Todd W. Vaughan

No, Professor, sorry, you absolutely 100% did not “identify” the “spiral nebula” in the Altgens 1-6 blow-up that Pamela provided a link for. In fact, you twice committed yourself here in writing to claiming that the image Pamela provided was framed “too low to show the spiral nebula”. Your first claim regarding this matter was… “Pamela’s second link, http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/altgens1-6snbl.gif, shows Jackie's hand on his left arm and is too low to show the spiral nebula.” (emphasis mine) When I then pointed out that… “(it’s) is not "too low" at all, and in fact does show the supposed "spiral nebual" - it's directly above the white cuff of Presient Kennedy's left shirt sleeve.” To which you replied with… “Of course it is too low! The spiral nebula is where his left ear would be visible were it not obscured by the white sprial.” (emphasis mine) Now, given your own words above, how in the world can you honestly sit there and claim that you “not only identified the white spiral nebula but pointed out that the dark hole at the center has been painted out in the versions that you and she have posted.”, when in fact you twice claimed that the image Pamela provided was framed “too low to show the spiral nebula”?

Barb, You viewed one (or all) of the three sets of slides at the Archives, correct? Did you by chance do an detailed inventory of those sets of slides? Thanks. Todd My understanding from when I viewed the slides at the Archives with Doug DeSalles, Arthur and Margaret Snyder, is that the slides there ARE the first generation slides made by/for the WC. We had a bit of a discussion about the slides with the Archivist that day, in part, about how sad that and a slide was missing from this historic collection. I do not know how long the slides have been at and available at the Archives. I first saw them in 1994 or 1995. As for your assertions about Tink and his "unlimited access" and time spent .... citations, please! And your comments on the issues Tink's comments pointed out, that I asked you about? Barb :-)

Pat, Thanks much for the info about the re-typing of the transcripts at that site and for checking that. Also, that’s a very interesting observation about the word “above” – definitely thinking outside the box. I think the issue is quite clear – the throat wound, be it entry or exit, was below the upper edge of the collar. It’s very important to remember that when he was first asked by Dulles where the throat wound was Dr. Carrico replied, "Just about where your tie would be." Certainly no part of the tie is above the collar. Moreover, Dr. Carrico testified that the throat wound was in the “lower third of the neck, below...the Adams apple.” Dr. Perry testified the wound was “in the lower part of the neck below the Adams apple.” The upper margin of the shirt collar of a properly fitted dress shirt normally lies at the midpoint of, or at the lower edge of, the Adams Apple, with the rest of the shirt collar and the area immediately below it covering the lower half of the throat, exactly where Drs. Carrico and Perry place the wound. Photographs of President Kennedy taken in Fort Worth and at Love Field on November 22nd show that his shirt collar lay exactly in that position. Additionally, Dr. Ronald C. Jones told the Warren Commission that the throat wound was located "just above the superasternal notch", the notch at the top of the sternum that for all practical purposes defines the inferior-most margin of the anterior neck (throat). During a December, 2003, appearance on CNN’s Larry King Live, Dr. Jones described the throat wound as “...a small hole in the midline of the neck, just below the Adam's apple...” and he pointed to and touched the center point of the knot of his tie, obviously below the collar line. Part 3 of my article has a photograph of him doing this. Further, A comparison of the autopsy photographs (which show the tracheotomy incision) with films and photographs taken of President Kennedy on the day of the assassination (in Fort Worth, at Love Field, and in the motorcade) clearly show that the tracheotomy incision was located at a point on the President's throat that corresponds exactly with where the holes in the shirt collar and the nick in the tie knot would overlay. Given that the throat wound obviously had to exist somewhere within the borders of that tracheotomy incision, it only stands to reason that the throat wound was below the shirt collar and corresponds exactly to the location of the slits in the collar. Finally we have the following from Dr. Carrico’s Oral History: DR. CARRICO: “...We saw, uh, he had a little hole right...” MR. PORTER: (interrupting) “Was that abo-an-another sort of controversial thing is - what - was it, above his, his collar line, or slightly below it?” DR. CARRICO: “By, by the time I looked, Diane, the nurse had - had started taking his clothes off. Which - which was her job so I really didn’t - don’t know...” MR. PORTER: (talking over) “You don’t know exactly where it was or not?” DR. CARRICO: (continuing) "...whether it was through the collar or not but it was certainly at the collar line. It was just about right there, just to the right of the trachea and just a, certainly where his collar should have been.” Todd

My mistake. I thought you were referring to this: You have a bad habit of completing Dr. Carrico's thought, which IS a fabrication. As to the former Carrico quote, what part of the word "about" don't you understand? Are you claiming that "just about where your tie would be"is the same as "precisely where your tie would be"? And please note the structure of the latter quotation: "Yes, sir; just where the tie--" People don't speak in semi-colons. I could just as readily read that statement, "Yes, sir. Just where the tie--" Apparently your entire defense of the SBT rests on you finishing Dr. Carrico's thought. As I say, you have nothing. Cliff, I’ve not fabricated anything at all, and despite any bad habits I might have, completing Dr. Carrico’s thoughts is not one of them, at least not in the context that you’ve suggested (i.e. a “fabrication”). What I asked you what you THOUGHT Dr. Carrico was going to say (i.e. how he was going to complete what he was saying) before he was cut off by Commissioner Dulles when he said “Yes, sir; just where the tie –“. I then asked, somewhat rhetorically I might add, if you thought Dr. Carrico was going to say (absurdly) “Just where the tie isn’t” or if you thought it was more likely that he was going to say “Just where the tie is”, especially given the fact that he had only as few sentences before stated that the wound was “Just where the tie is”? As for your “People don't speak in semi-colons. I could just as readily read that statement, "Yes, sir. Just where the tie--", OK, and what’s your point? Certainly the transcriber’s hyphens indicates that Dr. Carrico was interrupted before he could finish his answer. Todd

