Bernice Moore
-
Posts
3,556 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Bernice Moore
-
-
What laundry truck...the one at Elm and Houston?
Jack
Thanks to Stephen Roy for the info on the arms cache being moved to Florida.
And Jack, I only repeated someone else's reference to a laundry truck at Dealey Plaza.
Do you know of any photos of it?
The one used in the Houma Arms Cache raid had Louisiana license tags.
Jack Ruby's brother also owned a commercial laundry.
BK
Bill:
Here is the Laundry truck in Altgen's 5, referenced by Jack.......
B..
Hey B. Thanks for that.
It's obviously a laundry truck at DP.
Are there any other photos that show the license plate?
If so, perhaps it could be nailed down closer.
bk
Hi Bill :
Your welcome,
That is the last clear photo, I do believe until, we see the next frontal photo of Altgens the 6, after he has been hit...
and none that I have ever seen as a frontal photo, of that corner of Houston and Elm....showing the truck again...
I wish....
B....
-
Hi David:
Here is a comparison, with two taken showing LHO's right side , after his arrest...
B.....
-
What laundry truck...the one at Elm and Houston?
Jack
Thanks to Stephen Roy for the info on the arms cache being moved to Florida.
And Jack, I only repeated someone else's reference to a laundry truck at Dealey Plaza.
Do you know of any photos of it?
The one used in the Houma Arms Cache raid had Louisiana license tags.
Jack Ruby's brother also owned a commercial laundry.
BK
Bill:
Here is the Laundry truck in Altgen's 5, referenced by Jack.......
B..
-
pam,
.....doug has sent this reply, along with a nick email ..
think what you want, you do anyway, as in the past....
have you emailed doug yet from this f....?
i , we await the proof.........of all your suppositions..and accusations ..and ramblings.......post it......now...
so be it.....
b.....
--- On Thu, 5/21/09, Doug Weldon wrote:
From: Doug Weldon <xxxxxxxxxx>
To: bmoorxxxxxxx
Bernice:
As for Pamela I think Nick said it best:
Doug
>> " I am sure that Pam will convince those who are of the same theory,
>> to begin with.
>> I note that she takes things out of contex in that she keeps saying that
>> I talked to Greer early in the evening. ..........."
Nick
Anyone with any reasoning or intelligence will see through things.
As for anyone else, they can sit around and convince themselves that the world is flat.
As for Pamela, God bless her.
Doug
b....
-
if you are insinuating in any way i have or may have altered any email research information or such, you had better be prepared to
prove that insinuation,
and..........now...........or apologize.....
whomever began this latest debackle sp.... on the alts re emails etc, accusations ,whatever is whom you need to go back
and take this all up with, that is your source , of where it all began, not i , nor doug, no one else...
doug is a member , you should recall that from a past go around with him...on here..
why have you not emailed him from this f and asked him yourself....
what is your problem a reading comprehension, or do you simply not read the info posted to you..
you may disagree with me and others all you like about emails but that is the web law, educate yourself..
you have posted info within your own studies based on such information from witnesses, you have admitted such, by
having had nick's emails and loosing them..same thing, get a grip.
part of a cult like whatever, you are rediculous, if you only knew.......it appears you know nothing....
you are trying now your darndest to , imo .......in anyway discredit nick's info, so that when doug's book is released
hopefully you will have discredited such, and down his book before it ever comes forth......isn't that a straw man you are endeavouring to create here..
are you in doubt about your said reasearch now, which imo agrees with the govs...w/c s..
imo ....you stopped your research way back then as i see it, doug did not, i do think you are really rattled now by what will be forthcoming
within his book and research.......and that is the real problem here, that it might blow yours away, as they say....hang on girl....
is this not the why you really brought this here..again...a straw man technique you are trying...to imploy........
your latest, problem began on the alts with rich and his recall and an email, why do you, and why have you not settled it there, why have you and continually are trying to drag others
into your mess....it is your and his disagreement....
whatever you thinkie in regard to any interview with nick, again i say, read what has previously been posted....above here.
i was not there when nick was, period, i knew or know nothing ......get it...finally..
.....i will not be yours nor anyone's scape goat in this crap....
go back to the beginning at the alts.....
...get a grip girl on yourself,
no one is out to get you or were, that is your imagination running away with you...
do comprehend and total it....
b..
-
From Doug Weldon.....
Bernice: Yes. Nick cc'd me. What's more Pamela, despite pretending that she doesn't know this, did KNOW it and confronted Nick about it.
Nick told her that he was doing such. Doug
B...
So you are saying Nick cc's Weldon? You are missing the point here. You were not included in the email. It was purportedly sent to me. You do not have MY permission to post it.f
Weldon is attempting to claim I am 'pretending' not to know something? That is untrue and unhelpful. Why would he even make such a statement? And moreover, why would you post it?
There seems to be en entire cottage industry around this CCC interview. It is becoming evident that I was being led down a primrose path right from the start. You, Rich and Weldon seem to have all the answers as to why I was asked to interview Nick in the first place. Perhaps you would share them with us and perhaps even share some of your own emails --that is, ones actually sent to you -- to explain what has been going on for the last 9 years?
Pam :
Please , try to understand once an email has been sent, it is in the Public Domain....If questionable to you, please do a search and retrieve the information, to your satisfaction....
I was not there on the F, when all this went down, between yourself and Nick, nor Doug, nor Rich......I have stated that previously , as well as Dixie, and am doing so again..
So whatever went down between you and them..... I have no knowledge of...
It was ....Your choice of whether and when you interviewed Nick....and you did so..
It is apparently somewhat rattling to you as to what has been going down at the alts, in the Judyth thread and now in another new that you have begun there...and I understand.....But imo, you have now only brought it here, to the EF, for your attention, to try to imply that for some reason you have been led down some garden path as you put it, and or being used as an excuse by you, to continue your denials, within the research..... that has been done in the past, and has been proceeding...and does not agree with yours.......
Note that differences between yours and others research is nothing new.....Yours as you seem to believe is far from the only findings, it did not stop there as you want to believe..yours is not the final given as they say....There is and has been much further work that has proceeded re all...
The research has been and is being continued....and as far as I understand there is much new within, and all as well as youself must wait, for Doug Weldon's book to be published. New information that I am not priveledge to either, so I cannot answer any questions pertaining to such......
From Doug....
Bernice
I do believe I was improper in referring to Pamela as a "waste." I want to apologize. However I disagree with her, it is inexcusable to make an ad hominem attack. I do not know Pamela, but no person, whatever their motives, is a "waste." My terminology was poor. Please post this on my behalf.
Doug Weldon
Bernice:
I do want to add that Pamela knew that Nick was forwarding his e-mails and there was no expectation of privacy. The last e-mail from Nick to Pamela was very revealing. I spent a couple of days with Harold Weisberg in 1996 and he did not think highly of Frazier. I have never spoken to Mr Frazier. I am not aware of any accounts by F. Vaughn'sFerguson's "golf buddies" giving an account of a hole in the windshield. George Whitaker was not a "golf buddy." .
Again, my apologies to Pamela. May she pursue what she believes is right.
Doug
This e-mail speaks for itself and answers the privacy issue.
Best,
Doug
nprince9@juno.com wrote:
>
>> Pam
>> I am not comfortable with what you have written in the past about
>> what I submit. You challenge every thing I submit and the basis for it
>> is some documentation the at you rely on more than an eye witness.
>> To attempt to correct only brings on a further barrage of questions and
>> more challenge.
>> I dont need it and I dont intend to continue it.
>> As far as what I forward to Doug Weldon, do you really believe that you
>> have the right to ask me that, or that I should even offer a reason ??
>>
>> Happy Holiday
>
>
B....
-
Hopefully this will be the last re this episode...
Bernice:
Pamela is again giving creedence to Robert Frazier and F. Vaughn Ferguson, neither of which had any credibility.
Frazier retired and hid when Weisberg tried to subpoenae him to court. " Murder In Dealey Plaza" shows Ferguson's credibility.
I have so much from Nick, both in e-mails and taped conversations.
He even sent me a cd he made. He was a talented singer.
You have my permission to publish anything I give you but Pamela is such a waste. >>
Doug
>> If you are wondering why I am forwarding all the back and forth mail
>> to you--Pam asks me questions and I answer them-------I have nothing to
>> hide. She seems to miss certain things or put things in--out of
>> context.---like the reason Bill was at the WH so early when he was
>> supposedly at Bethesda. I never said it was early--I worked from 7 in
>> the AM and I dont think I got home till the wee small hours of the next
>> day. I will answer her questions as well as I can--
>>
>> Nick
B.....
-
From Doug Weldon.....
Bernice: Yes. Nick cc'd me. What's more Pamela, despite pretending that she doesn't know this, did KNOW it and confronted Nick about it.
Nick told her that he was doing such. Doug
B...
-
From Doug Weldon...re Nick Principe's information.....thread at the alts..
--- On Sun, 5/17/09, Doug Weldon <XXXXXXXXt> wrote:
From: Doug Weldon xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Alts link .
To: "bernice" <XXXXXXXXXX>
Received: Sunday, May 17, 2009, 7:34 PM
Bernice:
Thank you. So much of this is just silly. Nick was very consistent and discussed this with friends since 1963.
As I always do I talked with people who knew Nick to determine if he had a tendency to exaggerate or embellish facts. It is something I always do with anyone I talk with and has sometimes forced me to exclude evidence I would have liked to use.
I also have taped conversations with Nick. There were some areas that Nick discovered that his memory had been faulty and readiy admitted his errrors. This was not true about his meeting with Greer (not Kellerman) and neither Greer or Kellerman viewed the vehicle with Nick.
Pamela completely distorted what Nick was saying and it greatly disturbed him. He told her that he did not like her trying to misrepresent and twist what he was saying. He was very direct in telling her that she was distorting his accounts. Pamela even questioned whether Nick was who he said he was and did determine his bona fides.
For people who question Nick who never spoke with him or understand the context of his e-mails it is just simply ridiculous. Those people have a different agenda other than truth.
Nick Prencipe had other unique information about Lyndon Johnson that I will offer in my book. You are welcome to post this in the alts or whereever.
Best, Doug
B.......
-
First off thank you Dix, you have walked into this whatever.?..I am grateful for your support...
I am still trying to make any sense out of all, perhaps by weeks-end, months-end, years-end ??
Pamela,
No, you are in error that Rich ever sent any email of Nick's to me, nor did I to him...I have never had any discussion with him in regard to Nick... they also have been available on the EF for months....Perhaps that is the where from?? I really do not know...
There is no rule here stipulating that research emails nor emails cannot be posted, .....as far as research is concerned to do so is also regarded as a dead man's right to have his information spoken out for him, or her......if not, that window , and opportunity to the research world would be closed permanently...
...In fact once an email leaves your pc, it is said it is in the public domain......I have read....
Whatever went down with Nick, I was not involved with at the time on the Forum, nor have I ever conversed with Rich about such.
I never knew Nick..
I will not be made a scapegoat in all this, as some apparently it would seem , have been trying to do......
This whatever that has been going on at the alts, ..it is a problem not of my making...it is between one man's recall and information from a witness dead man's email....
I call anyone dishonest and challenge them, to prove such, who would state that I in anyway, altered or forged any research and or email or information EVER....
I say thank you Pamela for bringing this to light....perhaps a re-read of that alt thread is in order.....
B....
-
Hi Bill :
Garrison knew and had the Library card, info...as per Penn Jones....
see....and scroll down...Penn Jones : Baylor
http://www3.baylor.edu/Library/BCPM/JFK/Jo...nnett-blake.htm
Penn had him down as Clay & Clem....
Take care...
B.....
-
Kathy,
The backyard photos are important because they make absolutely no sense unless one accepts the official fairy tale that Oswald acted alone. I don't think it's possible to accept the authenticity of these curious pictures and still maintain a belief in conspiracy. If someone believes that, they would have to explain why an innocent man posed for such pictures. Of course, this is without even taking into consideration the obviously fraudulent nature of the photos. Indeed, the many problems with the backyard photos are one of the strongest indications that there was an effort to frame Oswald.
Josiah's statement that these photos are "probably genuine" echo the kind of changing positions Gary Mack has taken in recent years, on a variety of issues. There is nothing personal here; I don't know either Gary or Josiah. However, the reason I take Gary's about face so personally is because I used to respect all the good work he did for "The Continuing Inquiiry" and know that he can't truly believe the official nonsense. Josiah Thompson was a real celebrity to many of us as youngsters first studying this case, along with Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Sylvia Meagher, Penn Jones, etc. Thus it is especially painful to have someone of his background label these photos "probably genuine." There is no reason to believe they are genuine in any way, shape or form. I don't know what he means by not being a "true believer." Are we to take this to mean that he doesn't truly believe in conspiracy? If not, what does he mean by that statement?
