Daniel Gallup

What's the difference, Ray? We've got the info on videotape (live on TV) from Bill Newman prior

to 1 PM on Nov. 22. You can't get much better "testimony" than that.

David, I agree with you on this one, especially as Bill Newman is a firm witness to the limo stop, which implies the extant Z-film is worthless. Glad we both like Newman. Best to you Daniel

Mr. Speer

Your opinion, sir. What do you think would be more accurate, the testimony of a young man months after the occurrence of an event, or that same man's recollections fifteen or twenty-nine years after the same event?

Then, consider how his recollections would be affected by the considerable pressure brought to bear on this man by forces intent on him conforming to the "official" story of how that event occurred. Do you think this might not alter his memory of that event, considering the amount of stress he was under during that event?

From the ARRB interview of Nurse Audrey Bell, 04/14/97:

"-Although only in Trauma Room One for 3-5 minutes, she did see the head wound. After asking Dr.

Perry “where is the wound,” she said he turned the President’s head slightly to the President’s anatomical

left, so that she could see a right rear posterior head wound, which she described as occipital in both her

oral remarks, and in her drawings;

-She said she could see brain and spinal fluid coming out of the wound, but could not tell what type of

brain tissue it was;

-She said it was her recollection that the right side of the President’s head, and the top of his head,

were intact, which is why she had to ask Dr. Perry where the wound was in the first place."(04/l 4/97 Summary of ARRB interview)

Robert, Pat Speer is well aware of Nurse Bell's remarks before the ARRB but dismisses them as vagaries of a faded memory. It's too bad Pat is unable to apply that same reasoning to his own analysis of Carrico and others. Pat knows, the tremendous pressure Perry and other Dallas personnel were under to conform their memories to the official version. The worst offender may be Dr. Jenkins,who saw oozing cerebellum on Nov 22 and wrote about it on that day, but saw only cerebellar tissue after visiting the National Archives in 1988. Baxter at first said occipital bones were missing. That changed quickly. And of course Perry may be the most hardened of them all. See his letters to Brad Parker in First on the Scene. The earliest recollections from Dallas are the best, and after pressure to change rendered, IMO, the later comments worthless. Only those doctors and nurses whose testimony has remained unchanged should be given serious study. At least that's my opinion.

Daniel, could you elaborate a bit on what Perry said in those letters? In Weisberg, he mentioned the "ring of bruising" and that he wiped blood from the neck wound. It appears he got a clear look at the wound.

Thanks,

Nick

Sure Nick. On pages 32-3 in Brad Parker's First on the Scene, Brad reproduces two letters from Dr. Perry, both from May 1994. The first concerns the McClelland drawing. The relevant passage: "A drawing from recollection, not made to scale, and without measurements, is worthless. Some of the people you list in your letter had nothing to do with the resuscitation, and did not examine the wound. I fear your effort will reveal nothing of value. I'm sorry I can't help you."

The second is an hand-written undated note that would appear to be a response to Brad's obvious displeasure with the first letter of Perry. Here it is: "It is 'unfortunate' that you take differences of opinion as a personal problem. Scientific discourse is characterized by differences of opinion, and thrives on it. (Don't act defensively) Recollection immediately after an event is likely to be more accurate (although often wrong) than when made 30 years later. You are also incorrect in your evaluation of the reports. You should read the 26 volumes of the Warren Report. Included therein you will find a detailed autopsy report. Dr. Chrenshaw did not participate in the decision-making or in the resuscitation efforts. He did not examine the wounds in my presence, and his opinions are not supported by anyone involved in our work. I don't remember his even being in the room Good luck to you, MO Perry."

The most important thing to note are Perry's early and original statements about both the throat and head wound. Perry's Nov 22 handwritten report: of "a large wound of the right posterior cranium" accords well with the McClelland drawing that by 1994 Perry had come to loathe. Best, Daniel

FWIW, the "tremendous pressure" argument is pretty silly. At NO time was there more pressure on these doctors than during the Warren Commission's investigation. And yet that is when most of them made the "occipital" and "cerebellum" comments they later came to regret.

"pretty silly" is standard boilerplate for "I have no real answer for your position." Or, as we mathematicians say, just "hand waving."

Mr. Speer

Your opinion, sir. What do you think would be more accurate, the testimony of a young man months after the occurrence of an event, or that same man's recollections fifteen or twenty-nine years after the same event?

