal, parietal and temporal bones were shattered." Also, D. Jenkins told the WC that "there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process." The zygomatic process is forward relative to the ear. The fact that Jenkins said "left temporal area" shouldn't be used as an excuse to dismiss his testimony, because McClelland once claimed to see a wound on the left side too, yet this does not keep back-of-the-head theorists from considering him to be a kick-ass witness anyway. Jenkins is supposedly a kick-ass witness as well, owing to his title of Parkland doctor. Nice Andric... Ask a snotty Q about Audrey Bell... I go ahead and address it and you go with the one person who confirms a shot from the front which shattered bone... NOT that bone was missing as is shown in those farce xrays you and Pat think are authentic. He described what the lateral xray TRIES to show happened in the back... a small hole, radiating cracks resulting in a huge opening in the front... Yes Andric, those that were there say he was hit in the right temple just like Zap... the cracks would of course radiate from that wound yet a hole is seen in the right rear, the occipital bone... by a host of people in a post you seem to have also missed... Dr. Jenkin's "wound"... (let's try to remember his head was blown up, k?) is what to you? a bone fragment flying out his head? Father Huber called it a terrible wound as well... not a bullet hole... Only McClellend - as cause of death, right?... maybe THAT shot caused the hole in the right rear while the right temple shot simply exploded his skull into fractures.... one exploding one FMJ very high speed... ?? Either way the WCR's evidence is a crock... there were shots from the rear/side that missed JFK and hit JC, one hit from the back represents all the HITS from the rear, imo. Jenkins is a "kick-ass witness" and precisely since he was less than 2 feet from the man less than 20 minutes after the incident... that he reversed himself for Posner is, well, understandable I guess... "if they kill a POTUS y'know..." . McClellend writing LEFT Temple... is what it is. I have to think he meant right since to the two others who saw that wound, it was not called out as a bullet hole. What is more telling here is that the entire RIGHT SIDE popping open and missing ala the xrays is not even noted by this ER Dr. Do you have anything other than "wound" to go on as all I've read is supposition that it was a shot there. -------------- Pat, doesn't one of your slides ask why the tearing of the scalp around the wound you're describing now, does not occur like it does in the example you offer - or did I read that wrong? If you argue blood splatter back and the opening of the skull and scalp, that should be a clean thru and thru hole right there... and 100% proof of a shot from behind hitting him... THE primae facia case for the FBI and all they need do is stick a probe thru that hole into his head... take a photo, take an xray and we be DONE... Medical proof of a shot entering from the rear and out the side of his head... But they didn't do that Pat... how come? David, you used a blanket statement: "Not a soul" saw "damage" to an area in front of the ear. That's what got you in trouble. Blanket statements such as "everyone in the room," "always," "nothing" etc. are a hallmark of back-of-the-head theorists and should be avoided when possible. Under scrutiny, your blanket statement now turns into "Not a Josephs-approved, non-Dealy-Plaza soul not being quoted by Posner says there was damage non-small damage to the front of either ear." But there's more. Here's what Parkland doctor Adolph Giesecke told the Warren Commission: Dr. GIESECKE - It seemed that from the vertex to the left ear, and from the browline to the occiput on the left-hand side of the head the cranium was entirely missing. And if we assume that Giesecke meant the right side, then we can add him to the list of witnesses who prove your blanket statement wrong. Keep avoiding the issue Andric... it's a weak technique to attack what you perceive to be a weak portion of the argument when you know full well that NOT A SOUL describes what the BS xrays try to push... and you will be asked repeatedly to post images of ANYONE in DALLAS holding the TOP FRONT of their head when asked about JFK's injury... as opposed to the bullet's entry point. I got into trouble? Funny, I dont FEEL like I'm in trouble... Was Giesecke in DP too? Looks to me like Boswell didn't even BOTHER with the back of the head.... his drawing and the photo matches perfectly... to the altered wounds created by Humes - you honestly believe that the ER would attempt to trach tube a man with the entire top of his head gone? Dr. Giesecke is a great example of one voice in many... and I see why you only posted the one sentence... what follows: Mr. SPECTER - Was that the left-hand side of the head, or the right-hand side of the head ? Dr. GIESECKE - I would say the left, but this is just my memory of it. Mr. SPECTER - That's your recollection ? Dr. GIESECKE - Right, like I say, I was there a very short time really. Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe any other wound or bullet hole below the large area of missing skull ? Dr. GIESECKE - No; when I arrived the tracheotomy was in progress at that time and so I observed no other wound except the one on the cranium. Mr. SPECTER - On the cranium itself, did you observe another bullet hole below the portion of missing skull ? Dr. GIESECKE - No, sir; this was found later by Dr. Clark--I didn't see this. Mr. SPECTER - What makes you say that that hole was found later by Dr. Clark? Dr. GIESECKE - Well, this is hearsay--I wasn't there when they found it and I didn't notice it. Mr. SPECTER - Well, Dr. Clark didn't observe that hole. Dr. GIESECKE - Oh, he didn't--I'm sorry. Mr. SPECTER - From whom did you hear that the hole had been observed, if you recollect? Dr. GIESECKE- Oh--I must be confused. We talked to so many people about these things--I don't remember. THAT's the point Andric... you reach for any low hanging fruit you can grasp and post it as it it negates what everyone else in Dallas sees... Do us a favor Andric... please post that famous graphic where all the witnesses are holding the top/front of their heads when asked where the wound THEY SAW was... All I have is this which is taken from the Boswell drawing and notes... Try to notice WHERE ON THE HEAD the injuries are noted and what that means... There is both a wound thru the FLOOR of the skull as well as a wound that basically seperates the brain from it's enclosure... if you have not read Lifton about what a craniotomy looks like you are woefully uninformed when it comes to the anotomy of the skull and brain and how autopsy's work. But PLEASE - ANDRIC, post a photo where a wound witness is holding the area of the head missing in the xrays... from the Coronal suture FORWARD virtually all across the skull.. Zap, Kilduff, Brehm, Hill, Moorman, Hudson, etc, etc.. WHO WERE THERE talk of a shot or shots coming from the front... McClellend and the ER docs see a hole in the middle/right rear - ER PROFESSIONALS Nurse Bowron/Bell etc and the ER STAFF sees a hole in the middle/right rear - MORE ER PROS Hill see this wound within 10 seconds of it happening Jackie holds the back of his head on I can post dozens of accounts of the wounds being in the MIDDLE/RIGHT REAR by everyone up until Kellerman steals the body... There are even those in MD who see JFK in his DALLAS state and describe as such... But YOU and PAT - who were not there, did not see the man, did not experience the day - KNOW BETTER because you both believe the WCR medical evidence is authentic when it can't even work with itself... You keep saying the same thing expecting a different result - that's called insanity Andric. One last thing for you and Pat... Pat quotes REED as a reliable source... agreed? So when did the casket arrive and when did those xrays get taken - BEFORE or AFTER HUMES cuts the forehead open? Does this jive with the other 6:35 arrival witnesses? Q: Okay. Could you describe the casket that you saw in the hallway? A: It was a typical military, aluminum casket. Stainless steel or aluminum, whatever. I guess, then it was stainless steel. Q: Did -What kind of handles did the casket have? A: Just the normal stainless steel handles. Q: Would you describe it as a ceremonial casket? A: No. Q: What else did you observe from where you were with regard to any incisions or operations on the head? EDWARD REED: Well, after about 20 minutes, Commander Humes took out a saw, and started to cut the forehead with the bone - with the saw. Mechanical saw. Circular, small mechanical - almost like a cast saw, but it’s made – Q: Sure. A: - specifically for bone. Q: And what did you see next? A: We were asked to leave at that time. Q: Do you know why you went asked to leave? A: Because we were - No more assistance - our assistance was not needed. X-rays were done. And someone decided that we weren’t needed, and they asked us to leave. Q: Did you see any incisions on the chest at all? A: None Q: Did you ever see JFK’s body again? A: No, I did not. CUSTER tells us he does not take xrays for about an hour after seeing JFK for the first time and AFTER the Y-incision... So REED is gone and CUSTER is asked back in, between 7-7:30 to start taking xrays... WHICH IS NOT POSSIBLE SINCE THE Y-incision had not yet been done. (Hint: you might read the pertinent testimonies from the ARRB Andric... alot of interesting material is unearthed) Andric, we don't have any xrays of JFK prior to Humes' work on the skull... so how would we know what the wound in DALLAS looks like other than asking people in DALLAS? The only way those xrays work is is HUMES does indeed cut thru the forehead prior to the xrays... FINCK arrives at around 8:30 to already developed xrays of the head If Humes already has Head xrays when he calls FINCK - he calls after 7:30 and before 8pm... REED leaves before the xrays and beofer the Y-incision CUSTER takes his xrays AFTER the Y-incision...and AFTER Finck arrives(?) Please explain how these xrays are representative of DALLAS injuries.. and please stay on topic here Andric... you have 2 things to do 1) post ANYTHING from ANYONE showing them pointing to the TOP FRONT of their head when describing JFK's injury 2) Given the timeline of the xrays and ARRB testimony - how can these xrays and photos be indicative of DALLAS - if he was that injured in Dallas he was DOA-Parkland and beyond saving.... yet that is not what they say Dr. FINCK. I interpreted myself but now to say what was the briefing at the time in detail, I unfortunately cannot do it. I remember, however, that on the phone Dr. Humes told me that he had good X ray films of the head. That I remember. What he told me when I arrived in the autopsy room in addition to that, I don't remember. (WCR) Commander HUMES - The president's body was received at 25 minutes before 8, and the autopsy began at approximately 8 p.m. on that evening. You must include the fact that certain X-rays and other examinations were made before the actual beginning of the routine type autopsy examination (HSCA) Dr. HUMES. well, the President's body, as I recall, arrived about 7:30 or 7:35 the evening and after some preliminary examinations, about 8 or 8:15. Just very briefly, in what order or sequence did you conduct the autopsy? Dr. HUMES. Well, the first thing we did was make many photographs which we knew would obviously be required for a wide variety of purposes, took basically whole body X-rays and then proceeded with the examination of the two wounds that we very shortly detected were present, starting with the wound in the head and proceeding to the wound in the back of the neck, upper thorax. (ARRB)Q. During the autopsy, was the room quiet and hushed or noisy and bustling? How would you describe the scene? A. It varied. We were there for a long time. We were there from about 6:00 or 6:30 in the evening until 5 o'clock the next morning.