I don't believe in attacking anyone, but this is a crucial issue. Many of us looked up to Josiah as much as you presumably did, and it naturally disappoints us if he seems to be accepting the unacceptable official view of the backyard photos. How does he stand on some of the other aspects of this case that I mentioned- the ones that are part and parcel of the new neo-con platform? Does he think Oswald killed Tippit? Does he think the Umbrella Man was actually an innocuous guy named Steven Witt?
Bill Miller, please comment on the backyard photos.
********************
Don:
Putting any studies of the backyard photos aside......for now.....see below...
Yes, agreed at one time many of us looked up to Dr.Thompson, through his book.SSID..
and no I do not know any involved personally either...
and as one who agrees with your statement about the new neo-conspiracy peoples,
who imo have been making a slow appearance now for over a year, and are obviously
growing..and have posted about such,on another F...in the past......
...and IMO some names that are surfacing are surprising....perhaps...
I do not believe in all alterations, on the otherhand there are simply too
many, to ignore all... I do not follow anyone blindly, hell I am too ole now to even
think of doing so, and too damn stubborn, to even try....as I have been told, and
therefore am quite independent within the studies....
In relation to your post Kathy......In your first paragrph you might substitute Dr.Fetzer
for Dr.Thompson..."".Josiah Thompson said the photos are "probably genuine." Please note the modifier "probably."
He even gives a reason for it, and now someone is going to write him off for that.
Amazing! Is it just because he doesn't believe what others do? And how much must he believe,
until he is accepted by those of you complaining."
I have read where Dr.Fetzer has used the word probably, within his studies.....and you are very correct,
when you state,
"Is it just because he doesn't believe what others do?.And how much must he believe, until he is accepted by those of you complaining? ""
and there have been many complaints...re Dr.Fetzer's Moorman studies..on this forum...and some were within your posts.
Dr.Thompson, your attitude now towards Dr.Fetzer appears to me imo, to have taken a turn for the worse and not research.....
You have stated, on this forums board, words to the effect, you are enjoying it.....
So be it, and thank you for making very clear, that is what you are using this forum for....
I used to come here for research, of late all I mainly
see is a "get back at you" mentality.... and imo it sucks...
Don : Below.......re the backyard photos.......Putting aside anyones studies,
this below is from the W/C and has been available for many years..
This tells what they truly thought of such....in photographic form......and can be considered
another of their failures.....
Have a good look all at the chins...from the W/C....
Thanks..
B..
-
We very recently suffered a sudden, immediate family loss..
At such times we are replenished with our memories.
Please, accept our sincere condolences..and prayers..
Moore family.
-
In continuing to dig into the morass, as it has been called by some in the past..of the ..
.."The Zapruder Film".......
What I regard imo, as another go-around and using two more witnesses , who are unable to speak for themselves at present...
By whomever, is that their conclusions and opinions are, simply put....that Mary & Jean's given information of their actions that
day Nov.22/63....is in error..
Which is their perogative and is a given.....
Some continue to ask, why did no one report what Jean Mary have mentioned re their actions that day....
Were they asked,?? comes to mind....
Such as some apparently who have posted and do believe that the Umbrella man did not spin
nor pump such up an down .....but as posted and shown within another thread, it may be , Did Zapruder take the Zapruder film..?
He does pump the umbrella and spin it, and that is seen within the Zapruder film.
Yet no witness reported this action either..
Now let's for this post, put aside what Mary Moorman and Jean Hill stated that does differ...with their actions seen within the film.....
.........lets go in another direction..
I found that in re-reading just this one article below, thanks to, and written by Michael Griffith..
Names in relation to the Zapruder film....
and have listed just those mentioned, in such..that lead to information pertaining to Zapruder film alteration....
There are more than likely many more within the links that are included..
I continue to find such, very interesting....each time...I do so.....
Michael T. Griffith
Dr. Luis Alvarez.
Physicist Art Snyder
Noel Twyman,
J. Edgar Hoover aide Cartha DeLoach
Charles Brehm's son
William Newman
Special Agent George Hickey
Newsman James Altgens
Special Agent George Hickey
James Fetzer
Mark North
Dr. David Mantik
Mathematician Daryll Weatherly
William Greer
Mike Pincher
Roy Schaeffer
Secret Service Special Agent Sam Kinney
Chester Breneman
Dan Rather
Abraham Zapruder
Patrolman Bobby Hargis
Secret Service survey
Douglas Horne/ARRB
Philip Melansen
Dr. Mantik says the following:
A strong case can now be made for extensive editing of the Zapruder film. In fact, the conclusion seems inescapable--the film was deliberately altered. No other explanation is in the same league, in terms of explanatory power, for the myriad of anomalous characteristics that are seen everywhere in this case. Many frames were excised, some individual frames were extensively altered, others were changed only enough to fill in for missing frames, and others were left alone. . . .
What can be made of the absurd paradoxes of (supposed) camera tracking errors that are totally inconsistent with what actually appears in the relevant frame? When the frame contents shift by enormous amounts, corresponding blurs must be seen. There is no cinematic magic that can avoid such realities. And what can be said about intersprocket magnifications that are grossly different in two frames, particularly when tracking nonsense surfaces in the same frames? And now, thanks to Noel Twyman, we have the image of The Soaring Bird and of The Black Hole. These could have provided precisely the kind of reference points for pin registration that would be essential for frame to frame editing.
Why else are these images there? They do recur persistently throughout the film. And when they are absent, where do they go--unless someone has deliberately omitted them? And where exactly did the intersprocket image of the right motorcycle come from? And why is it never visible in the central image?
Why does the intersprocket image of the motorcycle skip around? Why is the intersprocket image darker after about Z235? Why do so many odd features occur within the intersprocket area? Why is the intersprocket image missing in frames Z413 and 414?
And so the questions come, one after another, like automatic rifle fire. How much more evidence is required before reason prevails? At the very least, the proposal of film alteration deserves extensive consideration and serious discussion--even among those who are still inclined to be doubters. For these individuals, there is now much to explain. It is time for them to put on their ten-league boots and begin climbing this small mountain of data. (Assassination Science, p. 340, original emphasis).....
EVIDENCE OF ALTERATION IN THE ZAPRUDER FILM
Michael T. Griffith
1998
@All Rights Reserved
Third Edition
Revised and Expanded on 4/8/98
What follows are some of the indications that the Zapruder film has been altered. By "altered" I mean that certain frames have been removed and that others are composites. Why was the film altered? To remove episodes and images that clearly showed there were more than three shots (at least one from the front) and therefore that there were multiple gunmen involved in the shooting. I have gathered most of these points from the historic new book Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out On The Death Of JFK, about which more will be said further on in this article.
* Numerous witnesses, over 40, including the escort patrolmen to the rear of the limousine, said the limousine stopped or slowed down drastically for a second or two. The Muchmore film shows the limousine's brake lights on for nine frames (about half a second) during the time period corresponding to about frames 311-319 of the Zapruder film. This event is not seen in the Zapruder film; in fact, the limousine never comes close to performing this action in the current film.
Opponents of alteration cite the virtually invisible, extremely brief slowing identified by physicist Dr. Luis Alvarez. This slowing occurs from about Z295-304, as the car decelerates from approximately 12 to 8 mph in half a second. However, in the film this event is so subtle that it is usually not noticed by viewers. No one appears to have noticed it, in fact, until Dr. Alvarez, through careful study and analysis of the film, detected it. It seems highly unlikely that this subtle, half-second slowing is what the witnesses were describing when they said the limousine came to a full stop or slowed down drastically.
* However, the sudden slowing of the limousine from 12 to 8 mph in Z295-304 does present another problem for the film's authenticity. Though the slowdown is not very noticeable in the film, it represents a deceleration of about 0.37 g. Physicist Art Snyder notes that such a rapid slowing would be expected to toss things around, and he adds that most cars do not decelerate more than 0.4 g. When one examines the frames immediately after this deceleration, one sees no visible effect on the occupants from such a dramatic slowing. The fact that JFK is not moved by this deceleration is particularly interesting because he no longer had voluntary muscular control and should have been thrown forward. Yet for many frames before and after this event he appears to be quite immobile. So, assuming Dr. Alvarez's data are accurate, the sudden reduction in speed that he detected would seem to constitute further evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film. Could it be that this half-second slowing is a remnant of what was originally a much longer, more noticeable deceleration?
* Dr. Roderick Ryan believes he has discovered that the limousine is actually standing still in Z303 but is moving in Z302, even though the limousine appears to be moving at a nearly uniform speed in the film during this time (Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON, Rancho Santa Fe, CA: Laurel Publishing, 1997, pp. 158-159, 164-165). Notes Noel Twyman,
Experience tells us that the limousine could not have decelerated from 11 miles per hour to a complete stop in 1/18 second. (BLOODY TREASON, p. 165)
Dr. Ryan made this discovery by analyzing the blurring of background images in the two frames. Moreover, Dr. Ryan's son, who also works in motion picture film technology, studied the film and confirmed his father's discovery (BLOODY TREASON, p. 159).
In case some might be wondering about Dr. Ryan's background, he is a retired scientist from Kodak. He holds a Ph.D. from USC, majoring in cinema and communications. He worked for Kodak for 29 years. He spent his entire career in motion picture film technology. He is a recipient of the Scientific and Engineering Award from the Society of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. He has authored numerous books on motion picture technology and several articles on motion picture science. In addition, he is a Fellow of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and a member of the Committee for Selection of Scientific and Technical Awards, Special Effects, Documentary Films.
* In Z353-356 we see Malcolm Summers diving to the ground. Summers is to the right of James Altgens. In Z353 Summers' left leg is extended most of the way out. But, in the very next frame, Z354, amazingly, the foreleg is bent markedly backward. Can anyone flex their foreleg to that degree so quickly? In 1/18th of a second?
In Z355 Summers' left leg is bent even farther backward. Can anyone move their foreleg that much in 1/9th of a second (from its position in Z353 to its position in Z355)?
Then, in Z356, the left foot seems to be on the ground. Can anyone whip their left foreleg backward and then put their foot on the ground in the space of three frames, 1/6th of a second?
* Another seemingly impossible action in the Zapruder film is the extremely rapid and precise movement of Charles Brehm's son in Z277-287. In Z277 Brehm junior is standing behind his father. Then, from Z277-287, or in just over half a second, he bolts out from behind his father and comes to stand beside him, clapping his hands no less. In other words, in Z277 Brehm junior is standing behind his father, but, just ten frames later, he is standing calmly and steadily beside him and clapping his hands--all in a fraction over half a second. Ten frames of the Zapruder film, calculated at the assumed speed of 18.3 frames per second, equals .56 seconds (or 560 milliseconds).
I attempted to duplicate the speed of the son's movement, but was unable to do so in the manner seen in the film. When I moved myself around a chair fast enough to appear from behind it to beside it in the required time, I was unable to come to a stop the way the son does in the film. In the film the son, after just over half a second, is standing calmly beside his father clapping his hands. I could not duplicate this feat. Again, when I did move myself around the chair fast enough, I could not stop with that kind of speed and precision and come to be clapping my hands by the time I stopped.
While working on the present edition of this article, I conducted a simulation with my eleven year-old son, Jacob. I had Jacob stand behind a chair and asked him to duplicate the actions of Brehm's son as quickly as possible. I showed him exactly what he had to do. Jacob carried out the movements twelve times. With a stop watch in hand, I timed each attempt. Jacob's times were as follows: .97, .99, .89, .92, 1.03, .92, .89, .99, .97, .85, .82, and .77, as compared to Brehm's son's amazing time of .56. Jacob was unable to perform the required actions as rapidly as Brehm's son performs them in the Zapruder film. For his last three attempts, Jacob was practically jumping out from behind the chair. And, bear in mind, Jacob was purposely trying to move as rapidly as he could. Yet, he was unable to duplicate the feat of Brehm's son.
I have pressed opponents of alteration to explain this amazing feat of Brehm's son. So far none has been able to do so. They cite the fact that Brehm's son also moves out from behind his father in the Muchmore film. However, as others have noted, the extant Muchmore film is not the original, and some researchers believe the film might have been altered in an attempt to make it roughly conform with the edited Zapruder film.