Then, consider how his recollections would be affected by the considerable pressure brought to bear on this man by forces intent on him conforming to the "official" story of how that event occurred. Do you think this might not alter his memory of that event, considering the amount of stress he was under during that event?

From the ARRB interview of Nurse Audrey Bell, 04/14/97:

"-Although only in Trauma Room One for 3-5 minutes, she did see the head wound. After asking Dr.

Perry “where is the wound,” she said he turned the President’s head slightly to the President’s anatomical

left, so that she could see a right rear posterior head wound, which she described as occipital in both her

oral remarks, and in her drawings;

-She said she could see brain and spinal fluid coming out of the wound, but could not tell what type of

brain tissue it was;

-She said it was her recollection that the right side of the President’s head, and the top of his head,

were intact, which is why she had to ask Dr. Perry where the wound was in the first place."(04/l 4/97 Summary of ARRB interview)

Robert, Pat Speer is well aware of Nurse Bell's remarks before the ARRB but dismisses them as vagaries of a faded memory. It's too bad Pat is unable to apply that same reasoning to his own analysis of Carrico and others. Pat knows, the tremendous pressure Perry and other Dallas personnel were under to conform their memories to the official version. The worst offender may be Dr. Jenkins,who saw oozing cerebellum on Nov 22 and wrote about it on that day, but saw only cerebellar tissue after visiting the National Archives in 1988. Baxter at first said occipital bones were missing. That changed quickly. And of course Perry may be the most hardened of them all. See his letters to Brad Parker in First on the Scene. The earliest recollections from Dallas are the best, and after pressure to change rendered, IMO, the later comments worthless. Only those doctors and nurses whose testimony has remained unchanged should be given serious study. At least that's my opinion.

Well Pat at least you are consistent with Dr. Boswell and Bill O'Reilly, who asserted that the top of Kennedy's head was blown off.

Well,wasn`t it Westley Liebeler that told David Lifton that pursuing this equals"The shortness of life" or words to that effect?

Michael: here is the relevant section from Best Evidence, p. 698:

"Wesley Liebeler discussed the psychological barrier with me many years ago. He said: "You require people to accept the notion that somebody is playing around with Kennedy's body. David, I might as well tell you now--I mean, nobody will believe it.' He referred to my research as 'an exercise in epistemology...you know, I don't think you really comprehend the kind of thing you are dealing with.'

'What about the evidence?' I asked What would happen when I published a documented account showing that the legal record itself contained evidence the body was altered? 'Well, I don't think that anybody will ever believe anything yousay,' replied Liebeler. 'Why not?' I asked. \

'Because it's relatively unbelievable. You know...there comes a point where, after all, the emperor may rely on his power to demand that he is clothed. And this is not only a function of power; it's also a function of relative probability, and a concession to the shortness of life."

If the government wasn't dirty up to its eyeballs, there would be no hesitation to release the records. Obama would be (unfairly) tainted by knowledge of governmental malfeasance.

I have had some time to read Jim DiEugenio's critique of Kaleidoscope, and wish to respond appropriately. JD divides his characterization of the book into the 1. Ugly; 2. Bad; 3. Questionable, 4. Careless; and 5. Valuable. The Ugly and the Bad most concern vituperative attacks on Lifton and Horne first, and Mary Ferrell and her foundation secondly. Also in the second section, the Bad, JD characterizes Livingston's thinking as "untidy." What is wrong is that Livingston, convinced as he is of a particular brand of conspiracy, engages in deductive thinking. JD more or less provides a good case that deductive thinking in the hands of an unstable individual usually leads to bizarre conclusions. But the instability in Livingston's mind tends much farther toward delusion, and JD provides fodder for this charge. The Questionable section contains points of view that Livingston maintains that are generally discredited by serious researchers. Included here would be the late timing of Connally's wounding, the timing of the first shot, interpretation of x-rays, issues of Z-film alteration, and most interestingly, Livingston's claim of secret FBI reports. The Careless section concerns Livingston's inadequate knowledge of Kennedy (and Eisenhower), his reliance on Madeline Brown, Billy Sol Estes, and Barr McClelland, and a reliance on a KGB report whose origin actually owes to the FBI. The Valuable part comes from Livingston's questioning the validity of the Boyajian report and the idea that the Dallas coffin was empty. JD :" As Livingstone explains, Boyajian did not pick up Kennedy’s casket ... Livingstone interviewed several people who identified another person’s body being delivered to the morgue that day. There was no autopsy done and his body was being stored in the “Cold Room” for burial at Arlington.[72] The weight of the evidence seems to dictate that it was this person’s body that Boyajian’s detail picked up." JD approves also of Livingston's explanation for the blood on Kellerman's shirt, and investigation into Air Force 1 and trap doors. Finally, JD scolds Livingston for failing to copy the example of (mostly) proper criticism (of Lifton) provided by Roger Feinmann in his essay Between the Signal and the Noise.

