Chris Bristow

45 minutes ago, Adam Johnson said:

CHRIS: Said "similar to the storm drain theory where the shooter would have to crawl on their hands and knees all the way to the river. If anyone saw and reported the shooter to Heygood there would be 50 cops waiting for them to emerge from the drain at the river. Or Heygood could jump into the drain and shoot them in the ass. I degressed".

The storm drain upon the knoll at the underpass junction was an interesting design...it only had a straight round tunnel of 5 or 6 feet then turned left 90 degrees (so no shoot'em in the ass unless you went in and followed) it then ran at a down angle of 45 to 50 degrees for about 60 feet before linking up to larger tunnel system that was about 4 feet high then into the main trinity river tunnel that was stand up straight walking height for almost 800m.  Yes it would have been a difficult escape but for a thinner person not impossible....more importantly who the hell in that parking area was checking down a drain?? No one reported  seeing anyone near there except for our deaf mute friend and his rifle toss malarkey.....And if anyone did get in and looked they would have seen nothing because the drain bent away at right angles.

I believe the storm drain upon the knoll could of been used as an escape route but only if a shooter was firing from behind the picket fence while prone on the ground from a couple of feet away from it.

The only evidence of this is the final head shot shown in the Zapruder film and a Harry Cabluck photograph taken from the press bus that had been doctored in the 60's and my gut....the fact I've been there and sat there a couple of times and watched cars roll down Elm towards the underpass and although I'm only a slightly above average riflemen...i could of made that shot!!!

 

 

Thanks for the detailed drain layout. It would have been easier than I thought. Maybe Heygood would still have a shot if he trekked down the tube a ways.
 The drain that is part of the this CT is not the drain at the west end of the knoll fence. It is the drain down on north Elm a few feet west of the steps, right next to where Heygood dumped/parked his bike. There is a separate theory about the shooter at the west end of the fence exiting through the drain they were standing in at the mouth of the drain. Where did you find the info on the drain layout?

10 hours ago, John Butler said:

Chris,

This is an interesting idea.  I like it.  I hate to think I am like others dampening your idea.  But, how can you tie anything to Silhouette Man?  He could just be an innocent by stander.  Wasn't there a GI on the knoll.  It might be him.  Or, some other character not necessarily sinister. 

I think you are using this figure to illustrate that a shooter could be on the Knoll and leave without apprehension within a short period of time as you said.  Good idea.    

I would consider him a possible knoll suspect but as you said my point is only about using him as a comparison for the timing of the egress.

12 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

Fair enough, but it is a definite possibility to consider. For many years, the thought never even entered my mind to check the trunks. Circa 1963 in those pre-Watergate times and so forth (more naive country, less cynical, etc.), would people running behind the fence have even considered that as an option for a gunman to hide/escape?

I won't rule out the trunk but have a hard time considering it or any theory that requires a delayed or slow egress. similar to the storm drain theory where the shooter would have to crawl on their hands and knees all the way to the river. If anyone saw and reported the shooter to Heygood there would be 50 cops waiting for them to emerge from the drain at the river. Or Heygood could jump into the drain and shoot them in the ass. I degressed.

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Sandy, in light of your saying blur has been added at Z311 in a frame you are showing that is from the Costella edition, and David Healy referring above to Costella enhancing his copy's frames including with motion blur, and Costella himself saying he wrote software to add motion blur and has a whole discussion telling of his adding motion blur to photos, and Costella says he enhanced the frames of his copy of Zapruder . . . what is the basis for your trust and confidence that Costella did not add that motion blur at Z311?   

If the copy of Z311 you are looking at from Costella shows added blur, and it is known that Costella was enhancing and was expert at adding blur, and if you do not know differently from having checked an earlier or non-Costella copy, why go to conclude an extraordinary explanation that there was alteration in the original Zapruder instead of considering a mundane explanation that the anomaly could be from secondarily added enhancement done by Costella?

Looking at the Groden copy and the MPI copy I don't see any difference at least in the frames I have compared. For this thread I have used the Groden copies and other than not being pincushion corrected they seem to be the same.

4 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

Open car trunk-jump in trunk. A confederate drives you away later (or you somehow are able to get out on your own if that is possible- it is in some modern vehicles).

I have heard that before but I think it would be safer to get out of the area right away. Once you are gone you are gone but as long as you remain there is still a chance of being found, imo.

4 hours ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

Well, you said something very important that could very well make this thread irrelevant to some degree. The key thing is the guy flashing SS credentials. If you give the shooter and the spotter both SS credentials then they don't have to escape. They hide the rifle or rifles and just stay in the area and show their fake ID's to whoever they encounter. Genius idea really.

I think they still need to escape as the ID's are fake, imo.

2 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

A south knoll shooter would have had a very easy getaway. 

Ya I favor the south knoll over the grassy knoll.