As I've said in JFK discussion groups on the Internet, I would invite anyone to attempt to duplicate the movement of Brehm's son--to whip around an object, turning sharply in the process, stop on a dime with no need to steady himself, and clap at the same time, all in the equivalent of ten frames, or in just over half a second. To put it another way, to duplicate this movement, a person would need to be standing behind an object one moment and then come to be calmly standing and clapping beside it just 10/18th of a second later. If someone claims he or she can do this, I would invite that individual to videotape the feat and make the tape available for others to view. At this time, I am convinced this movement is impossible, and that this episode is proof of alteration in the Zapruder film.
* Several witnesses said Kennedy was knocked visibly forward by a shot to the head, and Dan Rather reported seeing this event when he viewed the film the day after the shooting. No such motion of the head is now visible in the film, only the split-second forward movement from Z312-313, which no one could have noticed.
Former FBI official and J. Edgar Hoover aide Cartha DeLoach recently provided further evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film (albeit unintentionally and unknowingly, I'm sure). DeLoach recalls in his book HOOVER'S FBI that he watched the Zapruder film at FBI HQ the day after the shooting and that he saw Kennedy "PITCHING SUDDENLY FORWARD" in the film. No such motion, of course, is seen in the current film.
Newsman James Altgens, who was standing on Elm Street, to the left front of the limousine, with an excellent view of the shooting, when asked if he saw the backward head snap, replied that he didn't see it and that he thought reports of it were based on an optical illusion.
Special Agent George Hickey, riding in the follow-up car, said the final shot made Kennedy "fall forward and to his left."
William Newman, who was standing on the Elm Street sidewalk right in front of the grassy knoll and who had one of the best views of the shooting, tried to tell New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison that JFK was knocked forward and to the left as if struck by a baseball bat, but Garrison wouldn't believe him because the event wasn't in the film.
I believe the above is good evidence that the original Zapruder film showed Kennedy being knocked rapidly forward. How do defenders of the film's authenticity explain this testimony? They seem to have two approaches to this evidence: They either dismiss all of it as mistaken or they note that Kennedy does eventually fall forward and that this is what the witnesses were describing. Yes, Kennedy does eventually fall forward, but this occurs after the violent backward head snap and is a much slower motion, a motion that is clearly the natural result of Kennedy losing consciousness and simply falling over into his wife's lap. The witnesses, on the other hand, seemed to be saying that the impact of the head shot knocked or strongly pushed Kennedy forward, which is not seen in the current film.
In the current film, Kennedy's head is knocked forward from Z312-313 by the impact of a bullet. No one disputes this. With regard to these frames, Itek noted, "the President's head is subjected to a large acceleration forward." Itek calculated that Kennedy's head is knocked forward 2.3 inches and his right shoulder about 1.1 inches from Z312-313. Bear in mind that each frame represents only 1/18th of a second. But, amazingly, by Z314 the head is suddenly moving backward. I suggest that in the original film the marked forward motion that begins at Z312 did not end at Z313 but continued for at least several frames and probably more, and that this was the forward movement seen and described by witnesses.
* The violent, dramatic backward head snap in Z313-323, which for so many years was thought to be concrete proof of a shot from the front, actually constitutes further evidence of alteration. It has been established that no bullet striking the front of the skull could have caused the backward head snap. However, no bullet striking from behind could have caused this motion either. Warren Commission supporters have put forth two theories to explain how a bullet striking from behind might have caused the head snap, the jet-effect theory and the neuromuscular-reaction theory. Both theories are untenable (see, for example, ("Special Effects in the Zapruder Film: How the Film of the Century was Edited," in James Fetzer, ed., Assassination Science, Chicago: Catfeet Press, 1997, pp. 279-284; Mark North, Act Of Treason, New York: Carroll and Graf, 1991, pp. 383-385). So if neither a bullet from the front nor a bullet from behind could have caused the head snap, what caused it? A few researchers have speculated that Jackie was the cause of the head snap, that is, that she shoved JFK backward, but it is extremely doubtful that she was strong enough to throw her husband's torso backward with such terrific force. The head snap is a physical impossibility, at least according to everything we now know about physics and the human body. So how can we explain it? Dr. David Mantik, who holds a doctorate in physics, suggests that what we now see as the head snap was originally a much slower motion and was actually the action of Jackie lifting her husband back up to look at him.
* Seemingly impossible inconsistencies occur in the streaking of background figures in relation to the camera's movement. Mathematician Daryll Weatherly's vector analysis of image streaking constitutes powerful evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film. Dr. Mantik explains,
Weatherly, in an insightful analysis, takes [physicist Dr. Luis] Alvarez's work to its logical conclusion and raises new and curious issues related to image streaking. For example, between Z-193 and Z-194 the camera moves to the left. This is easily determined by simply looking at the right edge of the frame--the image shifts with respect to the frame edge, presumably as a result of uneven camera movement (i.e., poor tracking). As Alvarez noted, such a movement should produce streaking--of the background figures, the sign, and the closer bystanders. But none of this is seen--it is all quite paradoxical. Based on this, Weatherly proposes that this is a composite scene. This is a remarkably simple and powerful argument. It is difficult to avoid this conclusion. (Assassination Science, p. 315)
Another case of inconsistent image streaking occurs in Z212. In this frame the posts on the Stemmons Freeway sign are noticeably blurred, but the holes in the masonry wall in the background are very well defined. "Since neither of these objects is moving," observes Dr. Mantik, "their visual definition should be similar--but it is not" (Assassination Science, p. 315).
* A white spot on the grass behind the limousine is seen to behave in an unnatural manner. When the spot's width is measured in relation to the camera's tracking, the spot should be at its smallest when the image is at the left edge of the frame. But it doesn't do this. On some occasions, the spot's width is two to three times what it should be. And the frame to frame displacement of the white spot becomes especially egregious when the spot moves into the intersprocket area. Between Z334 and Z335, the displacement of the spot is 180 PERCENT OF NORMAL. Critics of alteration note that the white spot also appears in a photo taken by Richard Bothun. This, however, does not explain the unnatural way the spot behaves in the Zapruder film.
* The head turn of the driver, William Greer, from Z315-317 is too fast--it seems to be well beyond human capability. His head turns about 165 degrees in six frames, or in only 1/3rd of a second. Furthermore, attorney Mike Pincher and Roy Schaeffer argue that the Greer head turn should create blurring in the film since the human eye can't remain focused when following such a rapid movement, but no blurring is seen:
If the reader flashes his hand in front of his face in approximation of one-third of a second, it appears as a blur. The eyes are incapable of staying in full focus in following this action. If Greer's 165-degree movement in one-third of a second truly depicted real time, it would likewise appear as a blur. But blurring of this nature is not seen in the Zapruder film. (Assassination Science, p. 223)
* At least four witnesses saw blood and brain from Kennedy's skull blow out toward the rear of the limousine. Blood and brain splattered onto the left side of the follow-up car's windshield and onto the driver's arm. A considerable amount of blood and brain also splattered onto the two patrolmen who were riding to the limousine's left rear. At least one of those witnesses specified that the brain matter blew out from the back of the skull, and dozens of witnesses, including doctors and nurses, saw a large hole in the right rear part of President Kennedy's head. In the Zapruder film no blood or brain is seen to spray backward. (It cannot be said that the right frontal explosion of blood and brain, which is itself suspect, caused all the blood splattering. In the Zapruder film the right-frontal spray blows mainly forward, and also up and toward the camera, and quickly dissipates--in fact it dissipates in no more than three frames. This effusion of spray could not have caused all of the blood splattering that occurred.)
Secret Service Special Agent Sam Kinney was the driver of the follow-up car in Kennedy's motorcade and thus had a bird's-eye view of the shooting. In interviews with Vincent Palamara between 1992 and 1994, Kinney made some interesting and important observations about what he saw and about his impressions concerning the shooting. Of particular interest are Kinney's comments about the large head wound in the President's head:
He had no brain left [in the wound created by the shot]. It was blown out. . . . there was nothing left. . . . [The wound was in] the back of the head. I saw it hit and I saw his hair come out . . . . I had brain matter all over my windshield and left arm, that's how close we were to it. It was the right rear part of his head, because that's the part I saw blow out. I saw hair come out, the piece [of skull] blow out, then the skin went back in--an explosion in and out. ("The Secret Service Interviews," Kennedy Assassination Chronicles, Summer 1997, p. 20, emphasis added)
When Kinney was told about the description of the exit wound given by a number of the doctors who treated Kennedy at Parkland Hospital right after the shooting, he replied,
I would say that, too. . . . ("The Secret Service Interviews," p. 20, emphasis added)
Kinney's description of a large, blown-out right-rear exit wound matches the reports given by numerous Parkland doctors and nurses and by several witnesses at the autopsy. Also, his account of particulate matter exploding out the back of the skull and landing on his windshield and left arm agrees with Patrolman Bobby Hargis's report that the head shot sent blood and brain flying toward him so fast that when it struck him he initially thought he himself had been hit and that the debris got all over his motorcycle and uniform (in an interview he gave a few years ago, Hargis described the head shot as an "explosion"). Hargis, of course, was riding to the left rear of the limousine.
* There are marked disagreements between the descriptions of those who saw the film soon after the assassination and what is now in the film. Dan Rather's reference to Kennedy's head being knocked forcefully forward is one case in point. Another example is the account of surveyor Chester Breneman, who was allowed to study enlargements of Zapruder frames to aid him in determining locations and distances. Breneman insisted that on some of the frames he saw a blob of blood and brain blow out from the back of Kennedy's head. No such event is visible on the current film. (As mentioned, some witnesses in the plaza likewise saw blood and brain blown backward.)
* The bloody spray from the right-frontal explosion that is seen in the film blows upward, forward, and also toward the camera, and is really clearly visible for only one frame, and dissipates in two to three frames--or in no more than 1/6th of a second. Yet, in films of two ballistics tests the resulting spray is visible for multiple frames. In other words, the right-frontal effusion in the Zapruder film seems to disappear too quickly, with unnatural speed.
* The 12/5/63 Secret Service survey placed the shots at approximately Z208, Z276, and Z358. A head shot at Z358 corresponds with the accounts of Emmett Hudson and James Altgens. Additionally, CE 2111, a Secret Service report, identifies the manhole cover on the side of Elm Street as being located almost opposite the limousine at the time of the last shot--the manhole cover is some 70 feet beyond the spot on the street that corresponds to Z313, which is when the head shot occurs in the current film. (There are several indications that there were TWO head shots. Dr. Mantik opines the first head shot occurred at around Z306-313 and that another one followed a short time later. He believes the current rapid backward head snap that starts at Z313 was originally a much slower motion and, as mentioned, might very well have been the action of Jackie lifting her husband back up to look at him.)
* There is a "remarkably symmetric" plus sign at the center of Elm Street in Z028 (Z28). This might have been used as a register mark for aligning the film when it was being copied by those who altered the film.
* There are magnification anomalies in the film for which there appears to be no credible natural or innocent explanation. One clear example of this is the measured width between the two posts on the back side of the Stemmons Freeway sign from Z312-318. This distance increases by over 12 percent in only six frames. Yet, from Z191-207 the interval remains constant. Some might attempt to explain this anomaly by suggesting that the lens was nonlinear for objects so far off the central axis. But, even if this were the case, it would still be unusual for such inconsistent changes to occur so abruptly within the lens, and lens aberrations do not normally occur in such an erratic fashion anyway.
* Abraham Zapruder told CBS News that he began filming as soon as the President's limousine turned onto Elm Street from Houston Street, as one would logically expect him to have done. But the present Zapruder film begins with the limousine already on Elm Street at Z133. On the day after the assassination, Dan Rather of CBS News watched what was quite possibly an earlier version of the film. Rather reported that in the film he watched that day the limousine "made a turn, a left turn, off Houston Street onto Elm Street." Again, no such event is now seen in the film. In the current film there is a long gap between the earlier motorcycles and the limousine's first appearance at Z133. Why would Zapruder have expended valuable film on the motorcycles but not have taken as much footage as he could of the limousine? Why did he report he had filmed the limousine when it turned onto Elm Street? And what of the left turn from Houston Street onto Elm Street that Rather observed in the film when he viewed it the day after the shooting?
Before I conclude, I would like to address two questions that have been raised by those who deny alteration: Why would the forgers, who were presumably trying to conceal or remove evidence of multiple gunmen and of shots from the front, produce an altered film that included the rapid backward head snap seen in the current film? And, why would the forgers have produced a film that contained indications of more than three shots? My answer to both of these objections is twofold: One, they do not explain the evidence of alteration. If there is scientific proof of alteration, then these philosophical objections must be rejected. Two, I do not believe the forgers were at all satisfied with the results of their tampering. I think they had to create the backward head snap because they had to remove images that were even more unacceptable and problematic. We must keep in mind that the Zapruder film was suppressed from public view for over a decade. In short, I believe the forgers concluded that even after all of their editing the film was still unacceptable, and that this is why the film was suppressed for so long.
