Frank Agbat

Well, I'll enter the fray (probably against my better judgement)... Getting back to the original questions for a moment: Perhaps my statement of confusion never actually got around to answering the root question that Pat is asking in this thread. Bottom line -- do I see something at Jack White's #7 position? Yes, I do see something. However, I don't know what it is that I am seeing, nor have I completely come to grips with the orientation of the photo on my own. I'm also not convinced that all of the photos were taken before or during the autopsy. I think there is a reasonable chance that some were taken during the work by the funeral people (Gawler's ?). I base this uncertainty on what has been written in "In the Eye of History", especially comments by agent Sibert.

I'm going to throw a few non-political facts into the fray here, for whatever they are worth. 1 -- Hotmail, the system about which you are speaking, is based on Microsoft Exchange. The message you are receiving is a normal and expected part of using a Microsoft e-mail server. It merely means that the message has entered the "to be sent" queue, but has not successfully been delivered to the recipient within a certain period of time (configured by an admin). The system will continue to retry sending until a second threshold is met (a timeout), at which a time the message will be flagged as undeliverable and you will be notified. This message, although poorly (even ominously) worded, is common and harmless in any Microsoft system. (Note: it is common in computers to use the term 'warning' and 'error'. An error is a problem - a showstopper. A warning is an alert to a possible problem, but not necessarily a showstopper). 2 -- Any number of things can cause this message to crop up. The most common are: a) The remote server is unreachable (the e-mail server that houses your recipient's mailbox) The recipient's mailbox is full c) DNS is messed up and your e-mail server cannot resolve the name of the recipient's e-mail server d) A network connection could be down or full (preventing no or little throughput) e) There may be a problem with one of hotmail's servers f) one or more of the target servers could be very busy and unable to service requests g) Routing problems somewhere on the internet h) DOS attack, etc, etc, affecting the target, or any midpoint system. 3 -- There is a great likelihood that the problems you are experiencing are *not* sinister in nature. ------------- That said, some technical notes on e-mail: 1 -- E-mail is one of the most NON-SECURE systems out there. It is getting better, slowly, but the legacy protocols are still in abundance and are not secure by any sense of the word. 2 -- Traditional e-mail crosses the wire "in the clear." This means that the headers (information used by intermediary systems to deliver the mail) are not encrypted and easily read. Furthermore, the body of the message is also in the clear (again, not encrypted). So, if you are using a traditional POP3/SMTP e-mail system (POP3 = "post office protocol v. 3" SMTP = Simple Mail Transport Protocol"), your messages are about as insecure as can be. EVEN YOUR E-MAIL PASSWORD is in the clear with these older protocols. 3 -- Intercepting and reading non-encrypted e-mail is not the least bit difficult (first or second year networking students learn various ways that this can be accomplished). If an intelligence agency wanted to read your e-mail, they could. 4 -- Detecting interception of non-encrypted e-mails is a tricky business, and often nearly impossible unless alternate techniques to provoke action (and exposure) from the interceptor is done. 5 -- It is possible to encrypt the body of the e-mail while maintaining compatibility with older protocols using something like PGP. The only effect this truly has is to delay someone who might wish to read your mail, as key handling by such protocols can be problematic. 6 -- You can connect to a service (like Hotmail, incidentally) that uses SSL (https) to encrypt the session. This will defeat simple packet sniffing at the outgoing ISP level, but is not secure if the message is delivered to a legacy-based e-mail recipient (in other words, the link to hotmail is secure, but the link from hotmail to the recipient probably isn't). -------------- At the end of the day, so to speak, the fact is that if an intel agency wanted to read your e-mail, they could and you'd probably never know it. I find it highly unlikely that this standard Microsoft warning message -- one that I have received numerous times from servers that I own and operate -- is being used by an intel agency or a 'government authority' to send someone a veiled warning message.

Bill, An excellent overlay -- thank you. Another plausible explanation for the increased south-side movement is that the majority of the people there have already seen the "main event" (the President's car passing by), and are beginning to leave/return to work/move to a better point of view/etc. Those on the north side, on the other hand, are focused on the "main event" so to speak. I do not believe that the north side spectators are motionless. That is clear from watching the film -- head swivels and hand motion (clapping) is visible.

John, Interesting post as always. However, to be fair, if I understood Jack's statement correctly, there was little/no movement on the NORTH side of the street. If you note the people on the north side (the same side as the Stemmons sign), they *are* mostly grey in your image. The motion is more noticeable on the south side.

