David Josephs

What's wonderful is that people like Mr. Lamson will continue to infuriate anyone who thinks and posts rationally.

He's pulled his face and mind so close to the chlorophyll in the leaves of the trees that he's totally forgotten to look at the forest at all.

His imperical evidence is that since there is a hole in the shirt and jacket 4.5 inches down from the collar

and he can prove what amounts to be EXACTLY a 3+" rise in the shirt and jacket based on shadows made out in detail from a poor image to begin with

then the shot MUST have hit JFK 1.5 inches down from the collar.

Never mind what everybody saw, what the autopsy doctors saw, how far Humes stuck his finger in, how Humes described a 45-60 degree downward angle and that he could feel the end of the wound, how it was represented on the autopsy sheets, where the bullet holes were in the jacket and shirt...

JUST NEVER MIND all that.... Like Howard Brennan, Mr. Lamson can magically tell dimensions based on this visual representation.

Building a soapbox on one poorly represented piece of supposed evidence shows how insincere you are about the realities of this case.

How convenient it is for you to dismiss all the other evidence that destroys your suppositions and simply respond with accusations and insults.

Besides... from the way you put it... there should be at least 3 bullet holes in the jacket... 1 and 2 in and out of the horizontal fold and a third at the point it pierces the jacket where it it laying on his shirt.... or did it hit too low to go thru the folds as it shows in Croft and Towner or too high to have been part of the hiked up jacket and shirt...???

And everything you write just proves the ultimate point Craig. You look at these bloody photos in a vacuum...

Yes, thats exactly what I do. Photographic principles cannot be swayed by politics nor bias.

Facts are facts.

Of course the big problem for folks like you is that you DON'T look at the photos in a vacuum. You apply your BELIEFS and bias and you make horrible mistakes because of it (that and the level of photograpic knowlege in is near zero). You simply have no objectivity.

Facts are facts, regardles of who's ox they gore.

Learn to deal with it.

Impeachable fact... there is a 3" blindfold over your eyes and ears...

"I don't do medical"

So, in essence, you cannot tell if the hole in his back, as observed and recorded by Doctors and photographs as illustrated above

is in the place it should be given the 3+" hike in the shirt and jacket? As a photographic analyist these

things are not apparent to you...

That from what may appear to be a fold on the top left of his jacket (and your use of a fine image to illustrate your point so clearly) has a direct bearing on the entrance wound moving from his shoulderblade to his neck, on the right side of his back.

Photographic analysis par excellence CL... keep up the stellar work

And everything you write just proves the ultimate point Craig. You look at these bloody photos in a vacuum...

Yes, thats exactly what I do. Photographic principles cannot be swayed by politics nor bias.

Facts are facts.

Of course the big problem for folks like you is that you DON'T look at the photos in a vacuum. You apply your BELIEFS and bias and you make horrible mistakes because of it (that and the level of photograpic knowlege in is near zero). You simply have no objectivity.

Facts are facts, regardles of who's ox they gore.

Learn to deal with it.

As you say, facts are facts... Learn to deal with it.

Explain your 3+" jacket and shirt ride-up theory as it relates to the bottom photo.

No more of your BS, no more hiding behind folds and shadows and light.

Simply explain how once the jacket and shirt are gone and all that's left is a bullet hole and

the official record of the bullet hole done at the autopsy... compared to this drawing used by the WCR

to illustrate where that hole was.... you can claim the shirt and jacket were bunch up over his head for

all that matters... or you can just ignore the reality of where the shot actually hit, as you've done this whole thread.

If you are indeed correct Craig, why oh why is the actual bullet hole NOT in his neck at all but just to the left of the right shoulder blade. Maybe they could bend his head back a little farther so the hole looks as close to his neck as possible.... and it's STILL NOT IN THE NECK.

The scapula forms the posterior (back) located part of the shoulder girdle. In humans, it is a flat bone, roughly triangular in shape, placed on a posterolateral aspect of the thoracic cage.

Let the Lamson tap dance begin... again.

Wow, nice clear image you got there Craig...

the fact you are pointing to a shadow on his left shoulder should prove to everyone

that his jacket and shirt are up around his ears so a shot to the left of the spatula winds up being thru his neck.

No wonder you don't like to post your image analysis during a discussion...

Is that how you explain this?

Wow, David, ignorance becomes you.

The jacket is folded 3+ inches, and that is unimpeachable. I don't need to explain anything else. It's you who now needs to deal directly with this folded fabric. You can't explain it away. You can't prove it does not exist.

Does it make the SBT possible or impossible? I don't know and I don't care. I don't deal in speculations. I'll leave that for the wingnuts.

Forget the jacket entirely.... the photo clearly shows the wound is nowhere near the neck as depicted in Ryberg...

In fact, the photo shows the wound to be right about where the holes are in the shirt and jacket...

You can tap dance around that all you want...