I stress that this list contains only some of the indications of fakery in the Zapruder film. I would urge the reader to read the chapters on the signs of alteration in the Zapruder film in the new book Assassination Science, edited by Professor James Fetzer of the University of Minnesota. Concerning the evidence that the Zapruder film has been altered, Dr. Mantik says the following:
A strong case can now be made for extensive editing of the Zapruder film. In fact, the conclusion seems inescapable--the film was deliberately altered. No other explanation is in the same league, in terms of explanatory power, for the myriad of anomalous characteristics that are seen everywhere in this case. Many frames were excised, some individual frames were extensively altered, others were changed only enough to fill in for missing frames, and others were left alone. . . .
What can be made of the absurd paradoxes of (supposed) camera tracking errors that are totally inconsistent with what actually appears in the relevant frame? When the frame contents shift by enormous amounts, corresponding blurs must be seen. There is no cinematic magic that can avoid such realities. And what can be said about intersprocket magnifications that are grossly different in two frames, particularly when tracking nonsense surfaces in the same frames? And now, thanks to Noel Twyman, we have the image of The Soaring Bird and of The Black Hole. These could have provided precisely the kind of reference points for pin registration that would be essential for frame to frame editing.
Why else are these images there? They do recur persistently throughout the film. And when they are absent, where do they go--unless someone has deliberately omitted them? And where exactly did the intersprocket image of the right motorcycle come from? And why is it never visible in the central image?
Why does the intersprocket image of the motorcycle skip around? Why is the intersprocket image darker after about Z235? Why do so many odd features occur within the intersprocket area? Why is the intersprocket image missing in frames Z413 and 414?
And so the questions come, one after another, like automatic rifle fire. How much more evidence is required before reason prevails? At the very least, the proposal of film alteration deserves extensive consideration and serious discussion--even among those who are still inclined to be doubters. For these individuals, there is now much to explain. It is time for them to put on their ten-league boots and begin climbing this small mountain of data. (Assassination Science, p. 340, original emphasis)
If you have not read Assassination Science, I would urge you to do so. It is quite possibly the most important book ever published on the death of President Kennedy. It truly represents a breakthrough in the case. Noel Twyman's book Bloody Treason also presents evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film, along with other important developments relating to the assassination.
Even if some of the apparent technical anomalies in the Zapruder film can be explained, strong indications of tampering would still remain. To put it another way, if opponents of alteration are able to explain the absence of background streaking in certain frames, the magnification anomalies, the odd behavior of the white spot, and other seeming difficulties, would this establish the film's authenticity? No. Otherwise, do we dismiss the witnesses who reported the limousine stopped or slowed drastically? Do we dismiss the witnesses who saw blood and brain blown visibly to the rear? Do we dismiss the fact that the backward head snap is physically impossible according to everything we know about physics and the human body? Do we dismiss the fact that Zapruder said he filmed the motorcade from the time it turned onto Elm Street? Do we dismiss the fact that Brehm's son is positioned behind his father one moment but half a second later is standing calmly clapping at his side? Do we dismiss the fact that the 12/5/63 Secret Service survey placed the last shot at Z358 and that this placement matches the testimony of Emmett Hudson and James Altgens regarding the explosive head shot?
The numerous indications of alteration in the Zapruder film naturally raise some disturbing questions. The answer to the question of why the film was altered is fairly apparent--to conceal obvious evidence of a frontal shot, of multiple gunmen, and of more than three hits. But, who performed the alteration? Whoever they were, they were very well connected (so as to gain access to the film) and had at their disposal considerable technical expertise. It would seem self-evident that those who altered the Zapruder film were either working with or following orders from the men who were responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy.
Though it has been 34 years since the shooting, a special prosecutor or a Congressional committee should be appointed to investigate this matter.
A declassified CIA document indicates the Zapruder film was detoured to a sophisticated CIA photographic lab relatively soon after the assassination, and quite possibly on the night of the shooting. Professor Phillip Melanson has discussed this declassified document and what it reveals about the handling of the film in his famous article "Hidden Exposure: Cover-Up and Intrigue in the CIA's Secret Possession of the Zapruder Film" in The Third Decade, November 1984. A summary of the main points of Melanson's findings is included in Assassination Science.
Though many researchers have long suspected the Zapruder film was altered at the CIA, there is some indication that at least part of the alteration might have been done at the FBI.
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL T. GRIFFITH is a two-time graduate of the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, and of the U.S. Air Force Technical Training School in San Angelo, Texas. His articles on the JFK assassination have appeared in THE DEALEY PLAZA ECHO, in THE ASSASSINATION CHRONICLES, and in the JFK/DEEP POLITICS QUARTERLY. He is the author of the book COMPELLING EVIDENCE: A NEW LOOK AT THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY (Grand Prairie, TX: JFK Lancer Productions, 1996). He is also the author of four books on Mormonism and ancient religious texts.
Back to Michael T. Griffith
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/g...Alteration.html
""Professor Phillip Melanson has discussed this declassified document and what it reveals about the handling of the film in his famous article "Hidden Exposure: Cover-Up and Intrigue in the CIA's Secret Possession of the Zapruder Film" in The Third Decade, November 1984. A summary of the main points of Melanson's findings is included in Assassination Science.""
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=520770
""A declassified CIA document indicates the Zapruder film was detoured to a sophisticated CIA photographic lab relatively soon after the assassination, and quite possibly on the night of the shooting...""
The following excerpts are taken from three enclosures in ARRB Document
D-133, which was prepared by Doug Horne.
Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 07/15/97
Date: 07/14/97
Topic: ARRB Interviewed Homer McMahon
. . .
Mr. McMahon was manager of the NPIC (National Photo Interpretation
Center) color lab in 1963. About two days after the assassination of
President Kennedy, but before the funeral took place, a Secret Service
agent named "Bill Smith" delivered an amateur film of the assassination
to NPIC and requested that color prints be mde of frames believed to be
associated with wounding ("frames in which shots occurred"), for purpos-
es of assembling a briefing board. Mr. Smith did not explain who the
briefing boards would be for, or who would be briefed. The only persons
who witnessed this activity (which McMahon described as "an all night
job") were USSS agent Smith, Homer McMahon, and Ben Hunter (McMahon's
assistant). Although no materials produced were stamped with classifi-
cations markings, Smith told McMahon that the subject matter was to be
treated as "above top secret"; McMahon said not even his supervisor was
allowed to know what he was working on, nor was his supervisor allowed
to participate. Smith told McMahon that the had personally picked up
the film (in an undeveloped condition from the man who exposed it) in
Dallas, flown it to Rochester, N.Y. (where it was developed by Kodak),
and then flown it down to NPIC in Washington so that enlargements of
selected frames could be made on NPIC's state-of-the-art equipment.
After the film (either an unslit original or possibly a duplicate)
was viewed more than once on a 16 mm projector in a briefing room at
NPIC, the original (a double-8 mm unslit original) was placed in a 10x
20x40 precison enlarger, and 5" X 7" format internegatives were made
from selected frames. A full-immersion "wet-gate" or liquid gate pro-
cess was used on the original film to reduce refractivity of the film
and maximize the optical quality of the internegatives. Subsequently,
three each 5" X 7" contact prints were made from the internegative. He
recalled that a mimimum of 20, and a maximum of 40 frames were duplicat-
ed via internegatives and prints. All prints, internegatives, and scraps
were turned over to Bill Smith at the conclusion of the work.
. . .
Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 08/14/97
Date: 08/14/97
Topic: Processing of Zapruder Film by NPIC in 1963 (Revised August 15,
1997)
. . .
I asked both men [Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter] if they still recall-
ed that their event occurred prior to the President's funeral, and they
both emphatically said yes. Mr. McMahon said he believes they performed
their work the night of the same day the President was assassinated, and
Bennett Hunter said he was of the opinion they did their work on the sec-
ond night after the assassination (i.e., Saturday night).
. . .
Home McMahon remembered again that the Secret Service agent stated
definitively that the assassination movie was developed in Rochester,
and that copies of it were made in Rochester also, and that he personal-
ly watched one of those copies projected at least 10 times that night
prior to making the internegatives of selected frames. Mr. Hunter agreed
that it seemed very likely to him that the copies of the motion picture
film would "probably have been made in Rochester", but did not independ-
ently recall.
. . .
Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 06/18/97
Date: 06/17/97
Topic: ARRB Staff Interviewed Ben Hunter (Grammatical Edits Made on
June 19, 1997)(Final Edit Made June 20, 1997)
. . .
-The Zapruder film was not copied as a motion picture; in fact, Hun-
ter said that NPIC did not have that capability for color movies, since
they were in the business of still, B & W reconnaissance photography for
the most part. He said that the assigned task was to analyze (i.e., loc-
ate on the film) where occupants of the limousine were wounded, includ-
ing "studying frames leading up to shots", and then produce color prints
from appropriate frames just prior to shots, and also frames showing shots
impacting limousine occupants. He recalled laying the home movie out on
a light table and using a loupe to examine individual frames. He does not
recall whether they received any instructions as to number of shots, or
any guidance as to where to look in the film.
. . .
Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 07/15/97
Date: 07/14/97
Topic: ARRB Interviewed Homer McMahon
. . .
Although the process of selecting which frames depicted events sur-
rounding the wounding of limousine occupants (Kennedy and Connally) was
a "joint process", McMahon said his opinion, which was that President
Kennedy was shot 6 to 8 times from at least three directions, was ul-
timately ignored, and the opinion of USSS agent Smith, that there were
3 shots from behind from the Book Depository, ultimately was employed in
selecting frames in the movie for reproduction. At one point he said
"you can't fight city hall", and then reminded us that his job was to
produce internegatives and photographs, not to do analysis. He said
that it was clear that the Secret Service agent had previously viewed
the fim and already had opinions about which frames depicted woundings.
. . .
END
""* Abraham Zapruder told CBS News that he began filming as soon as the President's limousine turned onto Elm Street from Houston Street, as one would logically expect him to have done. But the present Zapruder film begins with the limousine already on Elm Street at Z133. On the day after the assassination, Dan Rather of CBS News watched what was quite possibly an earlier version of the film. Rather reported that in the film he watched that day the limousine "made a turn, a left turn, off Houston Street onto Elm Street." Again, no such event is now seen in the film. ""
Mr. LIEBELER - As you stood there on this abutment with your camera, the motorcade came down Houston Street and turned left on Elm Street, did it not?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's right.
Mr. LIEBELER - And it proceeded then down Elm Street toward the triple underpass; is that correct?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's correct. I started shooting--when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street.
Mr. LIEBELER - Tell us what happened as you took these pictures.
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, as the car came in line almost--I believe it was almost in line. I was standing up here and I was shooting through a telephoto lens, which is a zoom lens and as it reached about--I imagine it was around here--I heard the first shot and I saw the President lean over and grab himself like this (holding his left chest area).
Mr. LIEBELER - Grab himself on the front of his chest?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Right---something like that. In other words, he was sitting like this and waving and then after the shot he just went like that.
Mr. LIEBELER - He was sitting upright in the car and you heard the shot and you saw the President slump over?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Leaning--leaning toward the side of Jacqueline. For a moment I thought it was, you know, like you say, "Oh, he got me," when you hear a shot--you've heard these expressions and then I saw---I don't believe the President is going to make jokes like this, but before I had a chance to organize my mind, I heard a second shot and then I saw his head opened up and the blood and everything came out and I started--I can hardly talk about it [ the witness crying].
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/zapruder.htm
The Zapruder Film: Truth or Deception?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-rcdBNFnGs...ated&search
B...
-
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:06:28 -0500
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
David and David, Jack and John,
I especially need your opinions on this issue. Am I right or wrong that the
medical evidence, especially of the massive blow-out to the back of the head,
is inconsistent with the Zapruder, which shows a massive blow-out to the right-
front side of the head?
<
<
Assuming that I'm one of the Davids cited, I believe you are right within the strict limits of the question quoted. The "flap" is inconsistent with the Parkland staff's testimonies. It is, though, consistent with disputed autopsy photos, and thus discrepancy makes it suspect.
While the right rear of JFK's head is not exactly "mugging for the camera," as someone put it above, it is the part of JFK's head that, in the angling away of his face, is angled toward the camera. One would expect to see more than a lumpen "shadow" there, and also that the reported backspray onto the trunk and the motorcycle cop would be represented by more than a few of JFK's cowlick hairs out of place. Those few hairs that some researchers point to, however, do bolster medical testimony that the back of the head was "sprung open," with the rear skull in pieces under the hinging top rear scalp, as some readings of the available X-rays state.