That's false. That's Zapruder above. In addition to him and the other witnesses mentioned by Speer, Vincent Palamara posted a letter in this forum from Parkland doctor Donald Seldin stating ""The bullet struck the President in the forehead and literally exploded in his skull, so that the entire frontal, parietal and temporal bones were shattered." Also, D. Jenkins told the WC that "there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process." The zygomatic process is forward relative to the ear. The fact that Jenkins said "left temporal area" shouldn't be used as an excuse to dismiss his testimony, because McClelland once claimed to see a wound on the left side too, yet this does not keep back-of-the-head theorists from considering him to be a kick-ass witness anyway. Jenkins is supposedly a kick-ass witness as well, owing to his title of Parkland doctor. Nice Andric... Ask a snotty Q about Audrey Bell... I go ahead and address it and you go with the one person who confirms a shot from the front which shattered bone... NOT that bone was missing as is shown in those farce xrays you and Pat think are authentic. He described what the lateral xray TRIES to show happened in the back... a small hole, radiating cracks resulting in a huge opening in the front... Yes Andric, those that were there say he was hit in the right temple just like Zap... the cracks would of course radiate from that wound yet a hole is seen in the right rear, the occipital bone... by a host of people in a post you seem to have also missed... Dr. Jenkin's "wound"... (let's try to remember his head was blown up, k?) is what to you? a bone fragment flying out his head? Father Huber called it a terrible wound as well... not a bullet hole... Only McClellend - as cause of death, right?... maybe THAT shot caused the hole in the right rear while the right temple shot simply exploded his skull into fractures.... one exploding one FMJ very high speed... ?? Either way the WCR's evidence is a crock... there were shots from the rear/side that missed JFK and hit JC, one hit from the back represents all the HITS from the rear, imo. Jenkins is a "kick-ass witness" and precisely since he was less than 2 feet from the man less than 20 minutes after the incident... that he reversed himself for Posner is, well, understandable I guess... "if they kill a POTUS y'know..." . McClellend writing LEFT Temple... is what it is. I have to think he meant right since to the two others who saw that wound, it was not called out as a bullet hole. What is more telling here is that the entire RIGHT SIDE popping open and missing ala the xrays is not even noted by this ER Dr. Do you have anything other than "wound" to go on as all I've read is supposition that it was a shot there. -------------- Pat, doesn't one of your slides ask why the tearing of the scalp around the wound you're describing now, does not occur like it does in the example you offer - or did I read that wrong? If you argue blood splatter back and the opening of the skull and scalp, that should be a clean thru and thru hole right there... and 100% proof of a shot from behind hitting him... THE primae facia case for the FBI and all they need do is stick a probe thru that hole into his head... take a photo, take an xray and we be DONE... Medical proof of a shot entering from the rear and out the side of his head... But they didn't do that Pat... how come?