Analysis: The categories are a subjective construct open to question. I would regard the ugly not as the personal attacks on Lifton and Horne, egregious as they are, but the twisted and contorted delusional mind behind it. JD provides enough evidence to support the claim that Livingston is a mental minefield incapable of clear thinking analysis. Not that JD believes this. JD pulls his punches and calls his thinking "untidy," and is generally guarded and very specific with his criticism. With regard to a supposed KGB document, for example, JD rightly comments; "Anyone who can call this a smoking gun has questionable powers of textual analysis and evidence evaluation." But I as a reader have to be thinking: how can a man whose book is characterized as 1. Ugly 2. Bad 3. Questionable 4. Careless, then receive accolades for that part of the book that accords precisely with the reviewers own strongly held belief: that the casket off-loaded from Air Force 1 contained the body of the President? I find JD's facile agreement with Livingston just a little too convenient. Reviewers of Kaleidoscope have more than answered the objections Livingston (and JD) raise, IMO. The conclusion JD jumps to-- that the cheap shipping casket did not contain the president's body-- is pure hand-waving . As a math teacher I am well-aware of this device, to be used when proof for one's position is not forthcoming. I would welcome a thread devoted to the Boyajian report, but Livingston and JD have to know that the empty casket is backed by corroborative testimony from others at Bethesda and the truth of the matter does not stand or fall on one's opinion of Roger Boyajian and his report. Finally, I cringed upon reading that JD regards the late Roger Feinmann's essay as an example of (mostly) proper criticism. Having read that essay myself, I find Feinmann suffered from Lifton's disease almost as much as Livingston does. What is Lifton's disease? It is an irrational jealousy aroused when one reads Lifton and realizes this is a first rate mind capable of original thinking and clear writing far beyond that of the subject afflicted with this malady. I regarded Feinmann's writing as displaying an immature whiny-ness that was embarrassing to read. Even if I had utter contempt for Lifton's theories I would run a fast retreat from that essay in favor of a coldly rational look at the anomalies Lifton wrestles with in Best Evidence. I would welcome a thread on Feinmann's essay as well. That's enough for now; have to grade some tests.

Your review of Livingston stands or falls on its own merits

Fine, and I agree.

But to say that there is no relationship between the two in a mutual protection racket is just ignorance.

Daniel, let me ask you something:

Do you have any real interest in this case outside of body hijacking or Z film alteration?

If you do, you sure do hide it well.

My review of LIvingstone was quite complete and expansive and fair. Each section was labeled with whatever rubric was applicable. But because I didn't do a hatchet job on him, like Janney did, you are not satisfied. RIght?

DId you read Kaleidoscope?

Did you read my book?

Jim, I am working on a book on differential equations and working full-time as a math instructor at a local community college, as well as a church musician. All that takes time. I had every intention of reading Janney's book but have not had time yet to give it a go. As for your review of Kaleidoscope, I shall have to give it a good read and get back to you. Because Livingston has demonstrated unstable psychological tendencies and is subject to an inveterate hatred of Lifton, and because I have read High Treason II, I feel no particular urge to spend any money aiding his cause. Reading Livingston makes me want to take a mental shower. I would rather read him through your review. Also, my interests in the case are primarily on medical issues, which is why I have not taken time to read your book, which, by all accounts, is a splendid piece or work, for which you are to be congratulated. May I add, Horne's work, though full of speculation, is to me quite an admirable work in trying to wrestle with contradictions, timelines, etc. More later when I have time. Best, daniel

So this mean he would have to be 94 now?

Does a lot of running right?

As per Mr. Gallup, this is the second time you have commented obliquely on my review.

Livingstone, in many ways. is his own worst enemy. But as he points out in his book, so is Horne. And for Horne to have jumped up to declare Janney's book a masterpiece with the very first review shows one side of the support system.

