David Josephs

btw - something many may have not known... One of the subjects in Tim Leary's experiments was Robert Hunter... who joined with Jerry Garcia to become the main lyricist for the band.... ...you aint gonna learn, what you dont wanna know.... ... if you get confused.... listen to the music play... Peace DJ

Ken Kesey and the merry pronksters were NOTHING compared to Augustus "Bear" Owsley Stanley... he dosed more people than maybe even the CIA.... and the Grateful Dead was the soundtrack of that Psychedelic Revolution.... Kesey simply had MONEY from the book and helped finance much of these activities.... and finally... look around... there aint no revolution no more.... the hopes and dreams of the counter culture can now be heard in a 20 second soundbite on your iPod... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/us/15stanley.html?_r=1 In 1963, Mr. Stanley enrolled at the University of California, Berkeley. The next year, he encountered LSD, a transformative experience. “I remember the first time I took acid and walked outside,” he said in the Rolling Stone interview. “The cars were kissing the parking meters.” Mr. Stanley had found his calling, and at the time it was at least quasi-legitimate: LSD was not outlawed in California until 1966. What he needed to do was learn his craft, which he accomplished, as Rolling Stone reported, in three weeks in the university library, poring over chemistry journals. Soon afterward, he left college and a going concern, the Bear Research Group, was born. In 1965, he met Mr. Kesey, and through him the Dead. Enraptured, he became their sound man, early underwriter, principal acolyte, sometime housemate and frequent touring companion. With Bob Thomas, he designed the band’s highly recognizable skull-and-lightning-bolt logo. Mr. Stanley also made many recordings of the Dead in performance, now considered valuable documentary records of the band’s early years. Many have been released commercially.

That's cause he's figured out that the "Sixth Floor Museum" would be a complete oxymoron... Maybe a change to "The Sixth Floor Ripley's Believe It or Not museum of BS the governement wishes was true" Cause you know Ron... Historians write history, and the 6th Floor is about HISTORY... regardless of the accuracy, authentication or reality of what is being presented... DJ

My bad buddy... saw it change to Jarman... thanks... and welcome back to the fray... always enjoyed reading your posts DJ

Wow. Lee, could you give the cite to that info? I can't seem to locate it. In fact, Norman is not even listed in the index of people who testified to the HSCA. You must have him confused with someone else. Hi Barry, There are many interviews by the HSCA that are still not released in full. I'm very interested in seeing the dozens of pages of testimony given to them by William Lowery that is still withheld. I can assure you that Norman was interviewed by investigators of the HSCA, as was James Jarman. In fact, it is James Jarman's HSCA testimony that throws a spanner in the works concerning Bonnie Ray Williams chicken dinner on the sixth floor story. Please read through pages 13 through 17 of the following link that has several pages of Norman's HSCA recorded testimony. Cheers Lee http://digitalcollec.../0/title/Page 1 I stand corrected Lee. This is absolutely dynamite. A fantastic find, thanks! Not trying to be a buzz kill... but the testimony linked to is the WCR testimony...NOT the HSCA of Norman... Is there a llink to his HSCA testimony? DJ

Can't deal with the argument presented so resort to insults and non-sequitor? nice. In Internet slang, a xxxxx is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion While the word xxxxx and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels subjective, with trolling describing intentionally provocative actions and harassment outside of an online context. SOUNDS familiar.. again nice to see you staying with within your limits and abilities When asked what he did, does the man EVER SAY, "I stopped filming the motorcade for a few seconds"? No. In fact he says quite the opposite... Regarding the 10% decrease ... can you at least provide Zavada's tests that prove such a thing? As sadly, my week with the original frames was last month... And no Craig, it is only consistent with SOME of the stop/starts and completely DIFFERENT from the most recent STOP/START at z001... Please post any other STOP/START frames you have and prove what you claim, that the others did not look like z001, and had the 10% decrease in the following frames Didn't they used CAMERA ORIGINAL stock to create the copies... the copies are IDENTICAL to the original... and two of the tree copies do not have 0185 or 0187, just 0183 print thru... Zavada NEVER got the orignal film... he got what was given to him... Alterations and copying occuring well before he had his hands on any "original"... unless you can prove otherwise Repeating the same answer does not make it any more correct Craig... Zapruder does not say he stopped filming... Zapruder DOES SAY he saw, while filming, the turns onto Houston and onto Elm... The film itself is not proof of itself... but nice try. Like saying CE399 was THE bullet because we have THE bullet and it's obvious... Why don't the other two prints have their print copy numbers on them Craig? Yet the one produced between the other two, does.... 0186... If the film was altered and copied onto CAMERA ORIGINAL STOCK... wouldn't the final copied film LOOK original under any analysis?