Well, Professor, you’re just plain wrong. Attached below is slight crop of the image from Pamela’s second link at http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/altgens1-6snbl.gif. In it I’ve circled the so called “spiral nebula” feature. It’s located directly above the white cuff of President Kennedy's left shirt sleeve, just as I told you two posts back The inset image, a crop from a post right here in this thread, is Jack White’s circling of the so called “spiral nebula” from another version of Altgens. Clearly they are both the same feature. In fact I’d suggest that you’d have to be “cognitively impaired” to not be able to see that they are the same. Isn’t it interesting that even after 3 postings on the matter, you were unable to identify the so-called “spiral nebula” in the image from Pamela’s second link. You are making the assumption that Tink was looking at the same version of the Altgens 1-6 that Weldon was. The NARA copy, made from the negative, shows no defect in the windshield. Copies of the version uploaded to the newswires have a flaw that looks like something in the windshield. I tried uploading the NARA copy but it was too large. For the time being, here is a link to that section: http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/altgens1-6snbl.gif

Self deletion You are making the assumption that Tink was looking at the same version of the Altgens 1-6 that Weldon was. The NARA copy, made from the negative, shows no defect in the windshield. Copies of the version uploaded to the newswires have a flaw that looks like something in the windshield. I tried uploading the NARA copy but it was too large. For the time being, here is a link to that section: http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/altgens1-6snbl.gif

Bernice and Bill, With all respect, that's not what I wrote. "In fact, if I were going to make an assumption, it would be that the original A roll, the family pictures, never left Dallas for Life or anywhere else. Why would Zapruder want to give them up and why would Life want them. As I wrote, that's assumption and speculation, we'll never know unless more information comes to light. " In short, we'll never know if Zapruder's family film left Dallas, unless we gather more information. I don't see how that's a ploy or clap-trap. I made it clear I was offering some speculation and suggesting that I could never be proven right unless we had more information. If that's part of the evil plan Bernice it's really, really subtle and I assure you, well beyond me. Bill, I'm with you. I've never been impressed with the "image anomalies", but some of Horne's information is new and exciting and I really want to know where it leads. That said, I think it's important to separate out the new facts from assumptions and speculation so we can determine what evidence is needed to really establish something interesting. It's definitely not my conclusion that we'll never know - but I do think there's more work to be done. Jerry Jerry, Certainly some of Zapruder's family film DID leave Dallas. A frame or two from the sequence of one of Zapruders children or grandchildren digging in a planter on a patio with a shovel was published in Esquire magazine, early 1970's as I recall. It accompanied the Stolley article on the film that appeared in that issue. Todd Here's one Todd...b We should all also take note that the still of the boy digging has no sprocket hole image, thus, it is from a copy of the film, perhaps one made in black and white. Todd, As you've noted, my question is if the original family film ever left Dallas. If one or more copies were left un-slit then some family images had to leave - but not the original. So I think we're on the same page. However, I disagree with your analysis of the frame Bernice posted. I don't see the full inter-sprocket area but I do see the sides of the sprocket holes. However, although the sprockets are not visible on the motorcade copies, they are visible on the family film copies. Therefore the sprocket holes don't settle the issue of the source of this frame. It could be from the original or from a copy. BTW Bernice, I'm always amazed at the resources you have close to hand. Thanks for finding that image and putting it up. Best to you both, Jerry Jerry, Certainly I see the partial sides (corners actually) of the sprocket holes in the picture that Bernice posted. When I wrote that it “has no sprocket hole image”, my meaning was that there is no filmed image visible between what we can see of the sprocket holes, not that we can’t see images of the sprocket holes themselves. Since the picture that we are looking at (the picture that Bernice posted) has no filmed image visible between what we can see of the sprocket holes, it cannot be a picture of the original film (or one of the first day copies) and must be a picture of a later copy of the film. Todd Ok Todd, thanks for the clarification. Now that I understand - I agree! Best to you, Jerry Thanks Jerry, have a great night.