Bunched up... funny...

maybe the time has come for you to stop holding on to your three and a half inches so tightly

Wow, nice clear image you got there Craig...

the fact you are pointing to a shadow on his left shoulder should prove to everyone

that his jacket and shirt are up around his ears so a shot to the left of the spatula winds up being thru his neck.

No wonder you don't like to post your image analysis during a discussion...

Is that how you explain this?

deleted by poster....

Craig,

How about posting some of the work you've done to illustrate what you are talking about instead of simply throwing insults around?

This took all of 5 minutes and give you a decent idea that the shirt hole and back hole line up pretty well

and the back hole is NO WHERE NEAR the neck.

Even taught my daughter the word "Spatula" which is that bone, right by which the shot hit... NOT up in the neck by any stretch of the imagination.

Now I know you're the "photo expert" and you'll tell me all about how my overlay is not "perfect" - it doesn't intend to be, just an illustration

of the "close enough for government work" it can be ...pun intended

could you post your photographic work here to support what you are claiming?

should be easy to dive into your vast catalog of images to prove your point... no?

Why don't you just try the search function. There are a couple of very long treads where you will find it all.

Why not post that one picture worth those thousand words instead of having us wade thru thread after thread to find what may, or may not be what you are trying to say in your posts on this thread?

You claim Betzner proves it... show us Craig... do you not have these images anymore? I keep an 8Gb flash drive with everything, so in 5 minutes I can post an image that supports my posts, or attempts to refute others. Or I open Photoshop/ImageReady and do a little work to see if what you are saying is even remotely possible.

You not being able to point to a supporting argument or supporting images is not my problem. I don't believe what you are claiming and I posted an image supporting my point... If you can link us, or show us where I/we are so wrong... I'd be more than willing to rethink my position... but you do none of that. I already know you're wrong about this... not my concern to make your case for you.

Laughing, insulting and saying you've already did it, proves nothing.

Show us your work here and now... or are you concerned someone might have an issue with it, call you on it and show where you might be mistaken in your analysis and conclusions? It's not like you being wrong is even remotely possible though

Craig,

How about posting some of the work you've done to illustrate what you are talking about instead of simply throwing insults around?

This took all of 5 minutes and give you a decent idea that the shirt hole and back hole line up pretty well

and the back hole is NO WHERE NEAR the neck.

Even taught my daughter the word "Spatula" which is that bone, right by which the shot hit... NOT up in the neck by any stretch of the imagination.

Now I know you're the "photo expert" and you'll tell me all about how my overlay is not "perfect" - it doesn't intend to be, just an illustration

of the "close enough for government work" it can be ...pun intended

could you post your photographic work here to support what you are claiming?

should be easy to dive into your vast catalog of images to prove your point... no?

Mrs. MOORMAN advises that the photograph she took showing the police motorcycles preceeding President KENNEDY's car and also showing the Texas School Book Depository Building was given by her to Secret Service Agents JOHN JOE HOWLETT and BILL PATTERSON shortly before 4:00 p.m. November 22, 1963. The second photograph taken at the time she heard the shots showed the President slumping sideways in the automobile. She furnished this photograph to Bureau Agents.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1426.htm

Thanks Robin...

Did a look thru Survivor's Guilt hoping to get some clarification about Howlett and Patterson... this is what I found

and it seems Sorrels gets his hands on THE moorman photo... but I have yet to do my digging...

Do we know how and when Moorman gives Sorrels the photo?

And based on this write-up... how do Howlett and Patterson get to Moorman and the photo that disappeared?

Agent John Joe Howlett (Dallas Office agent, stationed at the Trade Mart): Howlett, a Dallas office agent stationed at the Trade Mart on November 22, 1963, merely detailed his Secret Service career in a short but cordial letter to the author dated November 26, 1997. (For the record: V.P. LBJ Detail, October–November 1962; transferred to the Dallas office, February 1963; temporarily as-signed to Chief's office, January 27–31, 1964, February 3–5, 1964, April 14–15, 1964; several temporary assignments at LBJ Ranch, 1963–8; temporary mem-ber of WHD in June/July 1968). Agent Howlett’s job during the Warren Com-mission’s investigation was to see if Oswald could have done in the first few seconds what the Commission claimed he did, involving a couple tests of Howlett carrying the rifle from the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, placing the rifle down, then alternately walking and “fast walking” down the stairway to the second-floor landing and entering the lunchroom where Oswald encountered DPD Officer Marrion Baker. Both tests barely met and possibly slightly exceeded Oswald’s real time, assuming, of course, that he did what the Commission claimed he did in the first place.37 Howlett also testified briefly before the Warren Commission—as Counsel Albert Jenner put it, “… you have been present throughout my examination of Mrs. Paine and my examination of the premises, and you have assisted me … In making measurements and also in recounting the appearance of rooms, front lawn, garage, and otherwise ….”38 By the time of the HSCA hearings, Howlett was working in the Little Rock, Arkansas office.39

Conclusion: Howlett did his job the best that he could.