You do realize there is a HUGE difference between HEARING 3 shots and there actually being more shots fired, right? And I'm not talking silencers which, on rifles in 1963, were r4eally supression devices, not silencing ones... In any case.. 3 teams, all with Collins Radios.. FIRE is spoken into the radio 3 shooters fire at the same time 1 SOUND = 3 SHOTS A FLURRY of shells enter the limo.... THREE shots cannot account for all the damage done in DP in those few seconds.... let alone that one bullet can account for what the autopsy said happened to his head and one more for his back and throat... Why do you suppose Homer McMahon, a photo anlysis EXPERT, would say he saw 6-8 shots from 3 directions... if he didn't? When at the same time the FBI/SS is INSISTING to witnesses and government analysist alike that there was only 3 shots, and there will always only ever be THREE shots..

This is a bit of a surprise...? The SS has an EXTRA COPY OF THE Z FILM - which is plain as day... Zapruder can't have a copy AND the FBI AND Sorrells AND Phillips... Was Zapruder's BEST DAY COPY taken by Max Phillips and then returned to Zapruder? Or was the remaining print that Sorrels has sent? And are they in 8mm or 16mm format at this point... I see notes where both 16mm and 8mm films arew shown on 11/23 thanks DJ

As I see it... Zapruder has an 8mm copy of the film to show on 11/23 in the morning... Sorrells has 2 copies, and Phillips sends a THIRD PRINT to Rowley on 11/22 1) Zap = original and best of three copies (this copy supposedly given to Stolley 11/25) 2&3) Sorrells gets two films 4) Phillips sends one to Rowley Of the two films Sorrels is supposed to have, 0186 winds up with the FBI - via Kelley - 0185 and 0187 stay... Zap keeps one, say 0187 and all that's left is 0185 With only one left in Sorrels possession how can Phillips both leave a copy with Sorrels AND send one to Rowley? http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/organ2.htm On Zapruder's behalf, WFAA contacted the Eastman Kodak Company on Manor Way, who agreed to process his film right away. Kodak employee Phil Chamberlain recalled there was only three reels of camera film available to make first-generation copies. Later that afternoon, Sorrels received two of the copies at Zapruder's office. That evening, one of Sorrels' copies was on its way to Secret Service Chief James Rowley in Washington. Yet not according to Max Phillips a third copy was sent... and Zap has a MASTER, which I guess is the same as an ORIGINAL? According to Zavada, SS copy #1 has no 0185/0187 designation on it, just the 0183 print thru. 0186 was SS copy #2 that was looped by the FBI: Stolley winds up with the original and Zaps copy (0187) So SS#1 has to be 0185... which would have remained in Sorrel's possession -(and gone to Rochester then to NPIC?) 8 pm 16 mm film brought from Kodak in Rochester to McMahon and Hunter at NPIC by "Secret Service Agent Bill Smith." Hunter recalls nothing of "Smith" or "Rochester". McMahon says it was original film, but Hunter recalls working on a copy with no intersprocket images. Hunter says film "not high resolution." Horne, 1222 ff; Bugliosi endnotes, 354; “Murder In Dealey Plaza”, 314-322; Thompson, 2001 Which film does Max send to Rowley ? CD - 87 Folder 1 CO2 34030 11/22 9:55 To: Chief Rowley From: Max D. Phillips Subject: 8mm movie film showing President Kennedy being shot Enclosed is an 8mm movie film taken by Mr. A. Zapruder, 501 Elm St., Dallas Texas (RI8-6071) Mr.. Zapruder was photographing the President at the instant he was shot. According to Mr. Zapruder, the position of the assassin was behind Mr. Zapruder. Note: Disregard personel scenes shown on Mr. Zapruder’s film.. Mr. Zapruder is in custody of the "master" film. Two prints were given to SAIC Sorrels, this date. The third print is forwarded. Max D. Phillips Special Agent - PRS