This may confuse the issue, or my reputation here, in several ways, but... Once while watching the stabilized Z-film on Youtube (I have also seen Z projected and on DVD), I paused the film to study the shadow on the right rear head. I decided that the image was best studied in other media, and clicked to exit and start a different clip. In the moment of darkness between clips in the small Youtube frame, I briefly saw an afterimage of the small shadow as a blotch on the screen just before the next clip started. I was not staring at the screen at this time - I had sat back briefly to sip my coffee between films. I'm wondering if some interface effect between the electronics and the eye produces an afterimage of an addition to the original image of the head. I'm wondering, too, if this effect can be repeated under technical study of the image on film or in digitization.
The "Davids" quoted are David LIFTON and David MANTIK.
Jack
***************
David Andrews:
This article may help in understanding what the Parkland Medical authorities saw...on
Nov.22/63....Their first Report...
The following is information from
"Three Patients at Parkland"
an article in the...
"Texas State Journal of Medicine, dated January 1964.
Written in late November / early December,1963...before the official story was set in stone, and the authourities had returned to speak with the Doctors of Parkland, and show them the autopsy findings of Bethesda......
Charles J Carrico -
Dr. Carrico was the first physician to see the President. A 1961 graduate
of Southwestern Medical School, he is 28 and a resident in surgery at Parkland.
He reported that when the patient entered the emergency room on an ambulance carriage he had
slow agonal respiratory efforts and occasional cardiac beats detectable by auscultation.
Two
external wounds were noted; one a small wound of the anterior neck in the lower one third. The
other wound had caused avulsion of the occipitoparietal calvarium and shredded brain tissue was
present with profuse oozing.
No pulse or blood pressure were present. Pupils were bilaterally
dilated and fixed. A cuffed endotracheal tube was inserted through the laryngoscope. A ragged
wound of the trachea was seen immediately below the larynx. The tube was advanced past the
laceration and the cuff inflated. Respiration was instituted using a respirator assistor on
automatic cycling. Concurrently, an intravenous infusion of lactated Ringer's solution was
begun via catheter placed in the right leg. Blood was drawn for typing and cross -matching. Type
0 Rh negative blood was obtained immediately.
In view of the tracheal injury and diminished breath sounds in the right chest, tracheostomy
was performed by Dr. Malcolm 0. Perry and bilateral chest tubes inserted. A second intravenous
infusion was begun in the left arm. In addition, Dr. M. T. Jenkins began respiration with the
anesthesia machine, cardiac monitor and stimulator attached. Solu-Cortef (300 mg.) was given
intravenously. Despite those measures, blood pressure never returned. Only brief
electrocardiographic evidence of cardiac activity was obtained.
Malcolm 0. Perry -
Dr. Perry is an assistant professor of surgery at Southwestern Medical
School from which he received his degree in 1955. He is 34 years old and was certified by the
American Board of Surgery in 1963.
At the time of initial examination of the President, Dr. Perry has stated, the patient was
noted to be non-responsive . His eyes were deviated and the pupils dilated. A considerable
quantity of blood was noted on the patient, the carriage, and the floor.
A small wound was
noted in the midline of the neck in the lower third anteriorly. It was exuding blood slowly. A
large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted, exposing severely lacerated brain. Brain
tissue was noted in the blood at the head of the carriage.
Pulse or heart beat were not detectable but slow spasmodic respiration was noted. An
endotracheal tube was in place and respiration was being controlled. An intravenous infusion
was being placed in the leg. While additional venesections were done to administer fluids and
blood, a tracheostomy was effected. A right lateral injury to the trachea was noted. The
cuffed tracheostomy tube was put in place as the endotracheal tube was withdrawn and
respirations continued. Closed chest cardiac massage was instituted after placement of
sealed-drainage chest tubes, but without benefit. When electrocardiogram evaluation revealed
that no detectable electrical activity existed in the heart, resuscitative attempts were
abandoned. The team of physicians determined that the patient had expired.
Charles R. Baxter
- Dr. Baxter is an assistant professor of surgery at Southwestern Medical
School where he first arrived as a medical student in 1950. Except for two years away in the
Army he has been at Southwestern and Parkland ever since, moving up from student to intern to
resident to faculty member. He is 34 and was certified by the American Board of Surgery in 1963.
Recalling his attendance to President Kennedy, he says he learned at approximately 12 :35
that the President was on the way to the emergency room and that he had been shot. When Dr.
Baxter arrived in the emergency room, he found an endotracheal tube in place and respirations
being assisted. A left chest tube was being inserted and cut-downs were functioning in one leg
and in the left arm.
The President had a wound in the midline of the neck. On first
observation of the other wounds, portions of the right temporal and occipital bones were missing
and some of the brain was lying on the table. The rest of the brain was extensively macerated
and contused.
The pupils were fixed and deviated laterally and were dilated. No pulse was
detectable and ineffectual respirations were being assisted. A tracheostomy was performed by
Dr. Perry and Dr. Baxter and a chest tube was inserted into the right chest (second interspace
anteriorly). Meanwhile one pint of O negative blood was administered without response. When
all of these measures were complete, no heart beat could be detected. Closed chest massage was
performed until a cardioscope could be attached. Brief cardiac activity was obtained followed
by no activity. Due to the extensive and irreparable brain damage which existed and since there
were no signs of life, no further attempts were made at resuscitation.
Robert N. McClelland -
Dr. McClelland, 34, assistant professor of surgery at Southwestern
Medical School, is a graduate of the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston. He has
served with the Air Force in Germany and was certified by the American Board of Surgery in 1963.
Regarding the assassination of President Kennedy, Dr. McClelland says that at approximately
12:35 p.m. he was called from the second floor of the hospital to the emergency room. When he
arrived, President Kennedy was being attended by Drs. Perry, Baxter, Carrico, and Ronald Jones,
chief resident in surgery. The President was at that time comatose from a massive gunshot wound
of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea. An endotracheal tube had been placed and
assisted respiration started by Dr. Carrico who was on duty in the emergency room when the
President arrived. Drs. Perry, Baxter, and McClelland performed a tracheostomy for respiratory
distress and tracheal injury. Dr. Jones and Dr. Paul Peters, assistant professor of surgery, ;
inserted bilateral anterior chest tubes for pneumothoraces secondary to the tracheo-mediastinal
injury. Dr. Jones and assistants had started three cutdowns, giving blood and fluids
immediately. In spite of this, the President was pronounced dead at 1:00 p.m. by Dr. Clark, the
neurosurgeon, who arrived immediately after Dr. McClelland.
The cause of death, according to
Dr. McClelland was the massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the right side of
the head.
The President was pronounced dead after external cardiac massage failed and
electrocardiographic activity was gone.
Fouad A, Bashour
- Dr. Bashour received his medical education at the University of Beirut
School of Medicine in Lebanon. He is 39 and an associate professor of medicine in cardiology at
Southwestern Medical School.
At 12 :50 p.m. Dr. Bashour was called from the first floor of the hospital and told that
President Kennedy had been shot. He and Dr. Donald Seldin, professor and chairman of the
Department of Internal Medicine, went to the emergency room. Upon examination, they found that
the President had no pulsations, no heart beats, no blood pressure. The oscilloscope showed a
complete standstill. The President was declared dead at 1:00 p.m.
William Kemp Clark
- Dr. Clark is associate professor and chairman of the Division of
Neurosurgery at Southwestern Medical School. The 38-year-old physician has done research on
head injuries and has been at Southwestern since 1956.
He reports this account of the President's treatment:
The President arrived at the emergency room entrance in the back seat of his limousine.
Governor Connally of Texas was also in this car.
The first physician to see the President was
Dr. Carrico
.
Dr. Carrico noted the President to have slow, agonal respiratory efforts. He could hear a
heart beat but found no pulse or blood pressure.
Two external wounds, one in the lower third of
the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted. Through the head
wound, blood and brain were extruding.
Dr. Carrico inserted a cuffed endotracheal tube and
while doing so, he noted a ragged wound of the trachea immediately below the larynx.
At this time, Drs. Perry, Baxter, and Jones arrived.
Immediately thereafter, Dr. Jenkins and
Drs. A. H. Giesecke, Jr., and Jackie H. Hunt, two other staff anesthesiologists, arrived. The
endotracheal tube had been connected to a respirator to assist the President's breathing. An
anesthesia machine was substituted for this by Dr. Jenkins. Only 100 per cent oxygen was
administered.
A cutdown was performed in the right ankle, and a polyethylene catheter inserted in the vein.
An infusion of lactated Ringer's solution was begun. Blood was drawn for typing and
crossmatching, but unmatched type O Rh negative blood was immediately obtained and begun.
Hydrocortisone (300
mg.) was added to the intravenous fluids.
Dr. McClelland arrived to help in the President's care. Drs. Perry, Baxter, and McClelland
did a tracheostomy. Considerable quantities of blood were present in the President's oral
pharynx. At this time, Dr. Peters and Dr. Clark arrived.
Dr. Clark noted that the President had bled profusely from the back of the head. There was a
large (3 by 3 cm.) amount of cerebral tissue present on the cart. There was a smaller amount of
cerebellar tissue present also.
The tracheostomy was completed and the endotracheal tube was withdrawn. Suction was used to
remove blood in the oral pharynx. A nasogastric tube was passed into the stomach. Because of
the likelihood of mediastinal injury, anterior chest tubes were placed in both pleural spaces.
These were connected to sealed underwater drainage.
Neurological examination revealed the President's pupils to be widely dilated and fixed to
light. His eyes were divergent, being deviated outward; a skew deviation from the horizontal
was present. No deep tendon reflexes or spontaneous movements were found.
When Dr. Clark noted that there was no carotid pulse, he began closed chest massage. A pulse
was obtained at the carotid and femoral levels.
Dr. Perry then took over the cardiac massage so that
Dr. Clark could evaluate the head wound.
There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region.
Much of the right posterior skull, at brief examination, appeared gone. The previously
described extruding brain was present. Profuse bleeding had occurred and 1500 cc. of blood was
estimated to be on the drapes and floor of the emergency operating room. Both cerebral and
cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound.
By this time an electrocardiograph was hooked up. There was brief electrical activity of the
heart which soon stopped.
The President was pronounced dead at 1:00 p.m. by Dr. Clark.
M. T. Jenkins
- Dr. Jenkins is professor and chairman of the Department of Anesthesiology at
Southwestern Medical School. He is 46, a graduate of the University of Texas Medical Branch in
Galveston, and was certified by the American Board of Anesthesiology in 1952. During World War
II he served in the Navy as a lieutenant commander.
When Dr. Jenkins was notified that the President was being brought to the emergency room at
Parkland, he dispatched Drs. Giesecke and Hunt with an anesthesia machine and resuscitative
equipment to the major surgical emergency room area. He ran downstairs to find upon his arrival
in the emergency operating room that Dr. Carrico had begun resuscitative efforts by introducing
an orotracheal tube, connecting it for controlled ventilation to a Bennett intermittent positive
pressure breathing apparatus. Drs. Baxter, Perry, and McClelland arrived at the same time and
began a tracheostomy and started the insertion of a right chest tube, since there was also
obvious tracheal and chest damage. Drs. Peters and Clark arrived simultaneously and immediately
thereafter assisted respectively with the insertion of the right chest tube and with manual
closed chest cardiac compression to assure circulation. Dr. Jenkins believes it evidence of the
clear thinking of the resuscitative team that the patient received 300 mg. hydrocortisone
intravenously in the first few minutes.
For better control of artificial ventilation, Dr. Jenkins exchanged the intermittent positive
pressure breathing apparatus for an anesthesia machine and continued artificial ventilation.
Dr. Gene Akin,
a resident in anesthesiology, and Dr. Giesecke connected a cardioscope to
determine cardiac activity.
During the progress of these activities, the emergency room cart was elevated at the feet in
order to provide a Trendelenburg position, a venous cutdown was performed on the right saphenous
vein and additional fluids were begun in a vein in the left forearm while blood was ordered from
the blood bank. All of these activities were completed by approximately 12:50 at which time
external cardiac massage was still being carried out effectively by Dr. Clark as judged by a
palpable peripheral pulse. Despite these measures there was only brief electrocardiographic
evidence of cardiac activity.
These described resuscitative activities were indicated as of first importance, and after
they were carried out, attention was turned to other evidences of injury.
There was a great
laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the
skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the
extent that part of the right cerebellum had protruded from the wound.