Agent William H. Patterson (Dallas Office agent, stationed at Love Field): SA Patterson’s November 25, 1963 report contains the following: “During the interview of the subject’s wife [Marina Oswald] she advised that the FBI had contacted her about the location of her husband about 10 days prior to the as-sassination and she told them that her husband worked in the building from which the President was killed [note: as written, this is ridiculous]. She also stated that she had been interviewed in October and gave the same basic in-formation to the FBI. While I was at the police station, I engaged an FBI agent in a conversation and found out that he was on the subversive desk. He stated that Oswald had contacted two known subversive agents about 15 days before the shooting but the entire information was top secret and he could not tell us any more but he felt sure that the file would be turned over to our Chief [Row-ley]. The wife also advised that she had seen the rifle that was used in the shooting at her home about three weeks before the shooting. She advised that she was a Castro supporter and from the interview it was felt that she is still a hard core communist. She stated that he [Oswald] had never mentioned killing the President but would not mention anything about shooting Connally. She stated that she did not know the man that killed her husband [Ruby]. It was felt by the interviewer [Patterson] that she was not telling the truth and still believed in communism.”64 [Emphasis added.] In addition to the fact that Marina barely spoke English and no interpreter is listed as being present in Patterson’s report, Marina has never said that she was a Castro supporter or a hard core commu-nist; exactly what she allegedly was not “telling the truth” about is hard to dis-cern from the agent’s report. The information about Oswald, if true, is startling, in and of itself. The FBI’s early knowledge about Oswald is an undisputable matter of record.

Conclusion: Patterson’s reporting leaves a lot to be desired.

Agent Sorrels was responsible for the Secret Service’s acquisition of the Zapruder film, the Orville Nix film (again, Nix was a friend of Sorrels), the Moorman photo, and the Phil Willis photos—in short, the major photographic evidence in the case.107

DJ

I can't believe that we are still arguing about those silly backyard photos. They are completely reliant on two things: 1.) Marina Oswald and 2.) Blakey's photo panel.

First, how can anyone today take Marina seriously as a witness. Even RIchard Russell, as I pointed out, discounted her back in 1964. But further, in her SS interview she said she never saw a rifle with a scope until after the assassination. (Whitewash 2, p. 16) Add that to the fact that there is no proof Oswald picked up the rifle, plus the fact that the rifle in the TSBD was the wrong model, and on that model Klein's did not mount scopes etc etc! I mean give me a break.

Concerning Blakey's phony panel, which McAdams still buys into, one of the reports that Blakey classified was something called the Eisendrath Fake Photography Report. David Eisendrath was an illustrious and noted photographer for about 40 years. The HSCA panel hired him to prepare a series of tests seeing if Blakey's expert picture panel could properly detect forgery. EIsendrath prepared three altered versions of the BPS. When he got back his test results he was shocked.

Knowing the mock ups he submitted to the experts were phony, the experts each picked the wrong way that they had been falsified. EIsendrath called this a "bombshell", which it was. He even told Mickey Goldsmith to destroy his report. Which thankfully he did not. They just classified it for about 15 years. So McAdams still talks about the HSCA certifying those pictures when, in fact, it is proven the HSCA could not properly detect forgery when they had it in front of them.

I hear you Jim.... BUT

In one sentence you say Marina cannot be taken seriously as a witness

and in the next you state she said she never saw a rifle with a scope.

If she is unreliable, she's unreliable. I had these same discussions with Bill Miller.

Either a witness is discredited or not... if not, then we can't hang our hat on the things she says that are in support of our theories

and not when they aren't.

Bottom line is I agree with you about the Photos... especially the manner in which they were found and how Fritz

refers to them hours before they're even discovered at the Paine garage

DJ

Still one of my favorites Lee...

"The American system is the most ingenious system of control in world history. With a country so rich in natural resources, talent, and labor power the system can afford to distribute just enough to just enough people to limit discontent to a troublesome minority. It is a country so powerful, so big, so pleasing to so many of its citizens that it can afford to give freedom of dissent to the small number who are not pleased. How wise to turn the fear and anger of the majority toward a class of criminals bred - by economic inequity - faster than they can be put away, deflecting attention from the huge thefts of national resources carried out within the law by men in executive offices."

Howard Zinn: A People's History of the United States

David:

I was going to reserve a long answer to your question for my summary of Horne's long series when I reviewed Part 5. But if you read my first two parts I think you will get an idea of what I think the strengths and weaknesses are.

There is a lot of interesting material in the volumes and I have tried to delineate that clearly and will continue to do so. Horne is to be congratulated for that. To use one example, no one has ever put together a better inquiry as to what photographs were taken and which are missing today. To me, the fact that they are missing is now proven almost beyond a shadow of a doubt.

These and other things noted are real and tangible achievements.

But I believe three things create problems: 1.) Undue length which is simply not necessary 2.) the lack of organizational guides which make it hard to locate details 3.) the manifest influence of BE which is obvious throughout.

As I said in Part 2, if Horne had had a real editor I think this would have been a really important book.