Just the smallest of wrenches... Now I've been mentioning this passage as evidence against ce399 for a while.. it read very strangely yet... Wasn't Frazier the Ballistics expert and not a blood expert? "Firearms Identification Expert, FBI." Would it have been his call to examine the bullet for blood and residue, or would that have been ... ?? Hey wait, not a single person on the witness lists is an FBI BLOOD/Bodily Fluid expert... isn't that a bit strange in a murder? Questioned document expert, FBI. Polygraph operator, FBI Fingerprint expert, FBI Agent / Inspector, FBI Photography expert, FBI Hair and fiber expert, FBI. who would have been given the role of blood typing the residue on ce399 or any of the evidence if there was any?

Excellent questions Josh... Google "Technical Aspects" by David Healy... while there is some commentary in there, he illustrates very plainly what happens with Zapruders original 16mm WIDE (two opposite sides of 8mm film in a cartridge that is taken out and flipped to record the second 8mm side - when complete we have two 8mm film sequences, on runing down the film, the other running up. The 16mm width is split into the two 8mm films and spliced together to create on long 8mm film - these cartridges are usually 25 feet so when done you have a 50 foot 8mm film. At the time there were 16mm projectors which would show the 16mm pre-slit film... This is what was supposedly shown at Kodak) As I am working on the day to day movements of the MASTER: 0183, the missing 184, and the copies 185, 186, 187 the RECORD shows there was an extra 16mm original and NO 8mm films created on 11/22. If an 8mm film was created at either Jamieson or Kodak, I have not seen the evidence for it... Yet Zapruder was showing an 8mm version in his office to Stolley... As soon as I'm done with the table, I'll start a new thread... DJ

Once again you prove my point perfecty. You don't have to first clue about how any of this works and yet you let your bias and worldview run amuck. Nice selective quoting of zavada btw, as one might expect form you. "First Frame Over-Exposure: The first frame of advance motorcade scene shows an over exposure condition, known as "first-frame-overexposure." In my discussions with M.E. Brown, former Manager of the 16mm and 8mm Department at Eastman Kodak, the condition was undesirable and a development/design problem to be avoided, but a not uncommon occurrence. Mr. Zapruder's camera appears to have been prone to the problem. The Secret Service copies of his family pictures show two other occurrences of first frame over exposure. With my test cameras, I had one, #3, that consistently had a noticeable first frame over exposure by about one-third of a stop. We were not given the opportunity to run a practical test with Zapruder's camera to determine if the first frame artifact was a consistent problem or unique to the assassination film roll." And then lets review what ZAvada told Tink Thompson aobut this: "Livingstone's claim is that the transition between Z-132 and Z-133 shows no such over-exposure and that therefore the camera was not stopped at all. Rather, says Livingstone, a number of frames were simply excised. What does Zavada have to say about this? I called him on the phone and asked. Zavada points out that he was aware of the challenge from Livingstone and did some further research in 2004. His research using Photoshop histograms for luminosity showed there were two examples when the camera was stopped and started which showed significant overexposure on the first frame after restart. These two restart frames showed the characteristic overexposure due either to light leaking into the camera or mechanical inertia at startup. However, other instances of stopping/starting appeared to show no significant overexposure on the first frame after restart. These instances, however, did show a tell-tale 10% decrease in exposure as one moved from the first frame after restart to the second. One instance is the transition from Z-133 to Z-134. Other examples are found in the Zapruder home movie part of the film: (1) the stop/start between a toddler at various zoom angles and a toddler walking in the grass; (2) the stop/start between a toddler outlined against grass and shadow and a young boy standing by a lawn chair. These sequences are reproduced onpages 136 through 138 of Livingstone's book. To the naked eye, both the stop/start between Z132 and Z133 and the other stop/start sequences in the backyard portion of the film show no overexposure. " Thanks for proving me correct...again. So, in essence, Zavada is saying that while it does happen in the Zapruder camera, ie Z001, it doesn't happen at other stop/start locations.... 132/133 being one of them.... You can show that 134 has a 10% decrease in exposure to 133? that would be helpful to see, if that is really the case... and whether or not anything else can explain a change in exposure.... All we really have then is Zapruder's testimony telling us whether he filmed the entire turn or not... does he EVER explain that he didn't want to waste film on motorcycles, or desired not to run out of film so he paused...? Can you offer ANYTHING that suggests Zapruder stopped filming... since his testimony both at in the WCR and at the Shaw trial below is pretty consistently describing a non-stopping situation. He SAYS he filmed the entire time. So yes, while the camera MAY or MAY NOT create the overexposure after a start/stop.. as is plainly evident at z001, you can present no evidence that the camera did indeed stop filming, AND the transition from 132 to 133 ALSO appears as a splice would appear... Doesn't it? This is an actual question... IF the film was spliced and copied, this is EXACTLY what it would look like, no? Q: What did you see as you took your films in Dealey Plaza that day? Explain to the Jury. A: I saw the approaching motorcade of the President coming from Houston Street, turning left on Elm Street and coming down towards the underpass. As they were approaching where I was standing I heard a shot and noticed where the President leaned towards Jackie. Then I heard another shot which hit him right in the head, over here, and his head practically opened up and a lot of blood and many more things came out. We have to take it on faith that it did not occur THIS TIME, even though there is no evidence to support Zap stopping his filming, and we have evidence that the START time prior to 133 exhibited the over exposure to an extreme extent.