When and where did Oswald sight in the scope for shots that day - AFTER reassembling the rifle with a dime and building the sniper's nest AND leaving no fingerprints... Mr. BELIN. Could you tell whether or not it had any kind of a scope on it? Mr. BRENNAN. I did not observe a scope. Mr. BELIN. How much of the gun do you believe that you saw? Mr. BRENNAN. I calculate 70 to 85 percent of the gun.

my response seems to have vanished... and I haven't the time to reconstruct it... Suffice to say it ended with Middle back of the head - Dr. Mantik among other professionals in the Med field Middle REAR back of head - Dr. McClellend among other professional ER doctors from a distance of 3 feet and closer within 15 minutes of the injury Middle REAR back of head - Nurse Bowron among other nurses and ancillary personnel attending to JFK's body at an ER from a distance of LESS than 2 feet within 10 minutes Middle REAR back of head - Clint Hill SS Agent among other SS agents describing the same kind of wound - professionals, many ex soldiers, police, FBI - WITHIN 10 SECONDS within 1 foot ---- The Secret Service REFUSES to allow the law of TX to be followed or coroner Rose to do his job. Kellerman* testifies to agreeing on meeting the party at the mortuary when he actually lies and orders the body to AF-1 --- Front right and front middle of head, open top - xrays taken at Bethesda under the command of the Surgeon General of the Navy and The Commanding officer of Bethesda Naval Hospital Adm Galloway... Also attending and conducting the circus Adm Burkley... also Navy... given over to the Secret Service for safe keeping. AFTER a flight on a NAVY craft flown by NAVY pilots and taken to a NAVY hospital up to 85 minutes before he officially gets there and 42 minutes before the FBI and SS claim to have carried him in.... When does HUMES say he gets him? Q. During the autopsy, was the room quiet and hushed or noisy and bustling? How would you describe the scene? A. It varied. We were there for a long time. We were there from about 6:00 or 6:30 in the evening until 5 o'clock the next morning Q. Dr. Humes, when did you first see the body of President Kennedy? A. I didn't look at my watch, if I even had a watch on, but I would guess it was 6:45 or 7 o'clock, something like that, approximately. Entire right front middle and back - xrays taken at Bethesda. SOS Top and right side of head - Pat Speer from believing the medical evidence is real and representative of the injuries sustained in Dallas... Dude... whatever. We are all entitled... I'm done here. *Mr. KELLERMAN. This I can't truly answer. However, I should say that, as for the casket being brought into the hospital, another gentleman came into this little doctor's room, his name I don't recall, but he represented himself to be from the Health Department or commission, some form. He said to me, he said, "There has been a homicide here, you won't be able to remove the body. We will have to take it down there to the mortuary and have an autopsy." I said, "No, we are not." And he said, "We have a law here whereby you have to comply with it." With that Dr. Burkley walked in, and I said Doctor, this man is from some health unit in town. He tells me we can't remove this body." The Doctor became a little enraged; he said, "We are removing it." He said, "This is the President of the United States and there should be some consideration in an event like this." And I told this gentleman, I said, "You are going to have to come up with something a little stronger than you to give me the law that this body can't be removed." So, he frantically called everybody he could think of and he hasn't got an answer; nobody is home. Shortly he leaves this little room and it seems like a few minutes he is back and he has another gentleman with him, and he said, "This is"--the name escapes me he said, "He is a judge here in Dallas," and he said, "He will tell you whether you can remove this body or not." I said, "It doesn't make any difference. We are going to move it," and I said, "Judge, do you know who I am?" And he said, "Yes," and I said, "There must be something in your thinking here that we don't have to go through this agony; the family doesn't have to go through this. We will take care of the matter when we get back to Washington." The poor man looked at me and he said, "I know who you are," and he said, "I can't help you out." I said. "All right, sir." But then I happened to look to the right and I can see the casket coming on rollers, and I just left the room and let it out through the emergency entrance and we got to the ambulance and put it in, shut the door after Mrs. Kennedy and General McHugh and Clinton Hill in the rear part of this ambulance. I am looking around for Mr. Greer and I don't spot him directly because I want to get out of here in a hurry, and I recognize Agent Berger and I said, "Berger, you get in the front seat and drive and, Mr. Stout, you get in the middle and I will get on this side," and as we are leaving--Mr. Lawson, I should say, was in a police car that led us away from Parkland Memorial Hospital. As we are leaving a gentleman taps on the driver's window and they roll it down and he says, "I will meet you at the mortuary." "Yes, sir." We went to the airport, gentlemen.