About the Douglass book, that was a real pleasure to read and write. If anything, I may have under-rated it. Some people seem to think I did.

Read it and will be reading it again (and probably again..) I also agree with your assessment about needing it to be indexed... Hopefully the time will come when it is scanned/entered into a digital file and offered on CD with the books so we can search more effectively.

Any chance of someone doing a "Cliff notes" type version without coloration? The key factual points, with understandable graphs/charts that can show quickly, for example, the photographic evidence differences among so much else.

If Doug would send me a complimentary copy I could get right on that!

And I MUST get Douglass' book. Reading "Brothers" first should be interesting to follow with UnSpeakable.

To my previous point, you name half dozen books used by Douglass that would be great to read, but who has that kind of time?

Take Care Jim,

DJ

You're going to have to be a bit more specific than that mike...

Why cant it be an entry wound?

And please tell me what a Mercury bullet would do striking the right temple of the man...

The cloud on the xray and the zillions of tiny particle suggest it was not a FMJ bullet...

or am I wrong...

DJ

This is the largest version of the photo I've ever seen... Google is amazing!

Click on it... it's 4234 × 5283.

Also know there's a fine presentation on the subject but I don't have my flash drive with me... and I can't seem to find it on google... okay, not always amazing...

tomorrow

edit: found it - http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=3&topic_id=85804&mesg_id=85804&page=

DJ

http://oswald-framed.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-dartmouth-professors-analysis-of.html

http://www.oswaldsghost.com/Site/Press_Information_files/Oswald%27s%20Backyard%20photo_1.jpg

Oh boy Mike... bringing up the backyard photo as proof he picked up the rifle when we don't even fully know that that photo as authentic... Furthermore, if you look carefully at that photo you'll see the ring that holds the (brain fart.. shoulder sling??) at the top of the rifle, is on the bottom (underside) of the rifle...

If you look at photos of the rifle in evidence, the ring is on the side. I'm not convinced they're the same rifle or even Oswald in the photo... another subject, another disagreement...

DJ

Sounds an awful lot like the "company line" here to me Mike. The AP quote is almost a dead giveaway... I had it from another thread, I think on Lancer but the effect is.. "I thought the shots came from across the street until I found out later they didn't."

The fact that he completely ignores the backward motion of the man is a surprise... but from his angle I do not know what it woudl ahve looked like to him.

Themost telling for me once again is the "sounded like a firecracker" comment. Firecrackers are usually at ground level (same with the motocycle backfire analogy) which to ME suggests a street level shot... ala the GK to the throat.

What is your take on the shot that hits him in the throat... the first shot as he calls it.

DJ

Mr Von Pein, I mean Williams.

What is the evidence that Oswald ever picked up the MC from the post office?

And no one is kidding about the paraffin test. That was used at the time. It was only superseded later.

And evidently you don't know how that the test drove Hoover crazy do you? He did a whole new series and types of tests to discredit it. That whole new series was based on the upcoming technology.

But guess what--it reconfirmed the first result.

So then told his agents to lie to the Commission. (See my Bugliosi series, section on the FBI. I know your bud DVP has read it.)

Again, A pleasure to see you posting here Jim...

Mike and I have had some differences of opinion and I do believe he has areas of expertise... but there are those that he sincerely needs to do quite a lot of reading about, as do I for that matter.

If I could recommend posting the links to your reviews and articles... here let me... http://www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_review.html

and possibly paraphrasing for us...

Reading, digesting, understanding, putting into context and believing the vast amount of information at your fingertips is a monumental undertaking. As I menitoned elsewhere, your review of Horne allowed me to reread other reviews (ie Mantik's) in a whole new light. and it still takes a few reads to "get" it. and I've read ALOT.

To many DVP can make some sense... problem is he also closes doors to understanding or even searching out more and conflicting views on the subject matter. Mike is no dummy, but we all have a style and we sometimes forget that manners and etiquette are all the more important in places like this. He's just now reading Moyer and it took me years to stumble upon that wonderful piece... we're part time sleuths on this case and try really hard to get up to speed on subjects only to find there are 10 million more pages to find and read....

{sigh}

I have not even had the chance to read your Bugliosi review - all nine parts of it, mostly because most every review of that book focuses on his accusatory and derogatory style. Gets tiresome to read about him... and he's just so wrong. Very sad. But I will...

I'd like to respond to your comments

1 - What's the evidence that he didn't pick it up? No one at the PO remembers him picking it up, okay. It should not have stayed at the PO to begin with, okay... but nothing says he really didn't pick it up... or is there? I defer to you on that one

2 - the first result being both hands positive, cheek negative. Guess I'll have to read the review to learn more about the test and Hoover, etc... How possible is it to fire a rifle, get positive results on the hands and none on the cheek with that sort of rifle... that's knowledge I do not have at my fingertips...

Mike and I got off to a bad start but made our way thru it and will hopefully learn a thing or two from each other.

I look forward to your contribution to this forum and hope my little "speech" is recieved in the same respectful manner it was delivered.