Hey there Josh... I have to run right now, but will address your questions and interest shortly... Zapruder never says he stopped filming... Mr. LIEBELER - As you stood there on this abutment with your camera, the motorcade came down Houston Street and turned left on Elm Street, did it not? Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's right. Mr. LIEBELER - And it proceeded then down Elm Street toward the triple underpass; is that correct? Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's correct. I started shooting--when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street.

Thanks Pat... Now shall we see how he addresses my questions to him... Let me also add that I am working on finding 0184... and to show that the evidence offered by Zavada, Max Phillips and the Zap timeline will prove that there was an extra copy available THAT DAY, which I believe was the one sent to NPIC and seen by Homer. Note: Disregard personel (sic) scenes shown on Mr. Zapruder’s film.. Mr. Zapruder is in custody of the "master" film. Two prints were given to SAIC Sorrels, this date. The third print is forwarded. Max D. Phillips Special Agent - PRS According to Zavada... 2 prints go to Sorrels, a print and MASTER (original?) stay with Zapruder - we know this as Zap shows a COPY of the film on 11/23 at 9am at his office Stolley leaves with 0183... Zapruder keeps his copy...(0185?) the SS has their two... (0186 is given to the FBI who make copies, & 0187) We also know that Zap shows Sorrels HIS COPY on 11/24 whle a 16mm version shows up - possibly that night - and is given to McMahon by agent SMITH from Rochester (0184?) Which 16mm wide, double 8mm print is forwarded by Phillips? and which Double 8mm, 16mm wide "original" is given to NPIC that weekend? (btw - shout out to Healy for his great paper on the Technical Aspects of developing, altering and creating copies)