There were also
fragmented sections of brain on the drapes of the emergency room cart. With the institution of
adequate cardiac compression, there was a great flow of blood from the cranial cavity,
indicating that there was much vascular damage as well as brain tissue damage. President
Kennedy was pronounced dead at 1 p.m.
It is Dr. Jenkins' personal feeling that all methods of resuscitation were instituted
expeditiously and efficiently. However, he says, the cranial and intracranial damage was of
such magnitude as to cause irreversible damage.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
List taken from "Murder In Deaey Plaza"
Dr.J.Fetzer..
The observations of the wounds..
At Parkland...the earliest statements.
.................................................RightRear...........Right Side...........Right Anterior
1. William K.Clark, MD.......................X
2. Robert McClelland, MD.................. X
3. Marion T.Jenkins, MD..................... X
4. Charles J.Carrico, MD.................... X
5. Malcolm Perry, MD...................... . X
6. Ronald C.Jones, MD...................... X
7. Gene Akin, MD..............................X
8. Paul Peters, MD.............................X
9. Charles Crenshaw, MD................... X
10. Charles R.Baxter, MD....................X
11. Robert Grossman, MD...................X.......................X
12. Richard B.Dulany, MD...................X
13.AdolpheGiesecke,MD..................X...........................X............
.............X
14. Fouad Bashour, MD......................X
15.Kenneth E.Salyer Kenneth E. Salyer MD....................X..........................X......................X
16. Pat Hutton, RN.............................X
17. Doris Nelson, RN..........................X
18. William Greer, SS........................X
19. Clinton J.Hill, SS..........................X
20. Diana Hamilton Bowron, RN..........X
21, William Midgett............................X........................X
What do we see in the Zapruder film…..?.. A huge blown out wound to the right, front, top of the head, ?? and a the appearance of a shadowed blackened area within the back of his head....where the staff of the Parkland Hospital reported the blown out back head wound ....
It is Not What is Seen in the Zapruder Film.....it is what is Not seen…
We look to the Zapruder film..and we see,
No blown out wound at the back of the head, be it tangential or avulsive.........
Parkland did not see nor report a huge blown out right, front, top of the head wound....not even Clark..
Yet there it is within the Zapruder film, and not seen within Parkland.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
B.....
-
Quote:
Hi Bernice!
The caption to the photo states that Hill
"stood in the grassy area" when the shot was fired.
It says she was on the grass when the shot was fired.
At odds with previously quoted text ... and the text on the page Kathy
included is Jean's much later ever changing story. Jean was a lovely and fun
woman, but one cannot ignore how her story grew from a guppy to a whale over the years.
Good pickup on Kathy's part.
Hope all is well with you!
Bests,
Barb :-)
******
Hi Barb:Kathy ,
I have grave doubts that Jean was responsible for the insertion of any photos nor what comments may have or not been typed below..within the book...
.....Bill Sloan wrote the book with Jeans input......I believe perhaps from tapes ??..and as all writers do they do take some libertys.....there were some differences she noted with him.......
...I believe Jean mentioned such, on her Black Ops shows...not positive now, but well could be........
She was also trying to get the rights back to the book at the time, as the book was no longer available and out of print......I never did read or hear later
if she did.
Some witnesses stories grew down through the years, but this thread is about what was stated at the time of the assassination, not the changes they may have made years later....
And why their movements that day are not seen within the Zapruder film.....
Thanks B....
-
Hi Bernice,
The photo paragraph states that "Jean Hill stood in the grassy area to the extreme right when the fatal shot was fired." It does not say she was in the street.
I posted that to demonstrate that it is coming out of the same book that some are saying says that she was in the street when the fatal shot was fired.
Kathy
I've been lucky enough to go to DP a few times.
Hi Kathy:
I realize that you have been to Dealey, you are fortunate.
""Quote Kathy :I posted that to demonstrate that it is coming out of the same book that some are saying says that she was in the street when the fatal shot was fired.""
Please link thanks.
""Now that I have taken a look at Bill Sloan with Jean Hill, THE
LAST DISSENTING WITNESS (1992), I have discovered on p. 63 the following exchange
between Jean Hill and a person--identified by FBI AIC Gordon Shanklin--as a CIA agent:
"You said you were 'right at the curb' on Elm Street as the presidential
limousine approached", he began, "but weren't you actually in the street
itself for several seconds?"
"Yes", she replied, regaining some of her composure. "I jumped into the
street and called out to the president to look in our direction. We wanted
to take his picture".
"Is that the only reason you were in the street?"
She frowned. "Yes, of course", she said.
"And why did you suddenly jump back from the president's car at almost
exactly the same instant the shooting started?"
"I just realized I probably shouldn't be so close, and I decided I'd better
get back.
Notice how consistent this is with Mary's description of stepping into the street, taking
her picture, stepping back on the grass and getting down so she would not be shot and
tugging at Jean's leg, so she would get down, too.""
What I see as one of the main points in all this, that appears to be constantly averted is that none
of these actions of Mary & Jeans are seen within the Zapruder film, and should be.....
As what one has stated does verify the other's information.....
..Mary has stated and very clearly, she was in the street....3 times I believe down through the years....
..
Thanks B..
*********
The reel was an interview by Jay Hogan of Mary Moorman and Jean Hill at
3:30 pm...on KRLD RADIO excerpts, Tape 5B and 6A at NARA.
I am excerpting from the lengthy transcript several relevant parts of the
interviews. Decide for yourself the importance of this first day evidence:
HOGAN:
Q: Hello, Mrs. Moorman?
A: Yes.
Q You took the picture just after the shooting, or just before?
A: Evidently, just immediately, as the. . . Cause he was, he was looking, you know,
whenever I got the camera focused and then I snapped it in my picture, he slumped over.
(DELETED FOR BREVITY)
Q: About how close were you?
(DELETED FOR BREVITY)
A: 10 or fifteen foot, I, no more . . . Because I fall behind my camera.
(DELETED FOR BREVITY)
Q: Were you up on that grassy bank there?
A: We stepped out in the street. We were right at the car.
(DELETED FOR BREVITY)
Q: How many shots did you hear? You say "shots rang out".
A: Oh, oh, I don't know. I think three or four is what I, I uh, that I heard.
Q: Uh huh.
A: (continuing) that I'm sure of. Now, I don't know, there might have been more.
It just took seconds for me to realize what was happening.
Q: Yeah, uh, what as your first thought?
A: That those ARE shots. I mean, he had been HIT.
And that they're liable to hit me, cause I'm right at the car,
so I decided the place for me is to get on the ground (laughs)
Q: So huh, how did the president respond to this shot. I mean, did he just
slump suddenly?
A: He grabbed his chest, and of course, Mrs. Kennedy jumped up immediately,
and fell over him; and she said: "My God, he's been shot."
Q: Did you notice any other reactions...
(DELETED FOR BREVITY)
A: Uh, they hesitated just for a moment [referring, I believe, to the car itself,
rather than to the behavior of any particular individual--dsl] cause I think they
were like I was, you know--'Was that a shot," or was itj ust a backfire, or
just what? And then, course, he clutched himself and they immediately sped up,
real fast, you know, like--to get OUT of there. And, uh, the police, there were
several motorcycles around him; and, uh, they stopped, and uh--one or two must
of went with him, And one ran up the hill, and a friend that was with me ran up
the hill across the street from where the shots came from.
(DELETED FOR BREVITY)
Q: It (shots) seemed fairly close by?
A: Yes, uh huh.
Q And form what direction did they seem to be?
A: Oh, Lord? North. Just back there (at--laughs)
Q: Just just right at you?
A: Yes, sir.
(DELETED FOR BREVITY)
A: The sound popped, well it just sounded like, well, you know, there might
have been a firecracker right there in that car.
Q: And in your picture, uh, you uh took this picture just BEFORE the shot?
(DELETED FOR BREVITY)
A: Evidently, at the minute (means "instant") that he, that it hit him because,
uh, we was we was looking, at me, or I mean, he was looking, you know, at the
people when my picture came out. They just slumped over, so I must have got it.
(DELETED FOR BREVITY)
A: Yes, uh huh. You could see he's clutched, he's bent over, and she's... and she
hadn't even gotten up in my picture, and she DID get up, STOOD UP, in the car.
(DELETED FOR BREVITY)
Q: Uh huh. And you and your friend Miss Hill, uh, were together there
at the scene. Was anybody else with you?
A No, uh uh.
Q: OK, well we sure thank you.
FROM HERE ON OUT, the interview continues with Jean Hill
Q: (continuing)
And also, here, we do have Miss Hill. Miss Hill, you were an
eyewitness, also?
A: Yes, I was . I suppose we were the people closest to the
President's car at the time.
Q: Uh, that as about 10 or fifteen feet, you'd say?
A: Not anymore than that at all.
Q: Uh huh. You were both looking right at the presidential car, then?
A: Yes, we were looking right at the President. We were looking at his face.
As Mary took the picture, I was looking at him. And he grabbed his hands across
his ch-when two shots rang out. He grabbed his hands across his chest. I have
never seen anyone killed, or in pain before like that but there was this odd
look came across his face, and he pitched forward onto Jackie's lap.
DSL NOTE: I believe this must mean: "to the side onto Jackie's lap" --because Jackie was
to the left of JFK, not in front of JFK. In my interview of the Newman's, circa 1971, in
person, and on tape, they talk of JFK falling to the side, or being thrust towards Jackie.
A: And uh, she immediately, we were close enough to even hear her, and
everything, and she fell across him and says "My God, he's been shot."
Q: ..... Did you notice particularly any of the other people around? At the time (she cuts in)
A: There was NO one around us on our side of the street. We had planned it that way;
we wanted to be down there by ourselves; that’s the reason we had gotten almost
to the underpass, so we’d be completely in the clear.
Q: Any other reactions form the other people in the motorcae, that you recall?
A: The motorcade was stunned after the first two shots, and it came to a momentary halt,
and about that time 4 more uh, 3 to 4 more shots again rang out, and I guess it just didn't
register with me. Mary was uh had gotten down on the ground and was pulling at my leg,
saying "Get , get down, they're shooting, get down, they're shooting; and I didn't even
realize it. And I just kept sitting there looking. And uh uh just about that time, well,
of course, some of the motorcycles pulled away. And some of them pulled over to the side
and started running up the bank; there's a hill on the other side (she is interrupted)
Q: Yes, Maam.
A: And the shots came from there. After they were momentarily stopped--after the
first two shots--THEN they sped away REAL quickly.
(DELETED FOR BREVITY)
Q: Well, thank you Miss Hill, and also Miss Moorman, for speaking with us about this.
A. Thankyou.
ANNOUNCER: That's two eyewitnesses to the murdered president, who saw on his face the
anguish of his very last hour alive. Before we go back to CBS, here again are some
announcements of special local importance.
-
Bill you may find this information from Doug Horne interesting...
B..
The following excerpts are taken from three enclosures in ARRB Document
D-133, which was prepared by Doug Horne. Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 07/15/97
Date: 07/14/97
Topic: ARRB Interviewed Homer McMahon
. . .
Mr. McMahon was manager of the NPIC (National Photo Interpretation
Center) color lab in 1963. About two days after the assassination of
President Kennedy, but before the funeral took place, a Secret Service
agent named "Bill Smith" delivered an amateur film of the assassination
to NPIC and requested that color prints be mde of frames believed to be
associated with wounding ("frames in which shots occurred"), for purpos-
es of assembling a briefing board. Mr. Smith did not explain who the
briefing boards would be for, or who would be briefed. The only persons
who witnessed this activity (which McMahon described as "an all night
job") were USSS agent Smith, Homer McMahon, and Ben Hunter (McMahon's
assistant). Although no materials produced were stamped with classifi-
cations markings, Smith told McMahon that the subject matter was to be
treated as "above top secret"; McMahon said not even his supervisor was
allowed to know what he was working on, nor was his supervisor allowed
to participate. Smith told McMahon that the had personally picked up
the film (in an undeveloped condition from the man who exposed it) in
Dallas, flown it to Rochester, N.Y. (where it was developed by Kodak),
and then flown it down to NPIC in Washington so that enlargements of
selected frames could be made on NPIC's state-of-the-art equipment.
After the film (either an unslit original or possibly a duplicate)
was viewed more than once on a 16 mm projector in a briefing room at
NPIC, the original (a double-8 mm unslit original) was placed in a 10x
20x40 precison enlarger, and 5" X 7" format internegatives were made
from selected frames. A full-immersion "wet-gate" or liquid gate pro-
cess was used on the original film to reduce refractivity of the film
and maximize the optical quality of the internegatives. Subsequently,
three each 5" X 7" contact prints were made from the internegative. He
recalled that a mimimum of 20, and a maximum of 40 frames were duplicat-
ed via internegatives and prints. All prints, internegatives, and scraps
were turned over to Bill Smith at the conclusion of the work.