Sincerely,

DJ

I thought this was gonna be a real "pit bull fight" and then all of a sudden: detente? WTF?

Disarm with charm...

Without a doubt, the most difficult thing here is to arrive with an open mind and the possibility, however remote, that one is completely wrong - given the information to prove such - and the humility to admit it.

Besides, we were back channelling a brokered peace long before we started the thread... got to keep up appearances, no?

Sounds good to me Pat... and I totally agree.

Just thought it was pretty interesting how his drawing overlaid on the Fox photo lines up so well.

I'd very much like to hear your comments about the differing wound descriptions based on how the scalp and skull lay at the time of viewing. While McClelland's drawing is specific to that one area - do you believe he was excluding damage to the other areas of the head or simply illustrating that one area?

DJ

at 24 seconds into this interview Altgens says "struck in the neck... the first shot"

and later determined by WC the photo (#6) was 2 seconds after the shot was fired...

hmmmm 255 - 36.6 = 218/219

So does Altgens actually see JFK hit in the neck as he prepares to take this photo?

His comment suggests so given how he backtracks about the GK shot later in the interview.

DJ

I believe "blood spatter analysis" to be an "inexact science" because no two spatters would be identical.

Jack

and even more importantly... if the blood splatter she was studying was somehow "altered" as z313-z315 may suggest, it becomes even more inexact. Yet to be fair, I understand there are some basic physical elements to the analysis that do provide reasonable scientific results. I'd rather have Sherry or Mike W address this...

as Yoda might say... "an expert, I am not."

minor point. Chicago was the mail hub at the time (Used to be Kansas City.) . From mail hubs extend mail routes of various sorts, desiganated as such. roads, rail, water, air et.c. . perhaps the rapid delivery itself is not a surpise? I don't know. I'm not an expert on the old USPO.

Hi John

Nor am I an expert and I'm sure there are people old enough to know what USPO deliveries were like in 1963 who may be able to tell us whether a non-air mail letter would arrive in 24 hours. The surprise for me is not the time it took to get there but for it to be also opened and cashed seeing as how Klein's don't ship the rifle until the 20th March. It takes them a day to receive and cash his money and a week to mail his goods. Great service from USPO and poor service from Klein's?

For what it's worth.....

From Bill MacDowall's, "The Great Carcano Swindle" also linked from the same past as Moyer's.

On March 20th 1963, Klein's dispatched a Mannlicher Carcano, apparently bearing the serial no. C2766, to the order of Mr Hidell. whose postal address was P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas.

The case against Lee Harvey Oswald depends entirely upon establishing a solid chain of evidence that links him to the Mannlicher Carcano dispatched by Klein's to the order of A. Hidell and places him (Oswald) on the 6th floor of the TSBD with that weapon at 12.30 PM on November 22nd 1963. It will become clear that no such chain of evidence exists.

Lee Harvey Oswald rented Dallas Post Box 2915 on October 9th 1962 using his own name. Effectively the address A. Hidell, PO Box 2915 never existed. In order to rent a post box, Oswald was required to fill out Form 1093 (Application for Post Office Box). This was a multi-part form. Part 3 of the application form included a section where the applicant could nominate other persons authorized to collect mail from that particular box. Harry D. Holmes, Dallas Postal Inspector, told the WC that:

"Form 1093 includes a place for name of person entitled to receive mail through the box other than the applicant himself."

The ability of Lee Harvey Oswald to collect a package addressed to A. Hidell at Post Box 2915 depends entirely upon A. Hidell being listed as an authorized person in Part 3 of Oswald's application. It should have been an easy matter to verify this by reference to Part 3 of Oswald's application but, as Postal Inspector Harry Holmes told the WC, Part 3 had been destroyed:

"...when the box has been closed, Postal Regulations require that they tear off Part 3 and throw it away."

Box 2915 had been closed by Oswald on May 14th 1963.

Fortunately, Postal Inspector Holmes is not the final authority on Postal Regulations. The Postal Manual, Section 846.53b, states quite unequivocally that "Part 3 of the box rental application, identifying persons other than the applicant authorized to receive mail must be retained for 2 years after the box is closed."

Harry D. Holmes lied about postal procedures and the WC accepted that lie as fact.

A week after the assassination Harry D. Holmes was quoted in a New York Times article where he stated:

"No one other than Oswald was authorized to receive mail at that box".

Holmes could not have made this statement unless he had seen Part 3 of Oswald's application form after the assassination.

Further confirmation that Part 3 of Oswald's application form existed after the assassination and that A. Hidell was not an authorized nominee can be found in the Warren Report (WR).

To refute claims made by writer Thomas G. Buchanan in his book "Who Killed Kennedy?", the FBI produced a document that specifically addressed 32 different allegations made by Buchanan. Published in the WR, this document CE 2585, contained the following:

12. CLAIM: The Post Office in Dallas to which Oswald had the rifle mailed was kept both under his name and that of A. Hidell.