As we both know, there is indeed a BREAK from Z340-342, just as Altgens comes into the picture 340-313 = 27 this is 340-341-342... Craig, how does 341 have an UPPER IS IMAGE when 342 does not, given how you created the filmstrip in your post... shouldn't the bottom of 341 be identical to the TOP of 342? like you are saying the bottom of 132 is the same as the top of 133.... (EDIT: never mind... I see how the IS image under the sprocket hole creates the IS image on lower 341... my mistake. yet there still is a break in the film here... and was replaced with images from a different film without the sprocket images.... I was wrong at this IS image, Craig... ) that has never been given an explanation.... and yes, Chris and I have discussed this in other threads and directly... I had offered a post that suggested if the majority of frames were removed PRIOR to 133, in and around 156, 208 and 341 the number of frames to reduce a 24fps film to an 18 fps film, there would not be that much noticed in the final film.. This is why Towner was spliced and why there is so much mystery in the films related to THAT turn onto Elm... Is there any single piece of evidence that supports this statement? Mr. TRULY. That is right. And the President's car following close behind came along at an average speed of 10 or 15 miles an hour. It wasn't that much, because they were getting ready to turn. And the driver of the Presidential car swung out too far to the right, and he came almost within an inch of running into this little abutment here, between Elm and the Parkway. And he slowed down perceptibly and pulled back to the left to get over into the middle lane of the parkway. Not being familiar with the street, he came too far out this way when he made his turn. Mr. BELIN. He came too far to the north before he made his curve, and as he curved--as he made his left turn from Houston onto the street leading to the expressway, he almost hit this north curb? Mr. TRULY. That is right. Just before he got to it, he had to almost stop, to pull over to the left. If he had maintained his speed, he would probably have hit this little section here. Mr. BELIN. All right. A question then... If an altered version of the film is created, with mutliple sections spliced together as we've seen at: 001-132, 133-156, 158-207, 212-340, 342-486 and then a copy is made onto Camera stock instead of print stock... Wouldn't the final product look just like the extant Zfilm... and be on the same media as the original?

And as is Obvious... there is no STOP-START occuring at Z133.. per the evaluation of the camera by Zavada who states: (I paraphrase)- "First Frame overexposure can be seen within the personal sections of the film and ONCE at the beginning of the motorcade Z001." There are no characteristics of Z133 that indicate a START frame... yet on Z132 the lower IS area is the UPPER IS area of Z133... the only way this occurs without STOP-START is to splice out what used to be Z133 - "Unknown Frame" so that "Unknown Frame" becomes Z133 and shows the limo. If he had stopped the camera, Z133 would not look like that. At the time Z132 is exposed and z133 UPPER IS becomes the lower IS area... Z133 would NOT have included the motorcade. Are you claiming that when Z stops the camera it stops exactly on frame 132, centered and perfect... and then starts again with no noticeable change in the appearance of the film whatsoever... and THIS supports a STOP-START scenario? According to Z, he did not stop filming... prove otherwise please.

Then maybe you can explain how Z133's IS image makes it onto Z132's lower sprocket area, with no start-up anomilies as we see in 001, if Z stopped the film and started up again between 132 and 133? The motorcade cars and lack of start-up coloration suggests that frames were removed between 132 and 133... as does Zapruder... he does not eve mention stopping his camera and starting again.... Unless YOU have that evidence to share... Mr. LIEBELER - As you stood there on this abutment with your camera, the motorcade came down Houston Street and turned left on Elm Street, did it not? Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's right. Mr. LIEBELER - And it proceeded then down Elm Street toward the triple underpass; is that correct? Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's correct. I started shooting--when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street.

If I understand correctly the BOTTOM sprocket image comes the from the VERY NEXT FRAME in the film... which has been the argument AGAINST alteration... there would be breaks in this sprocket image that do not match the altered frames.... so, If Zapruder stopped his camera at Z132... the sprocket image at the bottom whould be virtually identical to z131 (which shows a portion of 132)... that is no cars, just the lone motorcycle and street... Since the camera stops at z132, and the bottom sprocket image comes from the very next frame... there should be no possible way that an image of the motorcade's cars would be in the sprocket area since the cars do not arrive for a few more seconds... turns the corner and Z supposeldy starts filming again. If the Zfilm continued thru 132 to say 140 before stopping, and we spliced the film at 132, there would still not be any cars in the sprocket area since z133 would have been virtually identical to z132. So WHY, if Z starts the film again at 133, are there cars in the lower Sprocket area of frame z132, from what SHOULD have been the very next frame, the original z133? Doesn't this mean that the film ran continuously thru the Elm turn and when spliced at z132/z133, we now see in z132 what would have been on the VERY NEXT FRAME AFTER THE SPLICE... that is the cars from the motorcade that could not have been on the original z132, since it had not arrived yet? I spliced the bottom of 132 into the frame of 133... the bottom sprocket image DEFINITELY comes from the NEWLY NUMBERED frame 133... which would have been 2-3 seconds - 30-40 frames after z132 (approx z170 if the film did not stop running) Doesn't this image of the cars on the motorcade in z132 lower sprocket area - from what would have been 30 or so frames LATER - prove the film was refilmed once the frames between 132 and 133 were removed?