. . .
Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 08/14/97
Date: 08/14/97
Topic: Processing of Zapruder Film by NPIC in 1963 (Revised August 15,
1997)
. . .
I asked both men [Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter] if they still recall-
ed that their event occurred prior to the President's funeral, and they
both emphatically said yes. Mr. McMahon said he believes they performed
their work the night of the same day the President was assassinated, and
Bennett Hunter said he was of the opinion they did their work on the sec-
ond night after the assassination (i.e., Saturday night).
. . .
Home McMahon remembered again that the Secret Service agent stated
definitively that the assassination movie was developed in Rochester,
and that copies of it were made in Rochester also, and that he personal-
ly watched one of those copies projected at least 10 times that night
prior to making the internegatives of selected frames. Mr. Hunter agreed
that it seemed very likely to him that the copies of the motion picture
film would "probably have been made in Rochester", but did not independ-
ently recall.
. . .
Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 06/18/97
Date: 06/17/97
Topic: ARRB Staff Interviewed Ben Hunter (Grammatical Edits Made on
June 19, 1997)(Final Edit Made June 20, 1997)
. . .
-The Zapruder film was not copied as a motion picture; in fact, Hun-
ter said that NPIC did not have that capability for color movies, since
they were in the business of still, B & W reconnaissance photography for
the most part. He said that the assigned task was to analyze (i.e., loc-
ate on the film) where occupants of the limousine were wounded, includ-
ing "studying frames leading up to shots", and then produce color prints
from appropriate frames just prior to shots, and also frames showing shots
impacting limousine occupants. He recalled laying the home movie out on
a light table and using a loupe to examine individual frames. He does not
recall whether they received any instructions as to number of shots, or
any guidance as to where to look in the film.
. . .
Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 07/15/97
Date: 07/14/97
Topic: ARRB Interviewed Homer McMahon
. . .
Although the process of selecting which frames depicted events sur-
rounding the wounding of limousine occupants (Kennedy and Connally) was
a "joint process", McMahon said his opinion, which was that President
Kennedy was shot 6 to 8 times from at least three directions, was ul-
timately ignored, and the opinion of USSS agent Smith, that there were
3 shots from behind from the Book Depository, ultimately was employed in
selecting frames in the movie for reproduction. At one point he said
"you can't fight city hall", and then reminded us that his job was to
produce internegatives and photographs, not to do analysis. He said
that it was clear that the Secret Service agent had previously viewed
the fim and already had opinions about which frames depicted woundings.
. . .
END
-
John...do you agree or disagree with this statement:
"IF the Zapruder film is NOT GENUINE, citing Z frame numbers as evidence of any particular thing is futile."
Yes? No?
AMPLE proofs exist that the z film is a fabrication. See...
http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/index.html
...any one of which impeaches the film as evidence.
Jack
Jack your link is not working, I believe it may be this one..??
http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/index.html
B...
-
Perhaps she and Sloan should have collaborated a little more on what was published.
In the same book, we see this:
See paragraph on page with photo.
Hi Kathy :
I do not understand what your meaning is, within your post.....? ......
The Knoll is to the left, in your photo, scan..from the book......The little hill, as Bill Newman called it..
.....the embankment..behind them..is the knoll.....Bill is seen below on the north side in photo below...
with the knoll behind him....
The area to the right where Jean & Mary stood, is considered the park area...
If that what you were getting at...I think you may have been thinking what was written below your photo from the book
was in error..??
B.....
-
Zapruder frame # 374..
For any who would like to see ..
B....
-
"My challenge to you, therefore, is to address what I take to be the most
blatant proof that the Zapruder film is a fabrication, which is that the
massive blow-out of brains and blood to the right-front is a fabrication.
None of the witnesses observed it. "
Dr.J.Fetzer..
He did not say the side of the head.......
The Wound Mistake....The Zapruder Film..
Dr.John Costella...
http://assassinationscience.com/johncostel...ntro/wound.html
The Blood mistake
Dr.John Costella
http://assassinationscience.com/johncostel...ntro/blood.html
JFK assassination film hoax
A simple introduction: Dr.John Costella studies..
All chapters....
http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/
B....
-
Josiah........
You have presented your groups studies, and given your opinions here, which you are entitled to , but I am also sorry to see , that you turned, in what you imply is your farewell post into another diatribe against Jack White and Dr.J.Fetzer...
That is far from being gracious in any way...in thanking this forum or it's administration for allowing you to do so...
No I do not always agree with anyone...or group...whatever.... I am quite independant...I sat back and read, studied and watch all that was presented..as a rule that is how one learns...
I do not agree as you have implied that ""Fetzer gives serious research in this area an incredibly bad name. Yes, that bad name ends up besmirching all of us. ""
I think if you are going to, as you have, on your way out throw more stones, then "and we" should be used within that line......and the all of us, is inapproprate, as you cannot speak for another..at any time....and assume....
Only ....each and every individual has that right...as all have the right to disagree with you and yours...or anyones study..
Personally I did not see anyone evading anything...within any of the threads except some direct questions asked of you, by David Lifton in an email letter, ppsted by Dr.Fetzer.......that you did not reply to, but then again, I could have missed others...
In fact I thought it all went quite well, the commenting back and forth except for the overwhelming name calling which it seems always make an appearance...and I missed your or anyones laughter.....
I do think that perhaps in the future that you need to consider that there is a third opinon, not yours nor theirs, but the silent majority that you assume to imply by your statement.....re the poll that was taken, ........and which in reality represented such a small number of the membership of this forum, that it is inconsequential.....
It certainly has been an experience having you and yours here at the Forum, each will or has, decided what kind for themselves....
There were no winners decided here within what has gone down in the past week or so...no matter what anyone wants to imply.....
That is the research world as it stands today..IMO.
B...
-
Mr. Fetzer, below you say:
"My challenge to you, therefore, is to address what I take to be the most
blatant proof that the Zapruder film is a fabrication, which is that the
massive blow-out of brains and blood to the right-front is a fabrication.
None of the witnesses observed it. "
You are incorrect. Your claim is not true:
Bill Newman ... "By this time he was directly in front of us and
I was looking directly at him when he was hit in the side of the head." [Affidavit 11-22-63]
Bill Newman ... "At that time he heard the bullet strike the President and saw flesh fly
from the President's head." .... "He said the president was hit on the right side of the head
with the third shot ..."[FBI report 11-23-63]
Gayle Newman ... "Just about the time President Kennedy was right in front of us,
I heard another shot ring out, and the President put his hands up to his head. I saw
blood all over the side of his head." [Affidavit 11-22-63]
Gayle Newman ... " A few seconds later she heard another shot and saw that the
President had been hit in the head because she saw blood flowing from his body.
She said a man had been standing back on the pedestal near an arcade taking photographs
and there were a couple of people east of them on the north side of Elm Street." [FBI report 11-23-63]
NOTE: She reports man with camera on pedestal.
Gayle Newman .... Shaw trial testimony:
"Q: And what were you able to observe the effects of this shot then?
A: Yes, sir, that shot when it happened, the President's car was directly
in front of us and it was about a lane's width between us, it wasn't in the lane next to
the curb it was in the middle lane, and at that time he was shot in the head right at
his ear or right above his ear."
and
"Q: Now what was the effect of this shot upon the President's head if you were able to observe?
A: The President, his head just seemed to explode, just bits of his skull flew in the air and he fell to the side."
Bill Newman, Shaw Trial testimony:
"I caught a glimpse of his eyes, just looked like a cold stare, he just looked through me, and
then when the car was directly in front of me, well, that is when the third shot was fired and it
hit him in the side of the head right above the ear and his ear come off. "
and
"A: Well, I observed his ear flying off, and he turned just real white ...."
Recorded interview with Mariloyn Sitzman by Josiah Thompson, November 1966:
"Thompson: (resumes recording) So now I believe the motorcade has made the turn onto Houston Street and is proceeding down Houston Street. Sorry we were interrupted.
Sitzman: Try it again. There was nothing unusual until the first sound, which I thought was a firecracker, mainly because of the reaction of President Kennedy. He put his hands up to guard his face and leaned to the left, and the motorcade, you know, proceeded down the hill. And the next thing that I remembered correct ... clearly was the shot that hit him directly in front of us, or almost directly in front of us, that hit him on the side of his fa ... [sic]
Thompson: Where on the side of the head did that shot appear to hit?
Sitzman: I would say it'd be above the ear and to the front.
Thompson: In other words, if one drew a line vertically upward from the tip of the ear, it would be forward of that line?
Sitzman: Yeah.
Thompson: It would then mean the left ... back of the temple, but on the side of the head, back of the temple?
Sitzman: Between the eye and the ear.
Thompson: Between the eye and the ear.
Sitzman: And we could see his brains come out, you know, his head opening. It must have been a terrible shot because it exploded his head, more or less.
Thompson: Did you see what the President's movement was at that point? I mean, how his head moved or how his body seemed to move under the impact of the shot.
Sitzman: No, I guess ... I saw his, you know, the shot hit his head and what happened to his head, and I don't care what anybody says, I was looking at his head. I wasn't paying any attention which way he was moving or anything else, because it's something that I've never seen before, you know, and kind of ugh."
Zapruder himself gave a graphic description of see the head open up on the right side in a TV interview the afternoon of 11-22-63 ... and then cried in relating about it in his WC testimony.
These are some samples of witnesses reporting what you say no witness said.
You are incorrect. And documentably so. You lost your own challenge because it was based
on an untrue premise. If you know the evidence, why didn't you know this? If you don't know
the evidence, why are you promoting stuff like this?
Below you also said:
"Just as we have challenged the integrity of the film, I am
challenging your integrity. Either you have the strength of character to
acknowledge this point or you do not. Either way, we'll gain insight about
the real Bill Miller and whether you are a shill, a stooge, or an agent of
disinformation. If you are none of the above, now is the time to prove it!"
Will you correct yourself and refrain from making this false claim in the future, Mr. Fetzer?
"Either you have the strength of character to
acknowledge this point or you do not."
On the forum where you first posted this this morning, and I responded with these quotes, you have not yet had that
"strength of character" ... in fact, instead, you went on a day long rant, first trying to dive, divert and dodge while
trying to turn it into your favor. When that didn't work, I reminded you of your stated claim, you took another tack.
When that didn't work either, you launched into several personal assaults on me. There's no need to relive all that here. :-)
But you put the claim here ... so I put the documentation here that shows your claim is false.
Perhaps here you will find that "strength of character" to "acknowledge" your claim is incorrect.
I hope so.
Barb
What do these simpleton's think: that the only man with an openumbrella on the motorcade route was pumping it up and down for
his health at the precise location of the assassination? Incredible.
And the rubbish about "lone nutters" is quite ridiculous. This is a
perfectly appropriate way to identify where someone is coming
from. They object because they are POSING as if they weren't.
That is why so many of their arguments are so strange. They are
not actually engaged in research, merely in attempting to under-
mine the progress made by others, where Tink is the bandleader.
I can't believe the assemby of phonys and fakes who have gathered
here. Bill Miller seems to have disappeared from the face of the earth
after agreeing to respond to my explanation of Zapruder frame problems.
Where are you, Bill? I know you're out there somewhere. What about
YOUR INVITATION that I tell you what Zapruder frame is bothering me
and you'll explain to me in detail whether you agree with me or not?
I've done that, Bill. Here are the links that show EXACTLY WHAT I'M
TALKING ABOUT. So why have you gone missing? Are you afraid to
response? The world is waiting, Miller. Just where have you gone?
The very same points put the lie to Josiah and Junk and Lamson and
the rest of that sordid crowd, who appear to be welcome to some
on this forum. Amazing! We live in a strange, strange world.
----- Forwarded message from jfetzer@d.umn.edu -----
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:49:29 -0500
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: A challenge for Bill Miller . . .
Bill,
You wrote, "tell me what Zapruder frame is bothering you and I'll
explain to you in detail whether I agree with you or not", which
was an appropriate response. So here is what I am talking about:
(1) The third gif:
http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/
(2) Frames 312, 313, and 314:
http://assassinationscience.com/johncostel...ntro/crater.gif
(3) The Wound Mistake:
http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/wound.html
My challenge to you, therefore, is to address what I take to be the most
blatant proof that the Zapruder film is a fabrication, which is that the
massive blow-out of brains and blood to the right-front is a fabrication.