OK Chris... CE884 states that in 20.1 vertical feet (z161: 3+29.2 to z185: 3+49.3) the limo descends 1.12 horizontal feet (13.44 inches) 429.25 to 428.13 that equates to a 9.7 degree incline - (The formula is not arctan but tan*100) which is the tangent of 5.582137 which is the % of incline based on the figures in CE884. which is obviously much more than the 3 degree slope of the street. Another 22.2 feet to 3+71.1, z207 and another 1 foot vertical drop.. again about a 9 degree slope, yet during this same distance the horizon's angle DROPS (flattens) 3 degrees from 24-14' to 21-50'.. Neat trick. Another 22 feet to 3+93.5, z231 and another 1.3 foot vertical drop.... and again the slope flattens from 21-50' to 19-47' From 231 to 249 is 17 feet, which is an even higher angle of decent.. and drops yet another vertical foot and the angle continues to flatten from the 6th floor.... http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0464b.htm I should add that the facts which we now have in our possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and Secret Service, are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will present a completely misleading picture. Redlich to Rankin 4/27/64

Chris - could you please just state what you mean in plain english... If I read you right... you are saying exactly what I did, the 26 degree angle is much too low for a shot at 161.. it is rather.. it would have to be 45 yards further down Elm for a 26 degree line to hit the 6th floor window... Same as I said... the angle for the math to work is 69 degrees... so the MATH is lying.. edit: he is describing a position much further down the street... but not 30 feet, now it's 135 feet... so the math is a complete sham in CE884 Please relate that to the Zfilm and how they moved the shots seen in the film up the street by 30 odd feet... Moorman takes her photo at the moment of the headshot... yet Altgens claims it occurs 15 feet in front of him... Please relate the math cover-up to the elements seen in the films and photos.. Thanks DJ

I agree David ... sorry if this tended to divert the thread. Thanks to James for an interesting scale mockup. Looks like a West face shooter would have had a very difficult line of sight and a small time window of opportunity, even with a slowed down limousine. Perhaps it was nearer the elevator shaft (for egress), or some other consideration. Its hard for me to belive that - of all the locations possible - that one would be selected (Dal Tex looks ideal from the mockup). But I still have a strong bias towards more careful planners (shooters in places other than TSBD) and maximum diversion (focused on the TSBD). Back to that figure in the doorway ... I went back to some other threads to read up on Billy Lovelady. If indeed he had on a striped shirt, then it's certainly not him. And using Sean's logic of elimination (i.e. most likely a person who worked in the building as opposed to someone walking in off the street), then a strong case can be made for it being Oswald. I find it interesting that the figure stays tucked in the alcove for the entire passing of the motorcade, which suggests he wasn't that interested in seeing the President. He also had to still be there as Baker runs up to the building. I also went back to the beginning of Bill Kelly's thread and pondered his original question. What's now unclear to me is if the prayer man (ostensibly Oswald) goes back into the building, or leaves from the alcove shortly after the Baker encounter. Is it Harvey leaving the TSBD, to begin his journey via the Craig sighting ... or Lee doing his "chores" as operatives call them? I think one has to accept that the Baker/Truly lunchroom scene did not happen... that they encountered someone on the stairs that was neither LEE or HARVEY, and if that really is HARVEY on the steps he seems overly relaxed afterwards to be just standing around... he has to know some of the things going on around him... Did Lovelady button his shirt afterward... it sure appears to be closed in Martin's film and afterward... Has everyone else been eliminated? Molina and some of the others mentioned earlier in the thread whose location was not known... DJ

So the question remains... either the shot was calculated where/when it actually occurs, much closer to the window and probably during the Zapruder cut prior to z133... and/or he is providing angles and trajectories for the ACTUAL shots while placing them in the wrong spots on the Zfilm. NOW... with the 3.15 degrees decline not starting until that far down Elm... why does the road slope matter Chris, when the only angle that mattered was the LOS from the window to JFK's back. At a great enough angle the laser dot would drop 10 inches in the 4.5 feet and even the .9 foot - with a high enough angle... yet that again puts him directly under the window, not down the street at z166. Here is Hickey's reaction as they come out of the turn between z140 and z170, just as little Willis turns as she is running

Using the FBI's WCD298 measurements - this is what the shots looked like and their distances... Sorry, but no way Z166 is at a 26 degree angle to the 6th floor window... when THEIR first shot at around 210-220 shows the angle already steeper than 26 degrees.... and there STILL remains that final shot down by Altgens...