INVESTIGATION: Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an A. Hidell, would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas.

http://1078567.sites.myregisteredsite.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=88324&mesg_id=88324&page=&topic_page=1

Over at Lancer there has been discussion about Moorman being altered to hide the BOH exiting of a shot while some have even tried to show what may be 2 different versions of the photo, pre and post alteration....

The only thing I've found so far is this piece of Moorman's Clay Shaw testimony

Q: Now, Mrs. Moorman, I show you what for purposes of identification I have marked State 52, however prior to showing you this exhibit I would ask you what happened if anything to your photograph after you took it.

A: Immediately after taking this photograph there was a matter of confusion and I did cross the street and a man came up to me and asked me if I --

MR. DYMOND: Object to anything a man may have said.

THE COURT: Don't tell us what anyone told you but you may tell us what you did.

THE WITNESS: I was asked to remove --

MR. DYMOND: I object to what was asked, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It is a good objection. Someone said something to you and what did you do as a result of what the person said to you?

THE WITNESS: I removed the picture out of the camera.

BY MR. ALFORD:

Q: What did you do then with the picture?

MOORMAN

A: I looked at it.

Q: Did this photograph remain in your possession from the time you took it until today?

A: No, it did not.

Q: Whose possession other than yourself has this photograph been?

A: A reporter and the Secret Service and the FBI that I know of.

and they wouldn't let her answer who came up to her or what they said, only what she did.

Has a COE been established for Moorman?

Could it have been altered...

Does it look altered to anyone?

imo - the photo was taken just BEFORE the shot(s) and could not show damage to JFK... based on what Mary says...

She stated in the interview "I took the picture,

heard the shots and then it was time to fall on the ground."

and from her affidavit

As I snapped the picture of President Kennedy, I heard a shot ring out.

Review of Vol II starts off mentioning head reconstruction versus alteration to show the back of the head intact...

Horne/Lifton support reconstruction yet I have to agree with James as that does not seem likely.

I post this since this is the first time I am combining these 2 images.

IF a frontal shot lacerated the scalp as Boswell described

and IF the underlying skull is gone and extends back into the occipital,

it is possible that the scalp was intact enough yet completely flapped over to expose the large hole many saw.

and the other F photos showing the top of JFK's head supports his drawing.

why is it not possible that they are simply pulling this flap back over the hole... not the best autopsy photo ever, for sure... but it seems possible

and could be without alteration or reconstruction. all it is, is misleading

DJ

David, Boswell's ARRB testimony is simply unreliable. One of Horne's great errors, IMO, is to take snippets of Boswell's testimony and twist them to support his theory, when he knew full well that Boswell, if asked point blank "Was there a large defect missing scalp and bone on the back of Kennedy's head at the beginning of the autopsy?" would have told him to get stuffed. I discuss this in chapter 18c at patspeer.com:

"Now the use of Dr. Boswell as a "back of the head" witness is a bit bizarre on its face, seeing as he signed off on the autopsy report in which no scalp lacerations on the back of the head were noted, and seeing as he never ever said anything indicating he'd seen an entrance wound on the front of the head.

But when one looks at his statements to the ARRB it becomes even more bizarre.

Here is one of the key statements used by back-of-the-head wound theorists to sell Boswell as a "back of the head" witness:

A. There was a big wound sort of transverse up like this from left posterior to right anterior. The scalp was separated, but it was folded over, and you could fold the scalp over and almost hide the wound. When you lifted the scalp up, you could really lay it back posteriorally, and there was a lot of bone still attached to the scalp but detached from the remainder of the skull. And I think these parts back here probably reflect that.

And here is Boswell's response to a follow-up question by Jeremy Gunn:

Q. When you say the left posterior, what do you mean?

A. The left occipital area, and that wound extends to the right frontal area. And what I meant was that the wound in the scalp could be closed from side to side so that it didn't appear that there was any scalp actually--scalp missing.

Yep. That's right. Those pushing Boswell as a witness for the wound described by the Parkland witnesses--a gaping EXIT wound of both scalp and skull on the RIGHT back of the head--are using Boswell's recollection of a scalp LACERATION on the LEFT side of the head, (a scalp laceration that could be closed from side to side so that one could not tell any scalp was missing, mind you), as evidence.

Now, even if one were to accept the ridiculous notion that his statements support there was a gaping wound missing both scalp and skull on the right back side of the head, how reliable are Boswell's recollections?

Not remotely, as it turns out.

Hi Pat... Thanks for the reply. I will try to address what I understand as best I can with what knowledge I have and know that your area is the medical evidence so please bear with me.

IMO you are being overly critical of the exact words used in Boswell’s reply above... I am NOT using Boswell as a BOH wound theorist, just going from what I see and what I’ve done.

If we use this image with Boswell’s earliest drawing as an overlay it is not so hard to see that the laceration he describes does indeed extend into the left side of the head. When he refers to “lay in back posterior-ally" I believe he means from about the middle top of the head back and to the right – over the hole that extends from the occipital to the parietal. I think the recollection is not all that far off based on this image.