First, as far as I am concerned, I am not focused on surgery of the head area. It is not what my models or this thread is about for me. The damage to the head is not relevant to my focus at the moment. However I agree that it is a very important statement. Second, I do not dismiss the statement about the back wound below the shoulder. Because I now wonder whether the damage to T1 was a result of the back wound, and my reasons highlighted above I believe are very valid, that does not mean I disrespect other evidence in the case. It appears to me that the damage to T1 could not be created from within the neck and if it were attempted serious damage would be done to major arteries in the area. If the damage cannot be created from within the neck, the only option left is that the damage had to be created from outside the body: e.g. from the back. I do not see, why saying that is disrespect. James. I realize that Lipsey's testimony does not confirm a lower neck wound in addition to the back and head wounds... yet Robinson also says in the ARRB that he sees them insert an 18" probe into the LOWER NECK WOUND in the back and sees it come out the troat wound.... This opens up the possibilities for a front to back thru-and-thru shot; a back to front thru and thru shot; or a low neck shot from the rear that creates a fragment that exists the throat area. You've shown, at least to my eyes, that T1>pleural>Trach3 is not possible... let alone a T3>pleural>Trach3 path.... and finally, since the first time we know about the pleural cavity wound is at Bethesda... it has to be taken with some if not a whole bunch of reservation... Humes is simply not to be trusted based soley on his autopsy related behavior... the option you do not like to include is the explanation for JFK being at Bethesda at 6:40, the SS/FBI bringing in JFK at 7:17, and the MDW officially bringing him in at 8pm... When you reconcile these three events, maybe you will feel less likely to trust ANYTHING that is offered as medical evidence.. DJ

Although I missed a portion of this discussion yesterday, I would like to add a few of my thoughts to what has been stated. David, your quote above contains a very logical question, namely why would the assassins use a paralytic. Cliff has given a reply that is just as logical and that I would reinforce. What if the first shot misses or fails to incapacitate? A combat veteran would very quickly "hit the deck" and quite possibly escape with no mortal damage. From the floor of the back seat, JFK would certainly have helped Greer in his decision making process and encouraged him to step on the gas pedal. And we know from witness testimony that some shots did miss. Some witnesses reported shots hitting the pavement near the Limo or landing in the grass on the South side of Elm. James Tague was very likely wounded by concrete kicked up by a bullet that went a bit high. John Connally was hit by a bullet that was intended for JFK (unless you believe in the SBT). So the evidence itself supports the argument for the use of a paralytic that would provide an immobilized upright target. Numerous witnesses reported the sound of the first shot to be different than the sounds of the final shots. Very supportive of a different weapon firing a different type of ammo. Regarding the Medical testimony: The Parkland witnesses were the only ones to see the unaltered throat wound. They described it as an entry wound. Humes testimony is very problematic for me. We literally have to pick and choose what to give weight to and what to be suspicious of. I am not certain I am correctly grasping the arguments made, but it sounds like you are saying that the strap muscle damage Humes noticed was actually a surgical cut made by Perry? Certainly Humes would be able to distinguish the difference between damage from a missile as opposed to a surgically cut muscle. Correct me if this is not what you meant. Thanks for adding to the conversation Richard.... I submit that the FIRST SHOT SOUNDS were assumed to be motorcycle backfies and/or firecrackers AT GROUND LEVEL...( some say thrown from windows yet the SOUND is always desribed AT STREET LEVEL) and were COMPLETELY IGNORED by the SS as SHOTS.... There is not Altgens z255 reactions seen by any one on the SS agents on JFK's backup car. Again, these shot sounds were heard by MANY just after the turn at the corner of Elm - no SS reaction Z190... no SS reaction to yet another sound like a gunshot... Z255 - SS agents turn around.. and still no protective response from a single SS agent save the VP's follow-up car I submit that at any point along the way... until z313, The SS, Jackie and/or JFK himself could have gotten him out of the line of fire.... and even a pre-killshot dart would not guarantee he wouldn't be protected. Are you saying that the chances of JFK receiving protection was BETTER with a pre-killshot "dart" of some sort, or a shot of any kind that may be noticed and cause a reposnse by his protection than simply waiting for the killzone, which most the shooters did do, and take him out. I think the chances of exposure are MUCH greater with pre-killshot shooting, that with just kill shots... Yet my point was that the shooters had to be reasonable sure that noone would protect JFK down thru the kill zone of western Elm street prior to the overpass. How could that be guaranteed? Maybe ask Emory Roberts, Floyd Boring, Kellerman and Greer.... Either they were under the impression this was a TEST... (can you say Vigilant Guardian?) and they KNEW there would be a test and they simply didn't react cause they believed there would be no danger. Which in turn would allow the experimentation with an ice dart of toxin... It would make little sense to try and get all these SS agents to stand down unless there was some external reason like an acknowledged "drill"... IMO... need to talk to Palamara about this.... If it was not a test, a drill, then there has to be some real consideration for complicit behavior on the part of key Agents - minutia notwithstanding... RE: Parkland, Humes and the srtap muscles.... Yes, Humes knew the difference, I also believe he was part of the cover-up, and helped hide the wounds. That he would attribute wounds to the strap muscles to support the SBT is no real surprise. More soon thanks DJ