Okay... let me think aloud a minute.... Curious - the vertical ratio 10/12, 5/6, .833 really equates to the horizontal distance? I see the algebra 10/26.4 = 12/X 10X = 26.4 x 12 = 316.8 X = 31.68 feet Can we make a definitive statement Chris? There is no way that whatever line of sight they used at 161 to a spot on JFK's back in the 10" taller recreation vehicle, equates to a spot on JFK's back at 166, which is at most 4.5 feet ahead of 161 and NOT the 31+ feet needed to drop 10" at 3.15 degrees. Are you not forgetting the extreme angle downward from the SE window of the 6th floor where they originated the line of sight? That must be on the order of 70 degrees? So isn't the movement of the red laser dot on JFK's back at 161, 10" too high - going to fall much quicker than the 3.15 degrees of the road? Using your calc app there, I think you used DEGREES for PERCENT CHANGE... A vertical change of .833 of a foot over a horizontal of 4.5 feet is an 18.513 PERCENT change http://www.csgnetwork.com/inclinedeclinegradecalc.html To decline 10 inches over 31.75 feet the PERCENTAGE DECLINE is 2.6236... that calculator does not use degrees - or am I way off here? Be aware that the term grade should not be confused with an angle. The two are very different. For example, a flat surface can be referred to as a 0 percent grade or a 180-degree angle: there is no change in height as the road continues. (In mathematical terms, there is no rise over the run.) A 100 percent grade would be equivalent to a 45-degree angle or, in other words, the rise would be equal to the run. It is also possible to have an infinite percent grade as that is defined as any amount of rise with no run at all. This would be equivalent to the road going straight up at a 90-degree angle. Thus, not a realistic measurement for a roadway. convert slope % to degrees - to do this we take the arctan of the ratio (i.e. for 63% we take the arctan of 0.63) The 18.5% slope equates to an 87 degree angle from the 6th floor to the target... yet CE889 tells us the angle is 26.52. at z166 which has to be impossible. http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0051a.htm The arctan of 2.6236 is 69 degrees... which appears much more like the angle at 166 than 26 degrees... Let me go offline and work thru a few things... But I see what you are saying and where you are going... DJ

WCR apologists remained amazed when each and every time they try and defend a WCR conclusion... and find the evidence proves the opposite in most every case.... PAT has CE399 in DALLAS... when there is ZERO evidence it ever was... why would anyone discussing the case via the facts not introduce supporting data for that assertion... when we all know the chain of evidence for THAT bullet starts at Rowley's desk? He gives credibility to evidence that not only does not deserve it but drastically changes the analysis of the shots and evidence... There is little if ANY evidence that a 6.5mm bullet ever touched JFK or JC that day... but if you have some, please post. Again, Pat does great work... sadly he believes the evidence he is working with is authentic... no matter how hard he tries - and he tries harder than anyone I've seen - he cant turn a pig's ear into a silk purse. JFK was hit at least twice from the front... and there is not a shred of authenticated evidence available once JFK leaves the ER. If the evidence COULD be authenticated, Pat wouldn't need 50 paragraphs per chapter to explain why we ought to believe it from every point of view except the actual process of authentication. Why would he take the word of experts NOT at the scene over experts FROM the scene? This is akin to the Oswald shirt discussion... He changed his clothes at his room... they were found in the bottom drawer... yet Bledsoe and Whaley are commended on their ability to describe the ARREST clothes, right down to the three buttons torn off IN THE THEATER that he had on before he went to the theater. The experts are once again commenting on pieces of a puzzle that NEVER had anything to do with the actual situation... Ebersole ORDERED that pieces of metal be attached to the films when making the xrays the 2nd time around... Identification markers were removed from xrays related to JFK There is repreated and corroborated evidence of tampering with the skull prior to the actual autopsy starting... Yet these xrays - especially the anterior - are used by Pat in order to prove what happened in Dallas... Once again Pat... Not a soul says anything was wrong from the man's ear forward on either side... Now look at the orientation of this xray... there SHOULD be jaw and teeth to the right if the xray was truly lateral... You state the head was tilted back 30-35 degrees for this image... yet I do not think it was the head but the angle of the xray that was taken like that... otherwise we'd see jaw, no? Just as an experiment, I thought what if the lateral was actually posterior? All I am saying is that these bits of evidence are DESIGNED to take us down the wrong path is we believe they are representative of DALLAS... once we drop that notion and listen to the people who were there... a real picture emerges. DJ (btw - I sent this to Mantik who doesn't think this is realistically possible... which is fine. I am simply making the point... we do not know what transpired to get us to these images.