Pamela's second link, http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/altgens1-6snbl.gif, is not "too low" at all, and in fact does show the supposed "spiral nebual" - it's directly above the white cuff of Presient Kennedy's left shirt sleeve. You are making the assumption that Tink was looking at the same version of the Altgens 1-6 that Weldon was. The NARA copy, made from the negative, shows no defect in the windshield. Copies of the version uploaded to the newswires have a flaw that looks like something in the windshield. I tried uploading the NARA copy but it was too large. For the time being, here is a link to that section: http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/altgens1-6snbl.gif

Bernice and Bill, With all respect, that's not what I wrote. "In fact, if I were going to make an assumption, it would be that the original A roll, the family pictures, never left Dallas for Life or anywhere else. Why would Zapruder want to give them up and why would Life want them. As I wrote, that's assumption and speculation, we'll never know unless more information comes to light. " In short, we'll never know if Zapruder's family film left Dallas, unless we gather more information. I don't see how that's a ploy or clap-trap. I made it clear I was offering some speculation and suggesting that I could never be proven right unless we had more information. If that's part of the evil plan Bernice it's really, really subtle and I assure you, well beyond me. Bill, I'm with you. I've never been impressed with the "image anomalies", but some of Horne's information is new and exciting and I really want to know where it leads. That said, I think it's important to separate out the new facts from assumptions and speculation so we can determine what evidence is needed to really establish something interesting. It's definitely not my conclusion that we'll never know - but I do think there's more work to be done. Jerry Jerry, Certainly some of Zapruder's family film DID leave Dallas. A frame or two from the sequence of one of Zapruders children or grandchildren digging in a planter on a patio with a shovel was published in Esquire magazine, early 1970's as I recall. It accompanied the Stolley article on the film that appeared in that issue. Todd Here's one Todd...b We should all also take note that the still of the boy digging has no sprocket hole image, thus, it is from a copy of the film, perhaps one made in black and white. Todd, As you've noted, my question is if the original family film ever left Dallas. If one or more copies were left un-slit then some family images had to leave - but not the original. So I think we're on the same page. However, I disagree with your analysis of the frame Bernice posted. I don't see the full inter-sprocket area but I do see the sides of the sprocket holes. However, although the sprockets are not visible on the motorcade copies, they are visible on the family film copies. Therefore the sprocket holes don't settle the issue of the source of this frame. It could be from the original or from a copy. BTW Bernice, I'm always amazed at the resources you have close to hand. Thanks for finding that image and putting it up. Best to you both, Jerry Jerry, Certainly I see the partial sides (corners actually) of the sprocket holes in the picture that Bernice posted. When I wrote that it “has no sprocket hole image”, my meaning was that there is no filmed image visible between what we can see of the sprocket holes, not that we can’t see images of the sprocket holes themselves. Since the picture that we are looking at (the picture that Bernice posted) has no filmed image visible between what we can see of the sprocket holes, it cannot be a picture of the original film (or one of the first day copies) and must be a picture of a later copy of the film. Todd

Cliff, I wrote: “What do you think Dr. Carrico meant when he testified (as opposed to having Dulles interpret his testimony) that the wound was "Just about where your tie would be"? To which you replied: “That's not what he testified. Your clumsy parsing of words carries no weight.” I also wrote: “What do you make of Weisberg’s misrepresentation of the sequence of testimony where he eliminates the part where Dr. Carrico testified that the wound was "Just about where your tie would be"?” To which you replied: “But that's not what Carrico testified. This is very questionable behavior on your part, Todd.” Later you accused me of "fabrication of witness testimony". As EVERYONE can see for themselves at this link here… http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/page361.php …Dr. Carrico testified to EXACTLY what I wrote that he did, that the wound in the throat was "Just about where your tie would be". Looks to me like YOU'RE the one guilty of questionable behavior, Cliff, in your claiming that Dr. Carrico did not say this and in accusing me of fabricating testimony. Todd

When Carrico emphatically concurred with Dulles' location of the wound, Todd's attempts to parse words not withstanding. So what if McKnight didn't get his minutiae straight? The fact is Carrico agreed with Dulles when Dulles placed the wound right above the top of the tie. We've got redundant testimony of the Parkland staff that the wound was an entrance. Of course, the SBT doesn't fall on the nick in the tie. The SBT is debunked by the extensively corroborated T3 back wound. Cliff, Did you even read my articles? 1. Why do you claim that Dr. Carrico “emphatically” concurred with Dulles' location of the wound”? Where is there any hint of emphasis implied in Dr. Carrico’s testimony? 2. If he hadn’t been interrupted by Dulles, what do you think Dr. Carrico was going to say when he said “Yes, sir; just where the tie —“. Do you think he was going to say “Just where the tie isn’t” or do you think it is more likely that he was going to say “Just where the tie is”? 3. What do you think Dr. Carrico meant when he testified (as opposed to having Dulles interpret his testimony) that the wound was "Just about where your tie would be"? 4. Dr. Carrico testified that the wound was “located in the lower third of the neck, below the thyroid cartilage, the Adams apple.” Do you think that location on the body would be above or below the upper most edge of the President’s buttoned dress shirt? 5. What are your thoughts where, in my fourth article, Dr. Carrico clearly states that President Kennedy’s clothes were removed before Dr. Carrico saw the wound, that the throat wound was located precisely where the collar would have been, and that the standard method for removing clothing in Parkland Hospital's emergency room was for attendants to cut them off with scissors? 6. Why do you minimize McKnight’s questionable behavior in this matter when you say “So what if McKnight didn't get his minutiae straight?”. Do you realize that McKnight’s claim that “As Carrico explained to Specter the use of scalpels was “the usual practice” in a medical emergency of this nature.”, NEVER OCCURRED! Dr. Carrico NEVER, EVER, said any such thin in his testimony to Specter. 7. What do you make of Weisberg’s misrepresentation of the sequence of testimony where he eliminates the part where Dr. Carrico testified that the wound was "Just about where your tie would be"? 8. What do you make of Weisberg’s claim that Dr. Carrico “saw neither the nick in the tie nor the cuts in the shirt before the nurses started cutting.”, given the fact that Dr. Carrico told the Warren Commission that he never even examined the clothing to begin with? 9. What do you make of Weisberg’s claim that “Allen Dulles, who accompanied Specter to Dallas, asked Carrico twice to show him the location of the hole in Kennedy’s anterior neck. The Parkland doctor responded on both occasions locating a point above the collar line.” , when in fact one of those times, the time where Dulles did not interrupt Dr. Carrico in midsentence, Dr. Carrico actually testified that the wound was "Just about where your tie would be"? Todd