For Janney to scratch his back by returning the favor shows the other half. Those are just facts.

Your review of Livingston stands or falls on its own merits regardless of the alleged symbiotic relationship between Janney and Horne. I would think a new thread on Boyajian would be most timely and warranted.

The "search algorithms" in Google?

This guy is so determined to have everyone forget his original claim, namely that Mitchell had disappeared from the face of the earth.

Then Tom finds him thereby throwing cold water over that claim.

Now, Janney tries to find an excuse for Tom doing what he could not, and this is what he comes up with?

Wow.

He and Horne have a mutual support pact on Amazon by the way. Horne came out with that stupid five star blurb for Janney and now Janney protects Horne from Livingstone's book.

Hard to believe Horne needs any help from anyone defending himself from Livingston's Kalaidoscope. Admitedly, I have not read Kalaidoscope, but have waded through hundreds of pages of Livingston's earlier works and on that basis I think Horne can sleep at night. Livingston has been, and probably always will be, his own worst enemy.

I think most people would understand that a book like the Douglass book is a distinctive effort, even if we really don't like it a lot.

THat book was not timed with any anniversary.

It became popular by word of mouth and online notices.

But most of these things, I mean, like I said, they appear to be written simply because of the anniversary.

I revised and expanded my book since there was so much more new ARRB stuff in that field.

But these books? Its like the ARRB did not exist.

Yes indeed, Jim, the contributions of the ARRB are most vital to the case for reinvigorating research. I have no doubt your book is the better for it, and I believe that is why Horne's 5 volumes will have a lasting impact for many reasons, not the least of which is the Boyajian report, trashed by Livingston in his critique of Horne but ably --superbly defended --in the Amazon reviews of same lamentable Livingston tripe. I'm sure Livingston wishes the ARRB would just go away.

What`s also interesting to read is that she states that a brain was located along side of the body in one of the pictures.

So,it`s confusing.The pictures could have been pre or post autopsy (since she states that the body was clean)

This is a tough one. Saundra says the setting didn't look like a hospital setting, that the body was "pristine", there were no measuring devices or human hands in the pictures and the head wound bore no resemblance to the extant autopsy photos. Kennedy's eyes were closed and the throat wound about the size of a thumb, clean without any blood. Once you observe as HUmes did, however, a 6-8 cm gash in the neck it is hard to make it disappear. It looks like these pictures were staged but why I don't know, and when I don't know. All I know is these pictures, gone from history, cry out for explanation. Maybe someone on the forum has researched this confounding conundrum and has something to offer.

Could Perry's tracheotomy have been extended at Walter Reed before the grey casket was delivered to Bethesda?

What I find extraordinary is that the perps at either location in D.C. would have taken any pictures of the corpse as it appeared at Parkland. Why risk anyone seeing what was to be altered, as is apparently the case with Spencer? That's just one more smoking gun. She is also witness to the Dallas rear exit wound in the head. Of course her testimony could simply be dismissed as it contradicts the extant collection of official photos.

I might add the alteration of the neck incision is just one more corroboration of the body's early entrance to the back of the Bethesda Morgue. The FBI assisted the carrying in of the Dallas Casket at 7:17 p.m. If the body were already in the Dallas casket how would there have been time to photograph the body as Spencer saw it, perform the widening of the trach incision to retrieve a bullet or bullet fragments, crush the skull to enlarge the Dallas wound, and put it back in the same Dallas casket, and then re-position the ambulance so the casket team could find it back in front of the morgue for the 8:00 entry?

According to Saundra Spencer it must have.She developed autopsy pictures that show the wound only being 1/2 inch wide.

Q: What is your best recollection of the approximate size of the wound on the throat that you

identified before?

SPENCER: Just about like that, just like a finger, half-inch.

Q: Do you remember whether the wound was jagged or how that appeared?

SPENCER: No, just - it appeared just indented. It was, again, clean, pristine, no - you know, it

wasn’t an immediate wound, it had some cleaning done to it or something.

I`m really starting to believe that some changes were made on the body at Bethesda by the pathologists.

This plus the testimony from Thomas Robinson about the craniotomy just about has me convinced.