More from his ARRB deposition with Gunn:

Q. Do you recall whether there were tears or lacerations in the scalp?

A. Right across here and--

Q. Approximately across the midline?

A. What I previously described, post-occipital, and on the left, across the top, and then down to the right frontal area, and then the laceration extended into the right eye.

Q. Okay. Could you make another drawing--and we'll put Line No. 2 on this--to show the approximate direction of the large laceration that you just referred to?

A. Well, it's not a--I can't say what direction, but--and then this came on down like so, and--actually, I think it came right into here.

Q. Okay. I'm going to put a 2 in a circle right next to that line, and the 2 will signify the approximate direction and shape of the large laceration. Would that be fair?

A. Mm-hmm.

Q. Just so I'm clear--and we'll be looking at the photographs in a few minutes, and you can maybe clarify it there. But at least with some of the photographs, is it your testimony that the scalp was pulled in a way different from how it was when you first saw it in order to better illustrate either wound of entry or exit?

A. Yes. The scalp was essentially loose. In the usual autopsy, you have to cut underneath the scalp in order to reflect it. In this case, the scalp was mobile so that you could pull it forward to obscure the wound or pull it back to make the wound completely lucid.

Q. Okay. Was the hair cleaned in any way for purposes of the photographs?

A. No, I don't think so. There was not a lot of blood, as I remember, and I think he had been pretty well cleaned up in the operating--in the emergency room. And I don't think we had to do much in the way of cleansing before we took photographs.

Well, wait right there. Boswell spoke to the ARRB in 1996. When asked the preceding questions by Jeremy Gunn he had not been shown the autopsy photos since 1977, and had not been shown the establishing shots taken at the autopsy--the photos showing Kennedy lying on the table before an inspection of his wounds had begun--since 1967. Clearly, he had forgotten that these first shots show the President's hair to be matted with blood and brain. His response then shows that he lacked a clear recollection of Kennedy's original appearance when interviewed by the ARRB. He was in his seventies, after all, discussing something he'd seen more than 30 years before. So why should we believe his latter-day recollections are accurate?

We shouldn't. The scalp laceration stretching to the left occipital region suddenly recalled by Boswell 33 years after performing the autopsy was not only not mentioned in the autopsy protocol, it was specifically ruled out by Boswell in his 9-16-77 interview with the HSCA pathology panel.

Are we to start believing the autopsy protocol now? I thought that was close to a pure fabrication compared to what was actually found... maybe the FIRST set of notes and the FIRST autopsy protocol... but those were burned, right?

Looking at the Fox photos, he looks pretty clean to me... especially this left side view... hair is pretty clean and even where the scalp is being pulled back into place, it is not overly caked to obscure the hair... but then again I don’t know when/if they cleaned him again after Parkland and what, if anything, happened at Bethesda in the autopsy room between 6:45 and the official start of the autopsy at 8pm.

Furthermore, the way the BOH dents in seems to indicate to me that there was some left rear damage.

When asked about the red spot the HSCA panel presumed to be the bullet entrance, and which Dr. Humes presumed was dried blood, Boswell replied:

"It's the posterior-inferior margin of the lacerated scalp." When one of the HSCA panel, Dr. Petty, expressed doubt about this, Boswell then repeated: "It tore right down to that point. And then we just folded that back and this back and an anterior flap forward and this exposed almost the entire--I guess we did have to dissect a little bit to get to."

If, in Boswell's mind, the scalp laceration ended at the red spot, high on the back of the head on the parietal bone, in 1977, there was no way it could possibly have stretched all the way to the occipital bone 19 years later. It seems clear, then, that Dr. Boswell was seriously confused.

But those pushing Boswell as a back of the head witness will never admit this.

I think the F7 with the overlay above shows it could be stretched to cover the wound... whether he is wrong about where the laceration ends is another issue entirely and once again I think you are not dismissing this piece of his testimony as readily as you’ve dismissed other areas when it does not conform to you conclusions. He can’t be somewhat forgetful in other areas and be held to being “exact” in this one.

Let's take, for example, Doug Horne. Horne had fed Gunn questions during the ARRB's questioning of Boswell. On page 111 of his opus, Inside the ARRB, Horne, who by his own admission had pursued a job with the ARRB in hopes of proving fraud in the medical evidence, quotes Boswell's response after being asked if his 17 by 10 measurement for the large skull defect reflected missing bone or fractured skull. Boswell responded: "Most of that space, the bone was missing. There were a lot of small skull fragments attached to the scalp as it was reflected, but most of that space, the bone was missing, some of which--I think two of which we subsequently retrieved."

Now look what Horne says but four pages later, when discussing Dr. Boswell's approximation of the borders of this defect on a skull model: "The 3-D skull drawing by Boswell was critical, because his autopsy sketch of the top of the skull had by its very nature not shown the condition of the rear of the head. Boswell's 3-D skull diagram completed the rest of the picture. And he wasn't depicting fragmentation or areas of broken bone, he was depicting areas of the skull denuded of bone. It was electrifying."