She continued: She said she could see brain and spinal fluid coming out of the wound, but could not tell what type of brain tissue it was; -She said it was her recollection that the right side of the President’s head, and the top of his head, were intact, which is why she had to ask Dr. Perry where the wound was in the first place The effort with which the WC and subsequent investigations went to clarify the Parkland situation is simply staggering {crickets chirping in the distance}

Here's a summary of the responses so far regarding Audrey Bell's presence (or absence) in the room where JFK died: Response #1) Joseph: Miss Bowron is a back of the head witnesses. Response #2) Prudhomme: "Idiot!" Could anyone identify the names of the logical fallacies above? Anyway, please help restore Bell's credibility by addressing the claim that she may have made it all up. Here's a summary of the responses so far regarding Audrey Bell's presence (or absence) in the room where JFK died: Response #1) Joseph: Miss Bowron is a back of the head witnesses. Response #2) Prudhomme: "Idiot!" Could anyone identify the names of the logical fallacies above? Anyway, please help restore Bell's credibility by addressing the claim that she may have made it all up. Will this do Andric? On March 20,1997 Jeremy Gunn and I interviewed Audrey Bell in her home in Vernon, Texas. We interviewed her because the Warren Commission never did, and the HSCA only asked her questions about Governor Connally’s bullet fragments--business that was apparently not concluded--not about President Kennedy’s wounds. The interview was audiotaped, and four drawings called Bell Exhibits 1 through 4 were completed by Audrey Bell. Recollections of President Kennedy’s Wounds: -She did not see the throat wound herself; -Although only in Trauma Room One for 3-5 minutes, she did see the head wound. After asking Dr. Perry “where is the wound,” she said he turned the President’s head slightly to the President’s anatomical left, so that she could see a right rear posterior head wound, which she described as occipital in both her oral remarks, and in her drawings;

Well David... it leads to Stovall bringing the photos to the Paine's on Saturday... along with the negatives and planting them OR the Irving policeman who found them and gave them to Rose/Stovall...as written in one of their reports... I remember reading it, just need to find it again... the testimony does not match the DPD report... for Rose & Stovall... prime DPD suspects with Hill, Sawyer... among others The chain of creation to discovery for those photos would make of legends... we are aware that Robert Oswald was often mistaken for his brother... and it was Robert who produced the camera? hmmmm...

Sorry my friend... how does 31.75 FEET relate to 3.15 DEGREES of grade and why you use 10 INCHES of vertical loss ... Shaneyfelt was referring to the difference in height of the reconstruction car/JFK stand-in and the actual limo... not the elevation of the street.. So rather than put the standin at the correct hieght... we have math. Mr. SPECTER. Was there any difference between the position of President Kennedy's stand-in and the position of President Kennedy on the day of the assassination by virtue of any difference in the automobiles in which each rode? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; because of the difference in the automobiles there was a variation of 10 inches, a vertical distance of 10 inches that had to be considered. The stand-in for President Kennedy was sitting 10 inches higher and. the stand-in for Governor Connally was sitting 10 inches higher than the President and Governor Connally were sitting and we took this into account in our calculations. Mr. SPECTER. Was any allowance then made in the photographing of the first point or rather last point at which the spot was visible on the back of the coat of President Kennedy's stand-in before passing under the oak tree? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there was. After establishing this position, represented by frame 161, where the chalk mark was about to disappear under the tree, we established a point 10 inches below that as the actual point where President Kennedy would have had a chalk mark on his back or where the wound would have been if the car was 10 inches lower. And we rolled the car then sufficiently forward to reestablish the position that the chalk mark would be in at its last clear shot before going under the tree, based on this 10 inches, and this gave us frame 166 of the Zapruder film OK... so they put the limo at z161's ESTABLISHED position and drew a line from the 6th floor window to where he was hit on his BACK... 5.5 inches down from the collar and over to the right... and it disappears from sight ON THE STAND IN, at z161... they moved the spot 10 inches LOWER due to the height of the recreation car and moved the car forward until the same line of sight was established - the LAST SHOT POSSIBLE to hit JFK in the back before disappearing under the tree and called that Z166... which, in turn means a 10 in drop in the road between 161 and 166. I think I got it now... 1) why do you divide 10" into 12" ? 2) at 3 degrees and even 4.5 feet, there is not a 10" drop in the street... you would have to travel MUCH FARTHER. So the .9 feet and 10" drop reveals some math BS.. 3) .833 x 31.75 = 26.44ft. Sorry Chris but this makes no sense to me.. 31.75 FEET - is that the distance needed to drop 10 vertical inches? We are talking about PRIOR to 166.. the missing frames from the WIDE turn onto Elm and the shot hitting the street around 145-150. Are you saying the MATH of z166 is really for a spot 31 feet further down Elm?

Really Bill? Not "William's" or the one from the front steps... I had not put that together... Means there may have been prints on them that could ID people who should not be identified... if one was a paranoid Conspiracy Realist. Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; there was a sack of some chicken bones and a bottle brought into the identification bureau. I think I still have that sack and bottle down there. The chicken bones, I finally threw them away that laid around there. In my talking to the men who were working on that floor, November 25, they stated, one of them stated, he had eaten lunch over there. Mr. McCLOY. Someone other than Oswald? Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; so I discarded it, or disconnected it with being with Oswald. Incidentally, Oswald's fingerprints were not on the bottle. I checked that. Mr. McCLOY. They were not on the bottle? Mr. DAY. No, sir Yet the documentation for such an act as well as the storage of evidence is not available... or even mentioned in Day's reports... Were WILLIAMS' prints on the bottle?