Interesting. In 1966 Lifton got Perry to commit to 2-3 cm which is larger than half and inch but nothing like the 6-8 cm seen in the autopsy photos. See the discussion in Best Evidence, 272 ff. Baxter went with an inch and a half. In addition is a discussion of the flange. Baxter is on record as there being a flange of width 1 1/4 inches at most. Also discussed in Best Evidence is the nature of the tracheotomy incision. Humes noted the incision had "widely gaping irregular edges." (p. 274 BE) Hard to imagine Perry carving into Kennedy's neck that way. I have read ludicrous explanations for the discrepancy between the description of the trach by Perry and Humes. I rather think this is a smoking gun which inexplicably is ignored by most researchers. As to Spencer's one finger, that seems about half of the 2-3 cm that Perry told Lifton. Could the incision have partially closed, or looked closed, when she saw the autopsy pictures?

8mm film is pretty brittle.

16mm split 8 reversal is a little stronger...

there are two things about the split in the Z film that become obvious... either the missing frames are cut for timing issues, or some bumble fug broke the film after watching it ten times.

i spent a lot of time with that stuff in the 70's. it's weak stuff.

as for the "alteration" buffoonery, there is a split in the film, it is possible at some point it was transferred to another stock at a different frame rate, but as for adding people and removing things ( yes i've seen the 900 threads on the subject ) doubtful.

why would they edit it? for timing ..

point: it's easier just to line up an expert and lie than it is to go to the time and expense to mess with things.

again, whether it's altered or not, it shows enough of the pertinent information in it;

Kennedy got whacked.

His head exploded and LBJ got to put Jack Valenti on his payroll so he could have a "man massage three times a week " in case Buckley or Hoover were busy.

the zapruder film, altered or not, is what it is. get over it. move on. you aren't going to squeeze more pixels out of it.

I'm suffering a bit of a disconnect, reading your post right after Lifton's. Lifton interviewed people at the scene who saw the limo stop. He (quite rightly, IMO) concludes that this alteration is one of the keys to the case. If the limo stop was excised so were events surrounding the stop, and these events more clearly define the way in which Kennedy was murdered. Now Blair, you ask, why would they edit it? That's the right question with the wrong intention. It's the right question because it forces us to inquire what witnesses saw which is not present in the extant film. The intention is wrong because the pursuit of the this truth is never buffoonery, to use your characterization. You don't "get over" a fraud perpetrated in front of the American public. You have a duty to expose it for what it is.

...and has nothing to do with parallax and such, but with contradictions between what the film shows and what eye-witnesses claimed they saw.

EYE WITNESSES! roflmao. That's a losing hand to be sure.

Maybe to you, Craig, but remember, your argument is not with me, but with the witnesses. Laugh at them if you will, but they were there, and you and I weren't.

Yea, trot out those witnesses and see them all over the block on what happened. Simply people being people, and being quite unreliable when it comes to recollections.

But hey if you want to place value in this kind of stuff, have at it.

Thanks, I will.

...and has nothing to do with parallax and such, but with contradictions between what the film shows and what eye-witnesses claimed they saw.

EYE WITNESSES! roflmao. That's a losing hand to be sure.

Maybe to you, Craig, but remember, your argument is not with me, but with the witnesses. Laugh at them if you will, but they were there, and you and I weren't.

On the contrary, Z-film alteration goes to the heart of the matter: fraud in the evidence. It is useless to study the assassination without identifying fraudulant evidence in the case, and the case for fraud in the Z-film is compelling, and has nothing to do with parallax and such, but with contradictions between what the film shows and what eye-witnesses claimed they saw. This issue will never go away, and it ought not.

Rollie Zavada is going to speak?

Ah, yes, the authenticity debate concerning the allege in-camera original Zapruder film is alive and well..... that should require a invite to Harry Livingstone, Rollie has a lot of questions to answer.

At Lancer they desire to put to rest any doubts on the Z-film's authenticity. I have a hard time believing serious objections/objectors will be entertained. All this at a time when there has never been more reason to be disgusted at this fraudulant film-this worthless piece of junk and deception. Zavada has to answer to the limo stop witnesses, the Parkland hospital staff, witnesses to an avulsive wound in the back of the head (with no, absolutely no debris exiting the back of the head in the extant film) and Horne's research. Good luck Rollie. What a waste of time, at least this presentation.

Mr. SPECTER. All right. Now, when the flurry occurred then, were you still facing forward talking into the microphone to Lawson?

Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right.

Mr. SPECTER. All right. Then precisely what was your next movement after completing the delivery of that message to Lawson?