Pat, I think that the key to this picture is orientation. In reading your article and doing some independent research on the topic, I believe that it is common practice to reflect the scalp by making an ear-to-ear cut. The anterior scalp is then reflected forward, and the posterior scalp is reflected rearward. If I am reading the picture the right way, the reflection cut runs top to bottom on this picture (slightly right-to left as it runs down the picture). If this placement of the reflected scalp is true, that would lead to two possible orientations of this picture: 1 -- front of head is left, rear of head is on the right 2 -- rear of head is right, front of head is left. If orientation #2 is correct, then I'm confused. If the rear portion of the head is on the right hand side of this picture, then we are looking at a LEFT rear wound -- which no evidence seems to support. If orientation #1 is correct, then I'm confused. If the front of the head is on the right, then there seems to be an indication of massive forehead (and probably facial) damage, another conclusion that does not seem to be supported by witness testimony. Of course, there is the possibility that we're looking at a very non-standard front-to-back scalp reflection, which would put this massive wound on the right side of the skull. OR... we could be looking at a flipped image... I guess I'm still in the somewhat confused category.

Tim C. Great picture -- thank you! Boy -- not kidding about a straight-on shot -- and with the speed of the motorcade, a shooter from here would have his target in the scope for quite a while. This would be aided, unwittingly, by the slowing of the motorcade. The only questions I have about this trajectory relate to angles. 1) JFK was slumping to his left after the first shot to hit him. This would be to the shooter's right. Jackie leaned over, as the z-frames increase. I view her actions as "he's having trouble breathing -- step one, loosen this darn necktie. Would she have blocked this angle? 2) Would the headshot be able to clear the front passengers, visors, and the front windshield from here? 3) I would think fragments from this shot would end up on the car trunk, the road behind, even off into the crowd and not in the front seat area. Does that discourage this angle from consideration?

Hi Ron, I wish that I had a dollar for every time I went to sleep trying to will my subconscious to "sort all this out while I'm sleeping." (I should mention that I usually wind down with an hour or two of reading before sleeping -- and the usual subject is JFK). Well, it hasn't happened yet, but I always hold out hope! That said -- it is my belief that during the hours of sleep, the brain runs through various "processes". It sorts, stores, processes, categorizes information, commits things to memory, discards others, etc, etc. While it is processing, sometimes it enlists the "help" of some "additional resources" -- specifically in the form of brain areas usually used by the conscious mind. These end up as what we perceive as dreams. (This explains why things are often disjointed, out of sync, etc...) Just my theory... Nevertheless, while I'm not sure dreams themselves may necessarily reveal any information (nor am I certain they will not), but the process that leads to them (data processing) might.

Great Post, Duke (and thank you, Bernice, for the witness quotes). One thing to remember when considering the motorcade is an event I see happen in traffic all the time. I call it the "slinky" effect (for lack of a better description). Take a long line of cars following one another head to tail. If the lead cars slow, the slowing spreads backwards through the line of cars. This causes the entire lane of traffic to close in, not unlike a slinky that is stretched and released. Interestingly, even if the cars at the front never stop, the cars in the middle/end of the lane may be forced to stop. This action is often the genesis of rush hour traffic jams and 'rear-end accidents'. While I realise fully that this is conjecture, it is possible that a slowing action on the part of the front cars (limo, et al) could explain a slowing or stopping action of the follow-up cars.

Ron, It's only a notion I'm tossing up, but what if Moorman was put on the grass because when she was on the street, something incriminating was visible? Pure speculation but I can't resist rhetorical questions. I nominate your post for "post of the year". Frankly, I hadn't realised Mary Moorman was such a babe. I knew this thread would be educational. I agree with your thoughts about certain aspects of the case. I think the film(s) were probably altered but it just reinforces what I already know ie. there was a conspiracy afoot. And on the issue of time to read all the material available, I unequivocally agree. Bernice, thanks for the post. Very informative (Glen Bennett's testimony is strange (#21)). Robin, great photos and posts (as always). Interesting debate from all contributors and to all a happy new year and best wishes for 06. In two thousand and six, Let's nail those ######. What an optimist. The most immediately obvious reason I can think of to move Moorman from the street to the grass would be to conceal a furrow or turf kicked up from an errant shot. Of course, that said, if they had the capability to move a person from street to grass, why not just edit the grass? Alternatively, working along the theory put forth by Ron, they might have agreed on the 'babe factor' and moved her for a better view. Of course, the possibility exists that the Moorman still photo presented here was altered to *increase* the 'babe factor', thus distracting generations of researchers. Happy New Year! Frank

Jack, It was always my impression that Zapruder climbed off the pedestal nearly immediately after completing his film. Wiegman, I thought, caught the pedestal later -- after A.Z. had climbed off. I also reviewed the Nix film -- seems to show A.Z. filming exactly as expected. Is your contention that Abraham Zapruder was *not* the one who shot the film? Also -- I was under the impression that the Badgeman image was the byproduct of some *extensive* photographic enhancement. Have these techniques ever been applied to the Zapruder pedestal area?