Okay James... "seperate" does not necessarily have to = "to surgicaly cut" - you can DIVIDE muscles from each other without cutting them.. one would SEPERATE them by moving them aside... When one SEVERS something, one CUTS it... there is no other definition. Other than a scapel... which Perry has in his hands as he is doing the tracheotomy... which INSTRUMENT would he need to divide the strap muscles Dr. PERRY - All right. Well, to regress, then, at the time I began the tracheotomy, I made an incision right through the wound which was present in the neck in order to gain complete control of any injury in the underlying trachea. I made a transverse incision right through this wound and carried it down to the superficial fascia, to expose the strap muscles overlying the thyroid and the trachea. There was an injury to the right lateral aspect of the trachea at the level of the external wound. The trachea was deviated slightly to the left and it was necessary to divide the strap muscles on the left side in order to gain access to the trachea. At this point, I recall, Dr. Jones right on my left was placing a catheter into a vein in the-left arm because he handed me a necessary instrument which I needed in the performance of the procedure. The wound in the trachea was then enlarged to admit a cuffed tracheotomy tube to support respiration. I noted that there was free air and blood in the superior right mediastinum. Although I saw no injury to the lung or to the pleural space, the presence of this free blood and air in this area could be indicative of a wound of the right hemithorax, and I asked that someone put a right chest tube in for seal drainage Dr. PERRY - Yes. Once the transverse incision through the skin and subcutaneous tissues was made, it was necessary to separate the strap muscles covering the anterior muscles of the windpipe and thyroid. (In other words, since the trach was moved to the left and the LEFT MUSCLES covered the trach, he needed to divide them... MOVE THEM APART - he has a scapel in his hand James... he would not need a NECESSARY INSTRUMENT if all he was to do was CUT. He goes on to say ANOTHER CONDITION kept him from reaching the trachea... the MUSCLES ON THE OTHER SIDE... so he severed them as opposed to dividing the ones on the LEFT) At that point the trachea was noted to be deviated slightly to the left and I found it necessary to sever the exterior strap muscles on the other side to reach the trachea. James.. not that it matter so much at this point.. I can see you POV - be better to get some clarification right from Perry if possible. Yet I think you can also appreciate my POV on this as well... I also do not see how the back wound is so low as to be T3... Didn't Burkley say T1... or did he say T3? I can't remember. DJ

Cliff... Help us understand the T3 conclusion... for as I can tell it appears more like T1... T3 is pretty low on the back Cliff.. I added a few degrees tilt for Elm.... http://www.stockmedi...omy-curves.html And in this illustration it also seems T3 is well too low... the hole is ABOVE the notch in the scapula... it seems to me that T3 is much closer to that horizontal notch i the scapula the bblood mark down and to the left of THE hole seems closer to T3 than the actual hole...