Mr. KELLERMAN. When I completed the delivery of those instructions to Lawson, I just hung up the receiver and looked back.

Mr. SPECTER. To your right this time--to your left; pardon me.

Mr. KELLERMAN. To my left; that is right. This is when I first viewed Mr. Hill, who was on the back of the--

Mr. SPECTER. Precisely where was he in that instant?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Lying right across the trunk of the car with Mrs. Kennedy on the left rear, Mr. Hill's head was right up in back of her.

Doesn't this suggest shots well after 313 since we KNOW Hill does not reach the limo until z340, and JAckie is not on the trunk until much later..

Kellerman was simply wrong, in his WC testimony. This is from his report on 11/22/1963. He clearly, grabbed the microphone after the shooting had ended and after he yelled at Greer.

We were still traveling at the normal rate of speed of from 12 to 15 miles per hour when I heard a noise, similar to a firecracker, exploding in the area to the rear of the car, about 12:30 p.m. Immediately I heard what I firmly believe was the President's voice, "My God, I'm hit!" I turned around to find out what happened when two additional shots rang out, and the President slumped into Mrs. Kennedy's lap and Governor Connally fell_to Mrs. Connally's lap. I heard Mrs. Kennedy shout, "What are they doing to you?". I yelled at William Greer (the driver) to "Step on it, we're hit!" and grabbed the mike from the car radio, called to SA Lawson in the police lead car that we were hit and to get us to a hospital.

And why are people claiming that the fact that the limo "almost" stopped, suggests forgery? Dr. Luis Alvarez confirmed the slowdown from about 14 mph to 8, solely on the basis of the Zapruder film.

And finally, I would like to hear how this "forgery" took place. Did the perps hire a Hollywood crew, replete with actors, extras and props? Where did they find 8 footers to stand in the grass and a "dwarf", Mary Moorman:-) Where did they stage this production? It would have been tough to pull it off in DP, without being seen. Did they do the same to fabricate the Nix and Muchmore films?? Why can't some of you guys be a bit more specific about the details of this thing or at the very least, demonstrate that it was even possible?

14 to 8 is not the same as stopped. As to how they did it, that is a good question. But that it was done is beyond doubt, at least to this reader. Additional Item: no ejecta leaves the back of Kennedy's head in the current film. For some reason, this has not bothered too many people. It bothers the hell out of me. Given the desciption of the wound at Parkland, the chief exiting point of blood and brains should have been the back to the head. The only explanantion I have been given was years ago by Bill Miller: the blood and brains exited the back of Kennedy's head too fast for the camera to pick up. Maybe Mr. Lamson would like to weigh in on that explanation. Then of course is darkening of the back of Kennedy's head, necessary to hide the Parkland wound.

Yes, 8mph is not "stopped". That's because the limo didn't stop. It only slowed down, as the large majority of witnesses originally stated.

And there was no damage to the BOH prior to the second headshot, because the shot at 313 came from the rear. The second headshot seems to have been inflicted at around 319. Jackie caught a glimpse of matter being ejected to the rear, which is why she got up and reached back to retrieve a piece of brain tissue. This was the result of that second headshot. And please don't try to tell me that the perps fabricated this very obvious proof of a shot from the front.

As to why we don't see matter being ejected from the head, I can only urge you to do what I did and spend a grisly evening looking up videos of gunshots to the head. I think there is one at Speer's site and a few from old movies of executions. You just don't see much of anything being ejected in any of them, although there undoubtedly was.

I would add that at the time of the apparent, second head shot, JFK was leaning sharply to his left and the large defect in the upper rear of the head was out of Zapruder's view.

I made a number of video presentations about this; a few of the URL's are:

The majority of witnesses originally said it slowed down? Presumably from 14 to 8 mph? That is news to me. If what you say is true, why does Sherry Feister (Sp) go to such absurd lengths to disavow the large number of limo stop witnesses in her latest book? As far as I can understand, she does not argue that the majority said the limo slowed, but that the majority suffered shock and mistook the slowing for a stopping. As for the ejecta not seen, sorry, I am not buying anything you say for a moment. The bones in the back of the head (and not the front) were sprung open and a large amount of tissue in the rear of the head was observed missing. See McClelland before the WC. So the bones were sprung open by the force of the blast, much of the rear cerebral and some cerebellar tissue was missing, but no brains and blood exited the rear (Itek confirms this--that the extant film shows no such ejecta). So where did the brain tissue from the back of Kennedy's head go? Please don't tell me out the front. Whoever altered the film had to remove that ejecta as it would have been an obvious indication of a shot from the front.