Interesting reading about the sprocket-hole area on the z-film, the mechanism of the camera, the "ghost images" and how they impact claims of alteration: http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh/zapruder.htm

Interesting article! One quick point, and a question: 1) You mention 69 people came to work: 36 women, 23 men. This adds to 59, not 69. Also, in a sentence later, you refer to "twenty four" men. Your later math points toward 24 men, not 23... (9 outside, 15 inside). 2) The power-outage you mentioned appears as cited in the WC report. Has this been investigated to any depth? I find this to be another one of those convenient coincidences that seem to pop up all the time when studying this case. A power outage would have not taken out all the phones, but it would have shut down PBX-based phones, elevators, lights, etc.

Pat, I find myself a bit in the same situation as John. Before I can make intelligent comments, I have more to learn. Any lack of response on my part is certainly not from lack of interest! I downloaded the pdf files from your link, and am working my way through them. (Honestly, I have to read it when my wife and kids aren't around the computer. Some of the pictures are a bit much for them.) Bernice, There are two aspects upon which you touched that I find myself unable to reconcile. 1) The witness testimony/recollections from Parkland. While they do vary a bit on the location of the major skull defect, the majority place it far less anterior than the autopsy photos/x-rays. I admit to a lack of experience and knowledge in this area, but when I overlayed the x-rays with the Z-film, to my eye, they match quite well and consistently. Yet this does NOT match up with the majority of Parkland testimony, as I understand it. 2) The back-and-to-the-left motion still bothers me. With a background in physics and engineering, forces acting on objects, action/reaction considerations and the like are right up my alley. Yet, I have never heard an explanation that seems suitable or consistent. Intuition tells me that a shot from behind would tend to drive him more forward, directly down into Jackie's lap and that the ejecta would travel a slightly different path than it appears to. On the other hand, I've never seen an actual study of the back brace -- specifically, what direction of motion it allows, which it prevents, and the magnitude of the forces it can produce. Some explanation might lie in the "rubber-band effect" that the back brace may produce. That said, I've never understood why, if the film was altered, why this confusing motion wasn't removed, made less violent and noticeable, or changed completely to leave no doubt.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051217/ap_on_...t_jack_anderson I've seen him mentioned frequently on this forum. As such, I thought it appropriate to bring this subject up. Personally, I always appreciated Anderson's column.

Thank you, John. I *assumed* that this was, in fact, what I was seeing, but rather than proceed on conjecture, I thought I should ask. Not to provide 'information overload' but have you ever read Sherry Gutierrez's work with Blood Spatter Analysis and the Z-film (I think it is available on the jfklancer forum)? I posted the z-film with autopsy x-ray overlays over there and she had some very interesting an informative comments about entry/exit wound locations as it relates to splatter. I'm still trying to digest all the information and attempting to reconcile Pat's work, Sherry's article & post, and understand this subject on my own.

John, Intriguing graphics, as always. I think it is save to say that the skull experienced comminution as a result of the headshot. This is consistent with what Paul K. O'Connor said in William Law's In the Eye of History,"... There was no need for me to open up the cranium becaus the cranium was completely shattered. When I say 'shattered,' not only was the brain blown open, where nothing was left, but the rest of the cranium -- the skull cap -- was totally fractured. By 'totally fractured,' I mean it was comminuted. Comminution means if you took a hard boiled egg and dropped it on the floor, there are hundreds of fractures in the shell and that's the way the president's skull was. It was just malleable -- moved back and forth -- and what was left of the cranium was completely shattered." The question I have related to your most recent postings is this: Do you have high-quality scans of the x-rays to work with? Specifically -- is there risk that some of the things that are seen are a result of compression artifacting, scan artifacting, etc? Regards, Frank