Bernice and Bill, With all respect, that's not what I wrote. "In fact, if I were going to make an assumption, it would be that the original A roll, the family pictures, never left Dallas for Life or anywhere else. Why would Zapruder want to give them up and why would Life want them. As I wrote, that's assumption and speculation, we'll never know unless more information comes to light. " In short, we'll never know if Zapruder's family film left Dallas, unless we gather more information. I don't see how that's a ploy or clap-trap. I made it clear I was offering some speculation and suggesting that I could never be proven right unless we had more information. If that's part of the evil plan Bernice it's really, really subtle and I assure you, well beyond me. Bill, I'm with you. I've never been impressed with the "image anomalies", but some of Horne's information is new and exciting and I really want to know where it leads. That said, I think it's important to separate out the new facts from assumptions and speculation so we can determine what evidence is needed to really establish something interesting. It's definitely not my conclusion that we'll never know - but I do think there's more work to be done. Jerry Jerry, Certainly some of Zapruder's family film DID leave Dallas. A frame or two from the sequence of one of Zapruders children or grandchildren digging in a planter on a patio with a shovel was published in Esquire magazine, early 1970's as I recall. It accompanied the Stolley article on the film that appeared in that issue. Todd Here's one Todd...b We should all also take note that the still of the boy digging has no sprocket hole image, thus, it is from a copy of the film, perhaps one made in black and white.

Bernice and Bill, With all respect, that's not what I wrote. "In fact, if I were going to make an assumption, it would be that the original A roll, the family pictures, never left Dallas for Life or anywhere else. Why would Zapruder want to give them up and why would Life want them. As I wrote, that's assumption and speculation, we'll never know unless more information comes to light. " In short, we'll never know if Zapruder's family film left Dallas, unless we gather more information. I don't see how that's a ploy or clap-trap. I made it clear I was offering some speculation and suggesting that I could never be proven right unless we had more information. If that's part of the evil plan Bernice it's really, really subtle and I assure you, well beyond me. Bill, I'm with you. I've never been impressed with the "image anomalies", but some of Horne's information is new and exciting and I really want to know where it leads. That said, I think it's important to separate out the new facts from assumptions and speculation so we can determine what evidence is needed to really establish something interesting. It's definitely not my conclusion that we'll never know - but I do think there's more work to be done. Jerry Jerry, Certainly some of Zapruder's family film DID leave Dallas. A frame or two from the sequence of one of Zapruders children or grandchildren digging in a planter on a patio with a shovel was published in Esquire magazine, early 1970's as I recall. It accompanied the Stolley article on the film that appeared in that issue. Todd Here's one Todd...b Yep, that's one, the one I was thinking about. Thanks.

Bernice and Bill, With all respect, that's not what I wrote. "In fact, if I were going to make an assumption, it would be that the original A roll, the family pictures, never left Dallas for Life or anywhere else. Why would Zapruder want to give them up and why would Life want them. As I wrote, that's assumption and speculation, we'll never know unless more information comes to light. " In short, we'll never know if Zapruder's family film left Dallas, unless we gather more information. I don't see how that's a ploy or clap-trap. I made it clear I was offering some speculation and suggesting that I could never be proven right unless we had more information. If that's part of the evil plan Bernice it's really, really subtle and I assure you, well beyond me. Bill, I'm with you. I've never been impressed with the "image anomalies", but some of Horne's information is new and exciting and I really want to know where it leads. That said, I think it's important to separate out the new facts from assumptions and speculation so we can determine what evidence is needed to really establish something interesting. It's definitely not my conclusion that we'll never know - but I do think there's more work to be done. Jerry Jerry, Certainly some of Zapruder's family film DID leave Dallas. A frame or two from the sequence of one of Zapruders children or grandchildren digging in a planter on a patio with a shovel was published in Esquire magazine, early 1970's as I recall. It accompanied the Stolley article on the film that appeared in that issue. Todd