"Divide" can just as easily mean "move aside" SEVER means to cut... he SEVERED the strap muscles on the OTHER side. So we have the "Divide" ambiguity and the "OTHER SIDE" ambiguity... yes? I am not distorting anything James... you are making assumptions about the meaning of words.... "divide" need not mean cut, while "sever" cannot mean anything else. And HUMES does contracdict the evidence... I posted his response to the question earlier... he specifically states that the wounds and bruises to the strap muscles on the right side were NOT DONE at Parkland as they had to have been done while he was alive... Talk about distorting the record James... Humes states that the muscle damaged occurred during the shooting and not from what Perry did. Pretty plain and simple to me... Why are we disagreeing about this? Commander HUMES - Yes; in essence we have. When examining the wounds in the base of the President's neck anteriorly, the region of the tracheotomy performed at Parkland Hospital, we noted and we noted in our record, some contusion and bruising of the muscles of the neck of the President. We noted that at the time of the postmortem examination. Now, we also made note of the types of wounds which I mentioned to you before in this testimony on the chest which were going to be used by the doctors there to place chest tubes. They also made other wounds. one on the left arm, and a wound on the ankle of the President with the idea of administering intravenous. blood and other fluids in hope of replacing the blood which the President had lost from his extensive wounds. Those wounds showed no evidence of bruising or contusion or physical violence, which made us reach the conclusion that they were performed during the agonal moments of the late president, and when the circulation was, in essence, very seriously embarrassed, if not nonfunctional. So that these wounds, the wound of the chest and the wound of the arm and of the ankle were performed about the same time as the tracheotomy wound because only a very few moments of time elapsed when all this was going on. So, therefore, we reached the conclusion that the damage to these muscles on the anterior neck just below this wound were received at approximately the same time that the wound here on the top of the pleural cavity was, while the President still lived and while his heart and lungs were operating in such a fashion to permit him to have a bruise in the vicinity, because that he did have in these strap muscles in the neck, but he didn't have in the areas of the other incisions that were made at Parkland Hospital. So we feel that, had this missile not made its path in that fashion, the wound made by Doctor Perry in the neck would not have been able to produce, wouldn't have been able to produce, these contusions of the musculature of the neck.

Perry tells us the strap muscle(s) on the right were cut by him... Dr. PERRY - Yes. Once the transverse incision through the skin and subcutaneous tissues was made, it was necessary to separate the strap muscles covering the anterior muscles of the windpipe and thyroid. At that point the trachea was noted to be deviated slightly to the left and I found it necessary to sever the exterior strap muscles on the other side to reach the trachea. Humes directly contradicts this testimony.... as I posted earlier... and claims these wounds occurred at the time of the shot... and we're supposed to believe HUMES as if he was a qualified forensic pathologist.... "Stuck in his thumb, pulled out a plum and said, Where da bullet go?" DJ

If the object was to kill him... and there are clear shots available enough to place a tiny "whatever" in his throat... Why not just take the kill shots first and forego the PRE shooting .... the theory falls down unless "they" know that no one is going to be throwing themselves over JFK, pulling him down, or simply speeding away after hearing these "shots" So once again, if the SS driver is slowing the vehicle to allow kill shots... any PRE shooting SHOULD alarm the SS and others into action... That there was no action taken other than to turn and loate shot origins AGAINST their SOP... (protect the POTUS) There are numeous ground level sounds that suggested shots fired WELL BEFORE z313... The SS and DPD ignoring these sounds and reacting as they did HAD to be known ahead of time IF paralyzing shots were to be used. IMO... Unless Richard or Cliff can explain that thinking to me... Here are all the frames on which NPIC/LIFE says shots occur... what we do know is that NPIC could not understand how the 1st and 2nd shots were identified to a specific frame OTHER than counting backward... and NOT looking at THESE frames.... do you see shots in any of these frames?