What? Where does Horne get that Boswell wasn't depicting fragmentation? Boswell had just told him that part of the area depicted was where small fragments attached to the scalp. Why does he ignore this?

Here's why:

Q: Just one last point that I would like to just clarify in my one mind is: On the piece for the markings for the 10 by 17 centimeters that were missing, would it be fair to say that when you first examined the body prior to any arrival of fragments from Dallas, the skull was missing from approximately those dimensions of 10 by 17?

A. Yes.

Problem: the word "approximately" is, in this instance, unduly vague. NONE of the other back of the head witnesses described so much skull missing. Clearly Boswell had no idea how big the hole on the skull was before the scalp was peeled back. Clearly he measured the skull defect after the scalp had been pulled back and skull had fallen to the table. Clearly, the best indicator of the size of the hole on the back of the head, then, would be the x-rays, which depict no large hole on the back of the head where Horne and others presume there was a hole...where the Parkland witnesses told them there was a hole...

I agree that his measurement of the hole in the skull was AFTER the scalp was peeled back – what do you supposed the measurement of the hole was BEFORE the scalp of moved out of the way? Could that not have been what so many saw at Parkland? Some saw a gaping hole, some saw a smaller 2” hole – wouldn’t it depend on how much of the avulsed scalp was moved out of the way or covering the wound?

Personally, I do not see anything so nefarious about the differences in sizes of the hole – and if one looks at all the different hand placements regarding the location of the hole, there are as many top-right as there are back-right.

But, wait, Horne's found a way to undermine the credibility of the x-rays...provided, not surprisingly, by Gunn's questioning of Boswell:

Q. Were any skull fragments put back into place before photographs or before X-rays?

A. I think before we took the--the ones that came from Dallas were never put back in except to try and approximate them to the ones that were present. But I think all the others were left intact.

Q. So, for example, was there a fragment that had fallen out at any point that you then put back into its place before a photograph or X-ray was taken?

A. Yes.

Q. What size fragments and where did you place them at the--

A. Well, the one that's in the diagram on Exhibit 1, that 10-centimeter piece I'm sure was out at one time or another. And I think maybe some of these smaller fragments down at the base of that diagram also were out at one time or another. But those were all put back.

So, from leading the clearly elderly and confused Boswell through a series of strange questions designed to support or refute the body alteration theory of David Lifton, Gunn got Horne the answer he was looking for...that bone was put back in the skull BEFORE x-rays were taken. Never mind that Boswell at first specified that the large pieces of missing bone were not put back in the skull, and only relented after being asked the same question a second time. Never mind that the bone Boswell thinks they are talking about did not arrive until the end of the autopsy, and that NOT ONE witness recalled a skull x-ray being taken after the beginning of the autopsy.

Which autopsy are your referring to here Pat? Wasn’t it Reed who testified to seeing the ambulance pull up and Jackie enter the hospital while he was carrying x-ray film of JFK up for development? There may have not been any xrays AFTER 8pm yet Finck was shown x-rays at 8:30 when he arrived. According to Finck’s Blumberg report Humes calls him around 8pm (although someplace the call time at 7:30) and tells him that x-rays have already been taken. When then does all this moving around of the scalp, relaying of bones and x-rays happen if not in some pre-autopsy process ?

I mean, let's get serious. One can not honestly propose, a la Horne, that Boswell's confused testimony suggests that the 10cm fragment recovered from the floor of the limo was placed back in Kennedy's skull to hide a hole on the back of his head, unless one is willing to propose this bone was occipital bone. And no one of whom I'm aware, even Horne's colleague Dr. Mantik, believes such a thing.

So why play with Boswell's words to suggest such a thing?"

I do not believe I ever made that assertion. It is not so hard to assert, though, that bones were placed back in place to make some of the x-rays we see today and that these x-rays were taken well before 8pm.

I am also a bit confused as to what you have an issue over with my post... maybe just having a slow morning start here and will take more time to reread – but in no way do I see my post conclude what you say I am concluding... then again – as my ex always said – I could be wrong...

Respectfully

DJ

Greetings Jim... and thanks...

Your reviews and articles, essays and analysis has helped me to understand "context" in so many areas.

I've read your Vol 1 & 2 reviews and will read them again... probably today..

What I'd like to better understand in Horne thru your review is the differnce between conclusion coloration caused by Horne's support of Lifton

and what you feel consititutes factual evidence presented without that bias...

I try in most every case to go back to the source documents (Reed's and Robinson's AARB testimony for example) and ascertain

what is evidence and what is conjecture.

As you do with Mantik's work, which is overly factual from direct observation and measurement, I wonder if you could or will review Horne from

the standpoint of what he is truly establishing as factual evidence.... and let us come to our own conclusions

Then again, I could go the the source and read it myself... just haven't the time at this point.

btw - your review of JFK and the Unspeakable was wonderful...

Respectfully

DJ