I note with amusement how similar is the above to the kinds of grotesquely leading questions posed to witnesses, most notably the Parkland doctors, by Warren Commission lawyers. Still, it's worth examining a few of Thompson's assumptions if only to expose them. 1) Why try to alter or fake up the Zapruder film when the genie has already escaped from the bottle? This assumes the original version of the Zapruder film was a genuine record of what transpired on Elm. Zapruder's WFAA-TV description of the headwound - he famously mislocated it - together with the descriptions of the first version of the Z fake furnished by Dan Rather et al are not reassuring on this score. The preplanned narrative - and film? - were at pains, for example, to persuade us the presidential limo never stopped. The first version of the Z fake was indeed junked, largely because of what the Parkland doctors had to say. This suppression permitted the campaign by journalists like Snider and Mandel to embark upon that preposterous attempt to harmonise the Parkland doctors' description of front entry wounds with the bogus film. The upshot resulted, among other alterations, in the removal of the left turn of the presidential limo from Houston onto Elm. 2) Let’s say you are the mastermind of a plot to make the Kennedy assassination look like the work of a single gunman. This a hugely important point. The plot was not so simple-minded. It had built within it a fall-back deception, the grassy knoll. In short, there was an inner and an outer layer of deception. xxxxx the first, think yourself clever, and lo, you met the second or inner deceit. Nor should this be any surprise, given the background and world-view of men like Dulles and Angleton. Both had vast experience of false flag ops, pseudo-gangs, and controlled oppositions. The assassination research community was assidously steered in the direction of the grassy knoll to lead us away from the centrality of Kennedy's SS detail to his murder. Thompson knows this because he suppressed for SSID readers the import of the clearest testimony to the role of the SS in leading the charge up the grassy knoll. 3) Let’s say that no one ever imagined that someone like Zapruder would get up on his pedestal and shoot the assassination as he did. Er, why? What research did Thompson conduct on Zapruder's pre-assination contacts and milieu? And if he did, where is it; and why has he never published it? The available evidence suggests Zapruder's presence was anything but accidental. "Thompson knows this because he suppressed for SSID readers the import of the clearest testimony to the role of the SS in leading the charge up the grassy knoll." Could you explain/elaborate?

David, I noticed the same thing - that (unfortunately) the FBI film at the Youtube link has no sprocket hole information. My guess is the same as yours, that what we are seeing at the Youtube link is a copy of the original film, or a copy of a copy, etc. A few posts back in this thread Gary Murr posted some very detailed and informative information as to the location, etc. of what sounds like the original film at NARA - that post no doubt can and will serve as the starting point for getting access to the film. I agree 100% that we need to have full width contact prints or full width images taken similar to those done by MPI. As for cost, any contact prints or enlargements made off the original requiring darkroom work could indeed get expensive. However, not counting the cost of a trip to NARA, someone with some good photography skills, a decent camera, and perhaps a macro lens should be able to go into NARA, obtain access to the film, lay it out on a light box, and take as many photos as needed. Todd P.S. I received you latest email and I.m still looking for the item.

Todd, I'm still trying to track down her statements. Much on this subject in an essay by Gerry McKnight, points raised by Todd Vaughan, and McKnight's replies. http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/...e-Bullet_Theory My original critique of McKnights claims and my refutation of his replies. http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/06/twist...et-critics.html http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/12/twist...et-critics.html http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/12/twist...critics_26.html http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/twist...et-critics.html

I stand corrected. It was Bowron who testified. Do you have a copy of Never Again!: The Government Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination by Harold Weisberg? Check out Chapter 22, pages 239-241. I believe she made some statements on the clothing removal, iirc etc... Thanks for the Never Again reference, I'll check that out.

Todd, I'm still trying to track down her statements. Until then: The WC testimony of Dr. Charles Carrico, the first doctor to treat JFK in the ER. (emphasis added) Dr. Charles Carrico interviewed by Harold Weisberg (Post Mortem, pp. 375-376) Cliff, I deal with Carrico and Weisberg’s claims about Carrico in a series of 4 articles here… http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/06/twist...et-critics.html http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/12/twist...et-critics.html http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/12/twist...critics_26.html http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/twist...et-critics.html ...as for Nurse Henchcliffe, I’ve never seen anything regarding her testifying that she cut the shirt and nicked the tie. Todd

Aren't you assuming that JFK was hit with a conventional round? The prosectors came to a "general feeling" upon completion of the autopsy that JFK had been hit with blood soluble rounds. The neck x-ray shows an air pocket overlaying C7 and T1. Conventional bullets don't hit soft tissue and then leave no exit, no bullet, and an air pocket. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/hscv7d.htm HSCA analysis of the neck x-ray: The Zapruder film shows JFK with his right hand in front of his face and his left hand "grabbing" (Nellie Connally, Clint Hill) or "clutching" (Linda Willis) his throat, consistent with actions to dislodge the projectile. JFK then seized up paralyzed in little more than two seconds. Why are you assuming that the prosectors got it wrong right after the autopsy when there is compelling x-ray, film and eye witness testimony consistent with their conclusion that JFK was hit with blood soluble rounds? Black Dog Man circa Z190 had a clear shot. The HSCA photographic panel found a "very distinct straight-line feature" in the region of BDM's hands. Rosemary Willis described BDM as a "conspicuous" person who appeared to "disappear the next instant." http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol12_0006a.htm Nurse Henchcliffe at Parkland testified that she cut the shirt and nicked the tie while prepping JFK for the trach. Did everyone at Parkland who described the throat wound as an entrance all suffer an identical hallucination? Cliff, You stated... QUOTE ON Nurse Henchcliffe at Parkland testified that she cut the shirt and nicked the tie while prepping JFK for the trach. QUOTE OFF What is the source for Nurse Henchcliffe testifing that she "cut the shirt and nicked the tie"? Todd

What are you talking about? Did you miss Gary Murr's post here? HE knew of them AND examined them at the Archives. Did you look at the film at this link?