Hey there Chris, good to hear from you again. 1) Why 31.75 feet here Chris? 2) a 10" vertical drop in 5 frames or even 4.5 feet is possible ? The Survey legends that you've worked on and posted shows elevation at z161@425.95 and z166@425.70... that's only .15 of a foot(?) or 1.8 inches. The uncorrected version has 429.25 and 429.20 or .05 of a foot... 3) We know the speeds are impossible from the legend... and was created to hide the distance changes... And while I agree 100% with your math... It means that there had to be a composite done to get Altgens and everything else changed in the background/foreground of Zapruder... I find it hard to fit that kind of alteration into the timeline given the B&W photos we see in LIFE by the 29th... Altgens is NOT where he is supposed to be... same with Brehm and the Newmans... Can you help me understand an alteration scenario that changes Nix, Muchmore and Zap as well as Bronson and all the other photos showing Altgens' location ... thanks ---- Robert, yes - Brehm tells us the limo hardly moves from his shot thru shot 3... Now I have a thought from a project I am working on... assume Oswald the shooter... he has to judge the speed and location the limo is moving to accurately aim... The back shot SHOULD be considered a miss by him (the scope caused shots to go high and to the right... isn't the back wound high and to the right of JFK's heart?) since he prepared for yet another shot. From z225, reload and reacquire to 313... which according to the same legend was 77 feet further down Elm. or 50 feet from 255 when those at the scene state it was no more than 15 feet... To cover 50 feet from 255 to 313 (3.17 seconds) the limo's speed is 11.2. Yet the witnesses state it slowed severely at this point... If a shooter is aiming and leading the limo, and all of a sudden the limo slows when a reasonable person would assume the limo would speed up with nothing but Stemmons ahead... How does a semi-inexperienced shooter make adjustments via a scope, so quickly? (If you have the stable Zfilm version in Quicktime you can run it BACKWARD to see just how much the limo slows... IMO to less than 4mph.. and may be the reason one of the shots hit JC from behind... leading JFK from the WEST windows or WEST side of TSBD and then all of a sudden slowing would put JC right in the line of fire... --- In the end the biggest stumbling block for me is how the film moved the foreground and background 30 feet... David Healy will tell us it was the composite work at Hawkeyeworks... Since I still believe that skills and abilities in the private CIA world far exceeded what was available to the public... and there was a very close relationship between CIA and the movie industry... all that was needed was the old magic trick's misdirection... The earliest SS/FBI reports from Dallas on what is on the film is very generic and low on details FROM the film... but it was seen enough early on to know well in advance what needed to be done... add back that the film was in the process of alteration within hours of the autopsy and there was a direct line from Rowley to the morgue... and you get my drift. DJ

Pat - take a second and put yourself back in 1967... unless you had taken the time and effort to wade thru the evidence or read Lane, Salandria, Meager, Weisberg... you BELIEVED WHAT YOU WERE TOLD... you may not like it, you may think there was something fishy... but you had no idea what the evidence showed... You read a book, do some research and lo and behold, CONSPIRACY. They didn't FAKE IT TO SHOW MORE THAN ONE SHOOTER, they simply could not hide all the real FACTS of the case. You really need to read Lifton's section on the autopsy and the condition of the brain/skull to fully appreciate the extent of the faking of that evidence. You need to more fully understand what transpired between 6:35 and 8pm and why the Navy Brass helped in the charade. Here's a news flash... THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE SHOOTER PAT... there may have been three if not four... in 1963 the evidence was altered and the FAITH OF THE NATION was put in the WC and their conclusion... Specter even tells us that we needed to accept the weight of these men's reputations over the discrepencies in the evidence... Those that told a different story or attempted to tell the truth were attacked and supressed - yet to you this is the act of an innocent government? You honestly believe the autopsy represented the condition of the body at Parkland? That simply boggles the mind... Read Lifton again and tell us why PARKLAND PROS would attempt to put a trach tube into a person in THAT condition... --- It would be really good if you refrained from generalizations. "alterationists" sound too much like "crazy conspiracy theorists" to me... Once you begin to understand the extent of the manipulation of the evidence that occurred in every area on every level... I find it amazing that you can also state that this was not the case with the Zfilm... The one film that the SS did not confiscate - overtly. The one film that is not argued with by the "experts" who claim it clearly shows shots only from behind... The only thing that need happen for my alteration theory to work is Zap filming at 48fps for those 6 to 11 seconds... YOUR analysis places all the shots that hit coming from behind... you even have the impossible bullet falling out the front of JFK's neck inthe face of ALL the evidence to the contrary... so as you can tell, I do not suggest there was only one shooter from behind.... I suggest that there isnot a single piece of evidence in the entire case that you can point to with 100% certainty that it is authentic and representative of the situation.. If you have something that fits that bill - please post here or start a new thread... I have yet to see one that does not support conspiracy... yet you think these photos and xrays which contradict each other let alone tax the bounds of reality - are authentic.... as you say... feel free to believe whatever you like... no matter how it flies in the face of logic and rational thought

Not only the WC but every investigation since.... This is the FBI's primae facia case against a 6th floor shooter from that window, ergo Oswald, yet they are never asked to explain or justify these conclusions. All I'd like to know is HOW they arrived at these shot locations... FBI Inspector Leo Gauthier is named by Hoover as the FBI liason to the WC regarding the models.. CE878, CE879 & CE880 are photos from WCD298 depicting the model... and Gauthier testified for the WCR.... http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/gauthier.htm By focusing the question on the model itself and NOT showing the images depicting the shots... the entire thrust of the model is lost. Mr. SPECTER. And what model reproduction, if any, did you make of the scene of the assassination itself? Mr. GAUTHIER. The data, concerning the scene of the assassination, was developed by the Bureau's Exhibits Section, including myself, at the site on December 2, 3, and 4,. of 1963. From this data we built a three-dimensional exhibit, one-quarter of an inch to the foot. It contained the pertinent details of the site, including street lights, catch basin, concrete structures in the area, including buildings, grades, scale models of the cars that comprised the motorcade, consisting of the police lead car, the Presidential car, the followup car, the Lincoln open car that the Vice President was riding in, and the followup car behind the Vice-Presidential car. This again reinforces the selectivity of the WC lawyers with regards to source materials... WCD298 is buried while 3 photos are used to represent the efforts of the FBI... that they painstakingly produced a model that offered no conclusions within the WCR seems a bit odd.... we only learn the purpose of the model in WCD298's preface... and in the detailed measurements offered within the doc. Sure be nice if someone at the FBI could answer for this... Mr. GAUTHIER: The models were delivered to the Commission's building and installed in the exhibits room on the first floor, on January 20, 1964.