I'm reluctant to enter this fray, but I'd like to add a few minor points of consideration. I'm not necessarily endorsing alteration claims. In fact, I'm honestly skeptical of the claims -- but skeptical in a healthy, "need to learn more" kind of way... That said: I find some interesting points in the comparisons to Hollywood films. First off, 8mm film (yes, the z-film is actually 16mm, but the imaging area is a pair of 8mm surfaces, if I understand the camera correctly) is not very common in Hollywood. There isn't much film surface with which to work. This ends up cutting both ways if one is attempting to alter the image. The area with which to work is much less, but the reduced quality of the image (even the original) lowers the standards required for alteration to be believable. In the same way, the poor-quality lenses on home movie cameras introduce errors, are inconsistent, and when operated in "telephoto" mode cause more light loss than their commercial/professional counterparts. This, too, may end up "lowering the bar" for those attempting to alter the film. Lastly, it is not necessarily valid to compare hollywood special effect with what "theoretically" might have been available those performing the alteration. If one subscribes to the "Government Involvement" theory, the assumption is that any alteration that took place might have access to all sorts of leading-edge technology -- including defense-related technologies. One should note that the DoD had, in 1963, the capability to produce VERY high quality photographic images from insane altitudes, while flying in a plane at high speeds. It could then take those pictures, develope them, optically enlarge them, and read license plate numbers, etc, etc... From a theoretical perspective, one would have to compare leading-edge MILITARY photographic technological capabilities in 1963, not necessarily Hollywood technology. In fact, it is fairly safe to say that Hollywood special effects have, in their own way, received the normal technology "trickle down" effect from advancements made in the name of "defense spending." Of course, to make a counterpoint to my own argument (no, I don't need to see the nice men in white coats... yet): Having the equipment or technology available is one thing. Knowing how to use it is another. Even if alteration was technically possible with high-end military photo gear, one would still have to know how to do it... This requires not only knowledge but practice. It strikes me as unlikely that there was an active program on the "alteration and manipulation of evidentiary 8mm home movies" by the pentagon... This, and my *opinion* that the z-film matches the autopsy x-rays and photos (see John Dolva's "X-Rays" thread) lands me in the skeptical camp -- but not so much so that I could never be convinced otherwise.

One additional observation: Z-335 shows what I believe to be missing skull area. If you observe the sequence below, note that you can see Jackie's left shoulder where skull should be. At least, that's the current theory under which I am operating. Like they say about the weather in certain areas of the country, "wait 15 minutes and it will probably change..."

Hi Again, John, I believe you have correctly identified the frontal sinus in both x-rays, but I'm not an expert in this area. *********** On another note: I had the crazy idea of overlaying the lateral skull x-rays with some important frames in the Z-film just to see what came of it. I did *not* fully correct for skew, so there may be some minor problems as a result. I've combined 4 frames into one image below. To the left is the unaltered z-image, and to its right is the same image showing the skull x-ray overlay. No conclusions yet -- just some more ideas to mull over.

Okay, John, you've got me thinking about this (always a dangerous thing...) On the left is a lateral head xray. I flipped the image horizontally to align directionally the features with the autopsy x-ray you posted earlier. I've got them more-or-less aligned so the distinctive saddle is visible and provides some sort of a landmark. I must go ponder things further and re-read Pat's fantastic presentation. 30 minutes ago, I was leaning one way, now I'm not so sure... To me, right now, this x-ray shows massive loss of bone, but more anterior than I previously visualized it. But interestingly, note the fracturing in the occipital and occipital parietal areas, but no massive blow out. Yet the parkland doctors seem to indicate occipital or occipital parietal... Must ponder more...

John, I think you've got it. Sella Turcica (aka - Turkish Saddle) is the structure that holds the pituitary gland. Here is an image of two saddles -- the one on the left is from a child, the one on the right from a 27YO man, and has some anomalies. This link may also provide some reference (helps with the orientation of things, I think): http://rad.usuhs.mil/rad/radbrowser2/head/...m/zrsuture.html it is part of MedPix (note the URL and savor the irony): http://rad.usuhs.mil/medpix/medpix_home.html?#top Keep up the good work, John! Always a pleasure to read your posts. Regards, Frank

Ron, Exactly. For LBJ to be innocent of implications in JFK's death, he would have to be acclaimed as the luckiest politician in world history. I mean, the assassin's bullets are sending him to the White House while simultaneously Reynold's testimony is sending him to jail. And the US media (fearless bastion of truth) said nothing of this. Still don't. Today. Now. Never? Mark, I've always found the various "fortuitous circumstances" that befell LBJ to be quite extraordinary. Various authors over the years have exposed the LBJ political machine and the personality of LBJ. Suffice it to say that after reading various accounts of LBJ's exploits, it is not outside the realm of possibility for him to have more than "fortune smiling on him." On the other hand, he could be the intended and designed recipient of such good fortune... How better to control than with a dutiful puppet (a puppet fearful on all levels; from life and limb all the way through exposure and political/personal ruin). His personality and actions tend me toward the former, but the latter is certainly within the realm of reason as well. Regards, Frank

It does make sense that the metal head support was removed prior to taking x-rays and replaced with a block. Obviously, the metal cradle would show on the x-rays while something with less density would not.

John: Very interesting. I'd been thinking about the notion of wrapping the 2D xrays around a 3D model, but was never able to get satisfactory results. Kudos to you -- I think you're on to something here! When I look at these images, though, I find myself a bit perplexed... (not anything new when considering this case, eh?) I think there may be frontal shot indications, but I find the angles troublesome. I need to do some reading and post again.

Ahhh... Things around here just got noticeably better. Shame on me for not finding it sooner.. Adam: you ROCK!!