Todd you say "And let's be clear, it was only in a separate, follow-up post that you noted “I dont know if these are the films that we are looking for that Shaneyfelt said he took with Zappys camera”. Well there is my first post, read it again real slow and tell me what you missed You might miss it again so I will give you a hint, it ends with a question mark You know what im going to post my question for you tro read again so you dont miss it are these the films with the camera starting and stoping like the testimony said? Just like I said, I was asking others if these were the films we were looking for or something else that was filmed? I await your apology Well then, yes, I was wrong – you apparently HAD earlier asked if these were the films that Shaneyfelt said he took with Zapruders camera. So, for the assumption on my end that you only asked this afterwards, you have my sincere apology. But good grief Dean, that makes it even worse! Now it’s apparent that you made your grand claim “Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming”, made in a follow up answer to your question “Also of note look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn?” when you admittedly didn’t even know if these were the films made through Zapruders camera to begin with! To illustrate this, here are your relevant posts all in one place in chronological order: DEAN 1 - Here we Test Films www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK1HeKmE3jE Here we go, are these the films with the camera starting and stoping like the testimony said? Also is the Nix and Muchmore positions DEAN 2 - Also of note look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn? Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming DEAN 3 - Todd I dont know if these are the films that we are looking for that Shaneyfelt said he took with Zappys camera. They look to be the ones, but im not sure. Im going to try to look into it tonight when im off work So thanks for pointing out my mistake, Dean, because now everyone can see for themselves that your ignorance as to whether or not these were the films that Shaneyfelt said he took with Zapruders camera sure didn’t stop you from claiming they proved the Zapruder film was altered. Kind of like your ignorance of you making claims without reading posts? I never said it proves the Z-film was altered It has already been proven You "never said it proves the Z-film was altered"? You've got to be kidding me, Dean. Anyone can see that your statement “Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming”, was made in direct reference to the Youtube video that you posted the link for. And with your "look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn", followed by your “Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming”, it's plainly obvious that you were claiming that this FBI film proved the Zapruder film was altered! Now you're trying to say that you weren’t claiming that the FBI film proves the Zapruder film was altered? Whatever, Dean, whatever. Todd, this is what you make out of my statement "And with your "look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn", followed by your “Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming”, it's plainly obvious that you were claiming that this FBI film proved the Zapruder film was altered!" But thats not what I said The FBI films do not prove alteration, the fact that Zappy never stopped filming and the limo turn was taken out does prove alteration Where did I say the FBI films prove alteration? Your making up things that you want me to have said, for some odd reason You can post as many quotes as you want, its not going to make the words change Todd Dean, You wrote: QUOTE ON Todd, this is what you make out of my statement "And with your "look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn", followed by your “Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming”, it's plainly obvious that you were claiming that this FBI film proved the Zapruder film was altered!" But that's not what I said QUOTE OFF Not what you said? Hmmm. Well let's see what you did say: QUOTE ON Also of note look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn? Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming QUOTE OFF Now, that sure appears to be exactly what you said, and exactly what I said that you said. And now you deny it. Amazing. Simply amazing. Todd please stop im going to break a rib from laughing so hard Dean, One more try. Again, referencing your YouTube video link of the FBI reconstruction film, here is what you wrote: QUOTE ON: Also of note look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn? Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming QUOTE OFF: You referred to the FBI film with … “…look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white…” and then asked… “… how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn? …and then answered… “Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming” And to this you now claim “I never said it (the FBI film) proves the Z-film was altered” Do you really expect me (or anyone else for that matter) to believe for one minute that you were not trying to use the FBI film to prove that the Zapruder film was altered based on your stated observation that when the camera stops in the FBI film the picture fades into white but when the camera stops in the Zapruder film the picture does not? Todd Like I said no matter how many times you quote me or try to put my words together you cant change them What are you trying to do anyways Todd? Discredit me? Why would you want to do that when we have so much fun debating Z-film issues? If it wasnt for me you would have nobody to debate with So whats up Do you think im a sloppy researcher? Do you think im dishonest? Do you think im trying to fool everybody? Do you think im stupid? Why dont you answer all of those questions so I can see what you are trying to prove? Dean, Rest assured, I don't need to try and change your words - they're recorded here for all to see. Words have meaning, and combinations of words have even fuller meaning. And no, I'm not trying to "prove" anything. I simply noticed a contradiction in what you wrote and tried to point it out. The fact remains that given what you wrote, and how you wrote it, it's quite clear that you were in fact trying to use the FBI film to prove that the Zapruder film was altered based on your stated observation that when the camera stops in the FBI film the picture fades into white but when the camera stops in the Zapruder film the picture does not. And now you deny that. So be it. Now, to answer your questions: Do I think you're dishonest? No. Do I think you're trying to fool everybody? No. Do I think you're stupid? No. Do I think your're a sloppy researcher? At times, yes. Todd