Mr. SPECTER. All right. Now, when the flurry occurred then, were you still facing forward talking into the microphone to Lawson?

Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right.

Mr. SPECTER. All right. Then precisely what was your next movement after completing the delivery of that message to Lawson?

Mr. KELLERMAN. When I completed the delivery of those instructions to Lawson, I just hung up the receiver and looked back.

Mr. SPECTER. To your right this time--to your left; pardon me.

Mr. KELLERMAN. To my left; that is right. This is when I first viewed Mr. Hill, who was on the back of the--

Mr. SPECTER. Precisely where was he in that instant?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Lying right across the trunk of the car with Mrs. Kennedy on the left rear, Mr. Hill's head was right up in back of her.

Doesn't this suggest shots well after 313 since we KNOW Hill does not reach the limo until z340, and JAckie is not on the trunk until much later..

Kellerman was simply wrong, in his WC testimony. This is from his report on 11/22/1963. He clearly, grabbed the microphone after the shooting had ended and after he yelled at Greer.

We were still traveling at the normal rate of speed of from 12 to 15 miles per hour when I heard a noise, similar to a firecracker, exploding in the area to the rear of the car, about 12:30 p.m. Immediately I heard what I firmly believe was the President's voice, "My God, I'm hit!" I turned around to find out what happened when two additional shots rang out, and the President slumped into Mrs. Kennedy's lap and Governor Connally fell_to Mrs. Connally's lap. I heard Mrs. Kennedy shout, "What are they doing to you?". I yelled at William Greer (the driver) to "Step on it, we're hit!" and grabbed the mike from the car radio, called to SA Lawson in the police lead car that we were hit and to get us to a hospital.

And why are people claiming that the fact that the limo "almost" stopped, suggests forgery? Dr. Luis Alvarez confirmed the slowdown from about 14 mph to 8, solely on the basis of the Zapruder film.

And finally, I would like to hear how this "forgery" took place. Did the perps hire a Hollywood crew, replete with actors, extras and props? Where did they find 8 footers to stand in the grass and a "dwarf", Mary Moorman:-) Where did they stage this production? It would have been tough to pull it off in DP, without being seen. Did they do the same to fabricate the Nix and Muchmore films?? Why can't some of you guys be a bit more specific about the details of this thing or at the very least, demonstrate that it was even possible?

14 to 8 is not the same as stopped. As to how they did it, that is a good question. But that it was done is beyond doubt, at least to this reader. Additional Item: no ejecta leaves the back of Kennedy's head in the current film. For some reason, this has not bothered too many people. It bothers the hell out of me. Given the desciption of the wound at Parkland, the chief exiting point of blood and brains should have been the back to the head. The only explanantion I have been given was years ago by Bill Miller: the blood and brains exited the back of Kennedy's head too fast for the camera to pick up. Maybe Mr. Lamson would like to weigh in on that explanation. Then of course is darkening of the back of Kennedy's head, necessary to hide the Parkland wound.

Asst D.A Alvin Osner asked : Did the car speed up ?

Simmons : No, in fact the car stopped or almost stopped.

Thank you Bernice. The issue that won't go away.

Hi Daniel; pleased somthing came out of this, and no, the issue will not go away, as the further the information is looked into, the more often that the limo stopped comes to light by many more...it appears there is always one more witnesses information coming to light that it did stop..and Simmons does mention a motorcyclist coming forward,and getting out of the way... which others have also, so just another.another...thanks..b

Which is why I am grieved to see Lancer devote the 50th, or a major part of it, to the authenticity of the Z-film, through Rollie Zavada. Here on this thread you see the complete lack of convergence of the evidence on what happened, all thanks to the support this piece of major deception receives.

Asst D.A Alvin Osner asked : Did the car speed up ?

Simmons : No, in fact the car stopped or almost stopped.

Thank you Bernice. The issue that won't go away.

[]

And yet... McClelland told Richard Dudman within a few weeks of the shooting that he'd seen nothing to indicate any shots came from other than the depository.

And yet... McClelland told an interviewer in 1969, in an interview available on the Weisberg Archives, that he thought Oswald acted alone.