None of the witnesses observed it. The Parkland doctors didn't observe
it. Even the mortician contradicts it. It didn't happen. It is fake!
We know there are phony drawings by artists who never saw the body. We
know there is a fake autopsy report that was rewritten under orders. We
know the X-rays have been altered to conceal the blow-out to the back of
the head. All of these deceptions have been subjected to meticulous and
detailed scrutiny in books I edited. But fake evidence doesn't support
a rationally justifiable or a morally responsible reply to this question.
Here's how I have put it: None of what I have said here (in laying out
around twenty proofs of fakery) even reaches to the mutually reinforcing
deceptions of (a) the blow out to the right-front in the Zapruder film,
(
the missing right-front in the anterior-posterior X-ray, and © thepublication of 313 in LIFE magazine with a caption saying that the right-
front of his head had been blown out (which was rewritten twice after
twice breaking the plates). And it implicates Zapruder in the deception,
when (d) he described a blow-out to the right-front during an interview
on television that night (HOAX, page 435)! None of it was true. Notice:
Jackie herself reported that, from the front, he looked just fine but that
she had had a hard time holding his skull and brains together at the back
of his head. None of the witnesses or doctors reported it. Not even the
mortician! Dr. McClelland certified a drawing of the massive blow-out to
the back of the head. More than forty witnesses have confirmed that that
was the location. Dr. Crenshaw drew it for me to include in my first book.
There is an overwhelming accumulation of evidence that establishes that the
blow-out was to the back of his head, not to the right-front. And Roderick
Ryan, an expert on cinematic special effects, who received an Oscar for his
contributions in 2000, told Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON, that the blow-out
and the head spray had been painted in. I will assume that you are familiar
with all of this, since otherwise you are incompetent to address the issue.
So my challenge to you is very simple. Do you acknowledge the blow-out to
the right-front is a fabrication? If you do, then you are thereby acknowl-
edging that the film is a fabrication. The proof is present. It is clear
and compelling. Indeed, in my view, this is the most powerful proof that
the film is a recreation and places the matter beyond any reasonable doubt.
John Costella, David Mantik, Jack White, David Lifton and I have advanced
over twenty reasons for concluding the Zapruder is a fake, as I have out-
lined below. Just as we have challenged the integrity of the film, I am
challenging your integrity. Either you have the strength of character to
acknowledge this point or you do not. Either way, we'll gain insight about
the real Bill Miller and whether you are a shill, a stooge, or an agent of
disinformation. If you are none of the above, now is the time to prove it!
Jim
Quoting bmjfk63 <IMSJLE@aol.com>:
>--- In jfk-research@yahoogroups.com, jfetzer@... wrote:
>>
>>What is not "specific" about the blow-out to the right front? Didn't you
>>get the memo? What I am talking about is detailed in paragraph 11 as (a),
>>(
, ©, and (d). Even you should be able to understand that. The fact>>that others, including Jack, John, David, and David are better on photos
>>and films, having done vastly more than have I, does not imply that I have
>>no competence at all! Evidently, I AM MUCH BETTER THAN BILL MILLER when
>>it comes to the Zapruder. That kind of verbal shell game represents your
>>kind of "research" and is completely typical of the logical blunders that
>>come from shills, stooges, and disinfo ops like you. Moreover, this is
>>as good a test case as there could be relative to the Zapruder, which you
>>have flunked! So I don't think there's any reason for you to lecture any-
>>one about competence in relation to the photographic record. It is clear
>>to everyone by now that, when it comes to real questions, you fake it all
>>the way, which, of course, is your only option when the evidence refutes
>>your position. The case for video fakery is decisive and shows that you
>>and your buddies are here to obscure, obfuscate, and undermine advances
>>in understanding the genuine causes of the death of our 35th president.
>>Hang it up, BM! You are making yourself look worse and worse to us all.
>
>
>Mr. Fetzer, I cannot help but notice that you are one of those people who claim victory before the game even starts. You did it with Hoax and yet when I listed a good many of the claims Jack made that can be easily shown to be wrong ... you bitch that Jack is being attacked. In other words - you hide behind Jack's claims and yet when they are unraveled before you, then you bitch how Jack is being mistreated. To that I can only say - Stop using Jack if you don't want his claims critiqued. You cannot use him for a shield and then complain about the blows he is getting pelted with.
>
>Now about Zapruder ... I don't want to hear any revisions. Don't mention Jack if you don't want his short-comings mentioned. Instead you tell me what Zapruder frame is bothering you and I'll explain to you in detail whether I agree with you or not.
>
>Bill Miller
>
>
In the "other" film, the Umbrella man is seem pumping the umbrella up and down,not just holding it over his head. I've concluded that he may have been signaling the various shooters to open fire -- that JFK was still alive.This is the funniest thing I've read in ages.
Does anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together really take any of this kind of utter rubbish seriously? I guess so, otherwise Fetzer would be out of business.
Thankfully not too many on this actual forum, but the danger is that people off this forum associate us with these nuts and that's exactly why Tink, Barb, Miller etc try so hard to combat this nonsense.
What inability to comprehend!
The witnesses quoted all are describing an ENTRY WOUND, not an EXIT WOUND.
No wonder this person is so often wrong.
Jack
Jack there was another that stated he agreed he saw the President was hit on the right side of the head..
an entrance...
Abraham Zapruder...
Mr. LIEBELER - And it proceeded then down Elm Street toward the triple underpass; is that correct?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's correct. I started shooting--when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street.
Mr. LIEBELER - Tell us what happened as you took these pictures.
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, as the car came in line almost--I believe it was almost in line. I was standing up here and I was shooting through a telephoto lens, which is a zoom lens and as it reached about--I imagine it was around here--I heard the first shot and I saw the President lean over and grab himself like this (holding his left chest area).
Mr. LIEBELER - Grab himself on the front of his chest?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Right---something like that. In other words, he was sitting like this and waving and then after the shot he just went like that.
Mr. LIEBELER - He was sitting upright in the car and you heard the shot and you saw the President slump over?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Leaning--leaning toward the side of Jacqueline. For a moment I thought it was, you know, like you say, "Oh, he got me," when you hear a shot--you've heard these expressions and then I saw---I don't believe the President is going to make jokes like this, but before I had a chance to organize my mind, I heard a second shot and then I saw his head opened up and the blood and everything came out and I started--I can hardly talk about it [ the witness crying].
Mr. LIEBELER - That's all right, Mr. Zapruder, would you like a drink of water? Why don't you step out and have a drink of water?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - I'm sorry--I'm ashamed of myself really, but I couldn't help it.
Mr. LIEBELER - Nobody should ever be ashamed of feeling that way, Mr. Zapruder. I feel the same way myself. It was a terrible thing.
Let me go back now for just a moment and ask you how many shots you heard altogether.
Mr. ZAPRUDER - I thought I heard two, it could be three, because to my estimation I thought he was hit on the second--I really don't know. The whole thing that has been transpiring--it was very upsetting and as you see I got a little better all the time and this came up again and it to me looked like the second shot, but I don't know. I never even heard a third shot.
Mr. LIEBELER - You didn't hear any shot after you saw him hit?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - I heard the second--after the first shot--I saw him leaning over and after the second shot--it's possible after what I saw, you know, then I started yelling, "They killed him, they killed him," and I just felt that somebody had ganged up on him and I was still shooting the pictures until he got under the underpass--I don't even know how I did it. And then, I didn't even remember how I got down from that abutment there, but there I was, I guess, and I was walking toward--back toward my office and screaming, "They killed him, they killed him," and the people that I met on the way didn't even know what happened and they kept yelling, "What happened, what happened, what happened?" It seemed that they had heard a shot but they didn't know exactly what had happened as the car sped away, and I kept on just yelling, "They killed him, they killed him, they killed him," and finally got to my office and my secretary--I told her to call the police or the Secret Service--I don't know what she was doing, and that's about all. I was very much upset. Naturally, I couldn't imagine such a thing being done. I just went to my desk and stopped there until the police came and then we were required to get a place to develop the films. I knew I had something, I figured it might be of some help--I didn't know what.
As to what happened--I remember the police were running behind me. There were police running right behind me. Of course, they didn't realize yet, I guess, where the shot came from--that it came from that height.
Mr. LIEBELER - As you were standing on this abutment facing Elm street, you say the police ran over behind the concrete structure behind you and down the railroad track behind that, is that right?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - After the shots?
Mr. LIEBELER - Yes.
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes--after the shots--yes, some of them were motorcycle cops--I guess they left their motorcycles running and they were running right behind me, of course, in the line of the shooting. I guess they thought it came from right behind me.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you have any impression as to the direction from which these shots came?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - No, I also thought it came from back of me. Of course, you can't tell when something is in line it could come from anywhere, but being I was here and he was hit on this line and he was hit right in the head--I saw it right around here, so it looked like it came from here and it could come from there.
Mr. LIEBELER - All right, as you stood here on the abutment and looked down into Elm Street, you saw the President hit on the right side of the head and you thought perhaps the shots had come from behind you?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, yes.
Mr. LIEBELER - From the direction behind you?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes, actually--I couldn't say what I thought at the moment, where they came from--after the impact of the tragedy was really what I saw and I started and I said--yelling, "They've killed him"--I assumed that they came from there, because as the police started running back of me, it looked like it came from the back of me.
Mr. LIEBELER - But you didn't form any opinion at that time as to what direction the shots did come from actually?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - No.
Mr. LIEBELER - And you indicated that they could have come also from behind or from any other direction except perhaps from the left, because they could have been from behind or even from the front.
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, it could have been--in other words if you have a point--you could hit a point from any place, as far as that's concerned. I have no way of determining what direction the bullet was going.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/zapruder.htm
B........
Oswald's behavior when shot
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Bernice Moore
“ The Day Kennedy Died “
Dr. Robert McClelland held JFK’s head in his hands.
He massaged Oswald’s heart. Forty-five years later, his students are still riveted by the surgeon’s tales.
By by Michael J. Mooney, portrait by Randal Ford
D Magazine NOV 2008
McClelland followed Shires to Parkland. When they arrived and changed clothes—something they didn’t take the time for with Kennedy—Oswald was just being wheeled in. When Kennedy arrived, every faculty member on site was called into the emergency room. With Oswald, there were only a few doctors working on him. Twenty-eight minutes after Jack Ruby’s shot, they were inside Oswald’s abdomen.
(“He was as white as this piece of paper,” McClelland tells the med students. “He had lost so much blood. If he hadn’t turned when he saw Ruby coming, he might have been all right.”)
When Oswald saw the gun in Ruby’s hand, he had cringed slightly, flinching. Because of this, the bullets went through his aorta and inferior vena cava, the two main blood vessels in the back of the abdominal cavity. There was enormous loss of blood. The medical team pumped pint after pint of untyped blood, 16 in all, through his body. Shires and Perry eventually got a vascular clamp to stop the bleeding, and the two set about clearing away intestines to get enough room to repair the damage.
They worked on Oswald for an hour when his heart arrested. The blood loss was just too much, and the brief but severe shock too damaging. Perry opened Oswald’s chest, and he and and McClelland, who was also assisting, took turns administering an open heart massage.
(“You pumped Oswald’s heart in your hands?” a student asks. “We took turns, each going until we got tired. We went for, oh, about 40 minutes.”)
The heart got flabbier and flabbier. They squeezed and pumped. The blood around his heart collected on their gloves. Then, no more. Almost two hours after being shot, Lee Harvey Oswald was pronounced dead. The first live homicide on public television was witnessed by 20 million viewers.
The entire emergency room was in a daze. First the president. Two days later, in the room next door, the president’s assassin. It was as if the community had tumbled into one of Rod Serling’s Twilight Zone episodes.
For McClelland, it got stranger. One of the sheriff’s deputies who had been escorting Oswald during his public transfer—the taller deputy America saw in the Stetson hat—was waiting outside the trauma room to see how Oswald was doing. He told the doctors something odd had happened, even more odd than the public murder.
After the shot, the deputy explained to McClelland, when Oswald was on the ground, he got on his hands and knees and put his face right over Oswald’s.
“I said, ‘Son, you’re hurt real bad. Do you wanna say anything?’ ” the deputy said. “He looked at me for a second. He waited, like he was thinking. Then he shook his head back and forth just as wide as he could. Then he closed his eyes.”
They would never open again. Looking back, McClelland would wonder if Oswald was tempted to say something. If maybe he was worried he would regret it. He didn’t know he was going to die, McClelland thought......
http://www.dmagazine.com/2008/10/24/The_Da...nnedy_Died.aspx
B..