Todd you say "And let's be clear, it was only in a separate, follow-up post that you noted “I dont know if these are the films that we are looking for that Shaneyfelt said he took with Zappys camera”. Well there is my first post, read it again real slow and tell me what you missed You might miss it again so I will give you a hint, it ends with a question mark You know what im going to post my question for you tro read again so you dont miss it are these the films with the camera starting and stoping like the testimony said? Just like I said, I was asking others if these were the films we were looking for or something else that was filmed? I await your apology Well then, yes, I was wrong – you apparently HAD earlier asked if these were the films that Shaneyfelt said he took with Zapruders camera. So, for the assumption on my end that you only asked this afterwards, you have my sincere apology. But good grief Dean, that makes it even worse! Now it’s apparent that you made your grand claim “Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming”, made in a follow up answer to your question “Also of note look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn?” when you admittedly didn’t even know if these were the films made through Zapruders camera to begin with! To illustrate this, here are your relevant posts all in one place in chronological order: DEAN 1 - Here we Test Films www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK1HeKmE3jE Here we go, are these the films with the camera starting and stoping like the testimony said? Also is the Nix and Muchmore positions DEAN 2 - Also of note look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn? Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming DEAN 3 - Todd I dont know if these are the films that we are looking for that Shaneyfelt said he took with Zappys camera. They look to be the ones, but im not sure. Im going to try to look into it tonight when im off work So thanks for pointing out my mistake, Dean, because now everyone can see for themselves that your ignorance as to whether or not these were the films that Shaneyfelt said he took with Zapruders camera sure didn’t stop you from claiming they proved the Zapruder film was altered. Kind of like your ignorance of you making claims without reading posts? I never said it proves the Z-film was altered It has already been proven You "never said it proves the Z-film was altered"? You've got to be kidding me, Dean. Anyone can see that your statement “Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming”, was made in direct reference to the Youtube video that you posted the link for. And with your "look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn", followed by your “Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming”, it's plainly obvious that you were claiming that this FBI film proved the Zapruder film was altered! Now you're trying to say that you weren’t claiming that the FBI film proves the Zapruder film was altered? Whatever, Dean, whatever. Todd, this is what you make out of my statement "And with your "look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn", followed by your “Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming”, it's plainly obvious that you were claiming that this FBI film proved the Zapruder film was altered!" But thats not what I said The FBI films do not prove alteration, the fact that Zappy never stopped filming and the limo turn was taken out does prove alteration Where did I say the FBI films prove alteration? Your making up things that you want me to have said, for some odd reason You can post as many quotes as you want, its not going to make the words change Todd Dean, You wrote: QUOTE ON Todd, this is what you make out of my statement "And with your "look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn", followed by your “Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming”, it's plainly obvious that you were claiming that this FBI film proved the Zapruder film was altered!" But that's not what I said QUOTE OFF Not what you said? Hmmm. Well let's see what you did say: QUOTE ON Also of note look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn? Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming QUOTE OFF Now, that sure appears to be exactly what you said, and exactly what I said that you said. And now you deny it. Amazing. Simply amazing. Todd please stop im going to break a rib from laughing so hard Dean, One more try. Again, referencing your YouTube video link of the FBI reconstruction film, here is what you wrote: QUOTE ON: Also of note look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn? Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming QUOTE OFF: You referred to the FBI film with … “…look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white…” and then asked… “… how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn? …and then answered… “Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming” And to this you now claim “I never said it (the FBI film) proves the Z-film was altered” Do you really expect me (or anyone else for that matter) to believe for one minute that you were not trying to use the FBI film to prove that the Zapruder film was altered based on your stated observation that when the camera stops in the FBI film the picture fades into white but when the camera stops in the Zapruder film the picture does not? Todd

Todd you say "And let's be clear, it was only in a separate, follow-up post that you noted “I dont know if these are the films that we are looking for that Shaneyfelt said he took with Zappys camera”. Well there is my first post, read it again real slow and tell me what you missed You might miss it again so I will give you a hint, it ends with a question mark You know what im going to post my question for you tro read again so you dont miss it are these the films with the camera starting and stoping like the testimony said? Just like I said, I was asking others if these were the films we were looking for or something else that was filmed? I await your apology Well then, yes, I was wrong – you apparently HAD earlier asked if these were the films that Shaneyfelt said he took with Zapruders camera. So, for the assumption on my end that you only asked this afterwards, you have my sincere apology. But good grief Dean, that makes it even worse! Now it’s apparent that you made your grand claim “Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming”, made in a follow up answer to your question “Also of note look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn?” when you admittedly didn’t even know if these were the films made through Zapruders camera to begin with! To illustrate this, here are your relevant posts all in one place in chronological order: DEAN 1 - Here we Test Films www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK1HeKmE3jE Here we go, are these the films with the camera starting and stoping like the testimony said? Also is the Nix and Muchmore positions DEAN 2 - Also of note look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn? Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming DEAN 3 - Todd I dont know if these are the films that we are looking for that Shaneyfelt said he took with Zappys camera. They look to be the ones, but im not sure. Im going to try to look into it tonight when im off work So thanks for pointing out my mistake, Dean, because now everyone can see for themselves that your ignorance as to whether or not these were the films that Shaneyfelt said he took with Zapruders camera sure didn’t stop you from claiming they proved the Zapruder film was altered. Kind of like your ignorance of you making claims without reading posts? I never said it proves the Z-film was altered It has already been proven You "never said it proves the Z-film was altered"? You've got to be kidding me, Dean. Anyone can see that your statement “Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming”, was made in direct reference to the Youtube video that you posted the link for. And with your "look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn", followed by your “Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming”, it's plainly obvious that you were claiming that this FBI film proved the Zapruder film was altered! Now you're trying to say that you weren’t claiming that the FBI film proves the Zapruder film was altered? Whatever, Dean, whatever. Todd, this is what you make out of my statement "And with your "look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn", followed by your “Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming”, it's plainly obvious that you were claiming that this FBI film proved the Zapruder film was altered!" But thats not what I said The FBI films do not prove alteration, the fact that Zappy never stopped filming and the limo turn was taken out does prove alteration Where did I say the FBI films prove alteration? Your making up things that you want me to have said, for some odd reason You can post as many quotes as you want, its not going to make the words change Todd Dean, You wrote: QUOTE ON Todd, this is what you make out of my statement "And with your "look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn", followed by your “Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming”, it's plainly obvious that you were claiming that this FBI film proved the Zapruder film was altered!" But that's not what I said QUOTE OFF Not what you said? Hmmm. Well let's see what you did say: QUOTE ON Also of note look at how when the camera is turned off and on we can see the picture fade into white, how come we dont see this in the Z-film when the camera was turned off during the limo turn? Because it was taken out and Zappy never stopped filming QUOTE OFF Now, that sure appears to be exactly what you said, and exactly what I said that you said. And now you deny it. Amazing. Simply amazing.