So...the whole case for a wound LOW on the back of the head comes from the decades-after recollections of men who hadn't followed the case, who didn't realize what they were saying, and who, with the exception of Crenshaw, failed to be confident enough in their recollections to say the back of the head photos were fakes.

In short, there's no there there.

NOW, should those arguing the photos are fakes be willing to argue that the wound was further back on the TOP of the head than shown in the photos, they would at least have a leg to stand on. But they don't. They claim the wound was low on the far back of the head--where NONE of the witnesses originally commenting on the case, and only a handful of those to come later, thought they saw a wound.

Your selective use of McCllelland has and always will be disingenuous. Put all of his statements out on the table, and see what conclusion may be drawn. I know you must have Brad Parker's First on the Scene and of course Lifton's Best Evidence: two works which are full of early depositions of Parkland doctors and nurses. You're a smart guy, Pat. I can't believe you propound such nonesense. But alas, we've been through all this before....even arguing over McClelland's WC deposition which is about as clear as one can be on the head wounding. I am at a loss for words.

Yes, Daniel, we've been through this before. And you still don't seem to grasp what is obvious to others--that it is not I who have been disingenuous. Over the past 3 decades, researcher after researcher has pretended that the Parkland witnesses were conspiracy theorists--convinced by Kennedy's wounds he was shot from the front. Well, virtually none of them thought this. No, not even McClelland...

I don't know what to say, Pat. The throat wound was accepted as an entrance wound by all who saw it, including McClelland. See p. 63 BE for the citation. On p. 45 of BE, we have McClelland's two page hand-written report: "The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple." The left temple could not have been an exit wound. Perry ventured an opinion picked up by the LA Times on Nov 23 that possibly a bullet entered the neck and was deflected up and out the back of the head. So also Ronald JOnes, p. 42 BE, and yes, McClelland: "At the moment... it was our impression before we had any other information from any other source at all, when we were just confronted with the acute emergency...that this one bullet, that perhaps [had] entered through the front of the neck and then, in some perculiar fashion which we really han...to strain to explain to ourselves, had coursed up the front of the verterbra and intothe base of the skull and out the rear of the skull (BE, 42 footnote). The citation in the footnote is to the WC deposition. That he told Dudman something else later is irrelevant. By then the Dallas doctors had been made to change their opinion about the neck shot, and I am certain were browbeaten into accepting the official version. What counts are their first impressions.

On another matter, the placement of the exit wound in the back of the head is not relevant to the issue at hand: is the "back and back of the head photo " authentic? Especially if there was a large avulsive exit wound in the right rear TOP of the back of the head, that should be the dominant wound visible in that photo. But what to we see? It is the lower back of the head that appears darkened and hard to dicipher--right at the ear level and below. The top back appears intact. So if the exit wound was high in the back of the head, the photo has been faked; if it is lower, then the rendering of that part of the head shows attemtps to conceal this wound, which still should have been obvious in the photo. And if the photo is a fake, whatever it might say about the back wounds is meaningless as well. Worthless as evidence.

[]

And yet... McClelland told Richard Dudman within a few weeks of the shooting that he'd seen nothing to indicate any shots came from other than the depository.

And yet... McClelland told an interviewer in 1969, in an interview available on the Weisberg Archives, that he thought Oswald acted alone.

So...the whole case for a wound LOW on the back of the head comes from the decades-after recollections of men who hadn't followed the case, who didn't realize what they were saying, and who, with the exception of Crenshaw, failed to be confident enough in their recollections to say the back of the head photos were fakes.

In short, there's no there there.

NOW, should those arguing the photos are fakes be willing to argue that the wound was further back on the TOP of the head than shown in the photos, they would at least have a leg to stand on. But they don't. They claim the wound was low on the far back of the head--where NONE of the witnesses originally commenting on the case, and only a handful of those to come later, thought they saw a wound.

Your selective use of McCllelland has and always will be disingenuous. Put all of his statements out on the table, and see what conclusion may be drawn. I know you must have Brad Parker's First on the Scene and of course Lifton's Best Evidence: two works which are full of early depositions of Parkland doctors and nurses. You're a smart guy, Pat. I can't believe you propound such nonesense. But alas, we've been through all this before....even arguing over McClelland's WC deposition which is about as clear as one can be on the head wounding. I am at a loss for words.