Pat... BRAIN photos from the autopsy... the evidence related to the Brain, like the autopsy, is that neither are authentic... neither are original... and neither has to do with what happened to JFK. So these are the photos you use as supporting evidence? What convinces YOU that the photos showing the brain you are using to describe JFK is indeed JFK's brain? You make the same surprised comments about what we read in the autopsy report... as if THAT accurately describes what happened in Dallas as opposed to what HUMES did to the skull.... Why do you accept so much evidence ...evidence that was created to leave its mark on history and tell a story that BECOMES about a lone shooter high and to the rear... in favor of of it being reflective of the situation.... I just don't get it...

Pat offers the 3d Morph of the BOH images - I wanted to be sure which spot he was talking about... this is a spot well below the acknowledged "hovering hair" portion of the image... Do YOU see a hole?

Touche Robert.... I've read Pat's conclusions... he appears to be defending the medical evidence as authentic and representatvie of the rear hitting shots and the blow out of the frontal bone. It's as if the ARRB never happened. Shot #1.Approximate firing time: Zapruder frame 188. Hit Kennedy in back around 190, fell out in limousine. (Possibly a hand-loaded bullet.) From: the sixth floor window of the TSBD. Shot #1 he suggests may have been what becomes CE399... hitting at z190 (hmmm, just the same as what LIFE says that not a single person at NPIC agrees with... ?? Nor could they understand how LIFE arrived at the frames for the 1st or 2nd shot... (see the CIA450 pages from NPIC). They simply do not agree with the conclusions offered by LIFE in ANY respect.. Does Pat forget that CE399 was never in Dallas? That there is no way to get it TO Dallas? and there is no indications anywhere that CE399 came into contact with anything human until Rowley hands it to Todd? There is NO Z224 (or Z222) in ANY scenario... that makes sense to the NPIC. But Z242 is very high on their list.... here are the Zframes the NPIC and LIFE say shots hit their target.... "Shot or shots #2.Approximate firing time: Zapruder frame 222. Hit Kennedy in hairline at frame 224, exited his throat. Connally wounded in his chest, wrist, and thigh. Wounds seem instantaneous, but it seems likely they were created by separate bullets rapid-fired from a semi-automatic weapon. From: most likely the upper floors or roof of the Dal-Tex Building." So those who have actually viewed the film repeatedly tell us that they see no evidence of a shot between 213 and 242... Are they looking at the same film as we are? Z264?? I am posting the first couple pages of the NPIC evidence below to see that determining which frames had shots was a MATH PROBLEM and not a VISUAL one... As you can see below, the "starred" column from the NPIC has the shot sequence 213-242-312 He has the SECOND SHOT from BEHIND, exiting his throat - when that flies in the face of all reality and testimony from those who actually see the wound. ER professionals who know much less about it than you or I or Pat does... idiots charged with saving people's lives under intense pressure requiring the correct triage and treatment of gunshot victims... Obviously PAT would know better what they saw and thought... From an executive meeting we have the following Rankin exchange with Boggs... maybe PAT or ANDRIC can copy/paste that statement from the autopsy report.... in essence, an AUTOPSY REPORT that was changed or destroyed (as there is no reference to this injury as described in the extant report) suggests a fragment thru the neck yet not a bullet... nor another hole higher up... the repeated HOPE that shots were fired from behind other than the back wound (which O'Connor tells us was removed from the intercostal muscles on the right side of the ribcage)... The SS tells of a bullet ledged behind JFK's ear... which the FBI would also acquire (Belmont to Tolson 11/22 learned about DURING the autopsy).. maybe THAT was the throat bullet... Yet to continue to disregard ANY of the reliable evidence in determining the time and location of the shots... ?? Mr. Rankin: Then there‘s a great range of material in regards to the wound and the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the present time. We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent, since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through. So that how it could turn, and -- Rep. Boggs. I thought I read that bullet just went in a finger's length. Mr. Rankin. That is what they first said Shot #3. Approximate firing time: Zapruder frame 310-311. Hit Kennedy near the temple at frame 313. Bullet fragmented. One piece of its core seems to have continued on to chip the concrete near Tague around 319. From: the sixth floor window of the TSBD First off I MUST say that Pat has done amazing work and willingly shares his thoughts and conclusions for all to see (and attack) I simply disagree with the offered conclusions, as does the vast majority of the authenticated evidence (regardless of WHEN the NPIC pages where created, they represent the work of NPIC pros in trying to analyze the film to find evidence of shots hitting their target. There is no justification for wither NPIC or LIFE to have ignored a shot between 213 and 242... there is NO SHOT at 264, unless the frame numbers are terribly off between what they saw and what we have... and even the photos used for Homer's panels jump from 331 to 380-something... NO ONE except the FBI as I posted elsewhere (WCD298), would deal with anything between 331/2 and the end of the film. I for one would love an answer to how the fragments wind up above and suspended in thin air when there is no bullet hole up there and the reliable witnesses prior to USG intervention all state the injury was to the right rear of the skull... and what all the activity and evidence is from behind that fence... Thanks DJ