Dean, What kind of film was the FBI using? Todd Todd, Dean, et al: I first saw the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore reenactment films, shot with each of the three individuals original camera's, in March of 1999 during a research trip to NARA II. The films are actually a part of the massive FBI Bulky file 62-109060, in this instance serial # 4199. This is a very large serial subsection of the 62-109060 file and the films in question are actually in box number 102A, Folder # 4. Also included with this material are notes made on strips of paper, approximately 9" long by 3" wide, notes written by Lyndal Shaneyfelt that are affixed to the various film boxes that contain the small 8mm plastic spools of exposed film. To answer one of your questions posed to Dean, Todd; the film used by the FBI in the May 24, 1964 Zapruder camera reenactment is Kodachrome Movie Film with a small label bearing the # 9 affixed to the back of the familiar and traditional yellow, black and red Kodak company box. The surviving Shaneyfelt constructed notes that are a part of this folder are also interesting and do help to provide a few further details. On May 23, 1964, the day prior to the actual reconstruction event, a roll of Kodak Kodachrome 8mm film was exposed in both the Nix and Muchmore cameras "on site in Dallas 5/23/64 during preliminary tests before reenactment on 5/24/64." This film was, in turn, taken by Lyndal Shaneyfelt.(62-109060-4193, Box 102A, Folder 4; film box containing reel labeled "15") On the day of the reconstruction, May 24, 1964, the Nix camera 8mm reconstruction film was "shot on site 5/24/64 by SA R. E. Triplett" with a further Shaneyfelt notation that there was "no 2nd run." On the same date the Muchmore camera 8mm reconstruction film was "shot on site by SA C. Ray Hall 5/24/64" with the same further Shaneyfelt notation as that which accompanies the surviving Nix film reconstruction notes - "no 2nd run." These two films are labeled, in turn, "16A reenactment thru Nix" and "17A reenactment thru Muchmore". The Zapruder reenactment film, item # 9, is listed as "Exposed in Zapruder camera on site in Dallas 5/24/64 by SA L. H. Shaneyfelt, with stills and moving." And unlike the Nix and Muchmore exposures, Shaneyfelt actually did "2 runs" of the assassination reenactment through the Zapruder film, one it would appear with the "zoom" feature on the Zapruder camera activated; the other without, though I could be wrong about this. I made photocopies of all of these notes, as well as photocopies of the actual film reels and their accompanying Kodak boxes, during my 1999 visit to NARA II. I also acquired, that same year, a copy of the reenactment films and it is identical to the YouTube copy link provided by Dean. (Not being a film expert, I am at a loss to explain the "cool" blue tint that appears to be self-evident on the film when one watches it; one could assume that this jhad something to do with the original development, but that would only be an assumption on my part). FWIW, and in closing, in actuality the WC staff controlled reconstruction was originally set to take place on the previous weekend, May 17, 1964, but was delayed one week. Part of this delay was caused by an assumption on the part of WC Chief Counsel, J. Lee Rankin, that the FBI still possessed the camera of Abraham Zapruder. This was not the case, the camera by this time (May of 1964) now in the hands of the Bell and Howell people, stored in their archives room at the head office of Bell and Howell in Chicago, Illinois. The FBI did pick the camera up on May 12, 1964, used it in Dallas over the weekend of May 23, 1964, and returned it to Bell and Howell, Chicago, via SA Dennis Shanahan, on June 23, 1964. And again, FWIW, during the week of November 28, 1966 (yes, 1966) the Bell and Howell company had the camera removed from the archives storage facility and taken to their engineering lab in Lincolnwood, Illinois, where the camera was tested by their staff at which time the average film speed - fps - was found to be 18.2 fps, or within 1/10th of a second of the FBI results of 1963-1964. Lawrence Howe, then Vice President and Secretary of Bell and Howell, did admit that this testing was conducted directly "because of many news stories published from time to time espousing various new theories concerning the Dallas tragedy..." Gary Murr Thanks Gary. I noticed that you were online, and, knowing your expertise in the matter, I was hoping you would weigh in on this issue with a detailed explanation of the facts, which is exactly what you did. Thanks again.