I think the short answer is yes. Lets say he fired the head shot then turned to place the rifle in the trunk or under the hood of the vehicle right behind his position. That would take only 5 second if the hood is already popped open. Then he walks at 3.5 mph around the back of the colonnade and east up the Elm annex Rd. After 15 seconds he would be crossing the path between the fence and the pergola. At 25 seconds he would be at the middle of the colonnade. At very close to 45 seconds he has passed the east pergola and would be in the spot where Mr Bothun photographed the "Silhoutte Man".
 We know for a fact that Silhoutte Man exited the plaza unimpeded and disappeared. We can also conclude that walking at an average speed would put the knoll shooter at the same location as Silhouette Man. I'm not saying Silhouette Man was the shooter but he proves it is feasible that a shooter walking from the knoll fence could have disappeared exactly as Silhouette Man did.
 interesting to note that Officer J. Smith would have been passing right by Silhouette Man when the Bothun photo was taken and somewhere along there he encountered the guy who flashed SS ID.
Who would have seen the shooter? first the guy next to Emmet Hudson ran right past the fence and could have seen him or maybe he would be bending down to stash the rifle. Either way he never came forward. Next Dogman and the other 'Runner' next to him would have at least seen the shooter from the back. They never came forward. I guess if I starred into the face of the assassin and could identify them I would stay silent! Next is Mr Hester and he would have got a good look. But since they heard the shots come over their heads from the TSB, a person walking behind the colonnade may not raise suspicion.
  Just to save space I have an unrelated observation. Emmet Hudson is a star witness for the LN'er because he was just feet from the knoll fence and said he clearly heard the shots from the TSB. He said he could hear the shots extra clearly because he and the guy next to him both hit the ground and from down there you could tell where the shots came from. Well FYI, Hudson and the other guy are seen in many images all throughout the shooting sequence and they are standing the whole time! He never drops to the ground unless it is for maybe 5 seconds between shots. The star witness' memory about how he heard the shots could not be more wrong.

29 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

Without going through it in detail I believe your assumptions are incomplete. Film cameras, emulsions, lenses and processing can all lend variations into the final product, as well as simple aging, which makes conclusions about manipulation based on sharpness impossible.

Gate registration errors in a cheap home movie camera alone would be enough. Depth of field related to the focal length of the lens and the aperture as well as aberations in the glass could introduce errors compounded by the subject's distance from the camera.

It's one of the reasons why Panavision cameras with Zeiss lenses cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and are built out of solid blocks of aluminum or whatever. The B&H or whatever Zapruder used wasn't exactly a surgical tool. I don't think it was even Super 8. Single sprocket 8mm, in relative terms, wiggles in the gate and at 18fps I'd guess it's worse than at a higher frame rate.

8mm film would be harder to firmly register than 16,35,70 etc just because the physical size of the film would require precisely machined micro parts to accomplish the task and only has sprocket holes on one side.

I think there are a couple things we could look at to test for some of the issues you talked about. The single sprocket wiggle is really obvious in the copying of the Nix film. The grass in the background undulates throughout the film. If it is effecting Foster in the Z film it may be visible in the grass around her too. It may also be seen in undulating objects throughout the film. I guess if the film flexed and arched like the Nix film was said to have, then the focus would change but I have never found anything like the undulating Nix images in the Z film.
 We are comparing two consecutive frames here and that makes many of the difference you noted moot, imo. But I don't think the natural spherical aberration of the lens design, aging or film emulsion difference from frame to frame would have much effect or we would see it in many frames. There could be an aberration or defect in the lens at a specific spot and we may find it in other frames and verify it. Something as big as Foster, imo, would have been seen already.
 

On 3/22/2022 at 2:28 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Chris,

What I get from your analysis is that the motion blur we see in frame Z310 is what we would expect to see given the known shutter speed of Zapruder's camera. Which, for the record, is fixed.

Earlier, just by comparing the amount of blur of the limo and its passengers to that of the stationary objects in Z310, by eye alone, I could see that they were roughly the same. From this I concluded that the camera must have been following the stationary objects and the limo roughly equally. For example, assuming the limo was traveling 10 MPH, the camera's line of site was moving in that direction at 5 MPH. (Is that obvious? Let me explain: If the line of site of the camera is moving 5 MPH, then it is moving 10 - 5 = 5 MPH relative to the limo, and 5 - 0 = 5 MPH relative to the stationary objects. So therefore both the limo and the stationary objects get the same 5 MPH of motion blur.) This matches pretty closely the conclusions you made in your analysis.

Ultimately what your analysis shows me is that the motion blur in frame Z310 is correct, and that the additional motion blur we see in the stationary objects  of frame Z311 has been added (by humans).

 

Normally I measure the distance the background advances per frame and use that to figure how much motion blur there should be. It usually matches but not always. I think this is because while the amount the camera pans when the shutter is closed is usually about the same as when it is open, it is  not always the case. Normally we take the distance panned between frames, divide by 2 and that is how much motion blur we would see during the open shutter time. The complication arises because panning is a jerky motion and more of the movement can happen when the shutter is open. In that case you will measure more pixels of blur during the open shutter and more total blur in that frame than other frames.
 Lets say in 310 the limo is moving 9mph. If the camera is tracking a bit slow at 5 mph we would have 4 mph motion blur on the limo and 5 mph blur on Foster. The blur is almost equal as we see in 310.
 Now lets assume the camera panning sped up in frame 311 to a speed 5 mph faster than the limo so 14 mph panning speed(The limo position shifts slightly left from 311 to 312 supporting the idea that the panning sped up). Then in 311 the limo would still have 5 mph motion blur but in the opposite direction, it would look the same. We would now see 14 mph blur on Foster. The limo would barley change but Fosters blur almost triples. Since the panning could be more during the shutter closed moment than the open moment I can't measure the advance per frame to see if the camera panned faster during the open shutter moment of 311. But the amount of horizontal motion blur in 311(see Moorman) suggests the camera panned much more during the open shutter of 311 than frame 310. So the limo would have the same 5 mph blur in both frames but Foster would go from 5 mph in 310 to 14 mph in 311.
 One last bit to consider is there is vertical blur in 311 but not 310. The biggest clue is the angle of the blurred reflection on the crossbar from 310 to 311. Without that vertical blur in 311 the limo may look much closer to the clarity of 312.
I think the variables make it impossible to confirm if what we see is the result of alteration.
 

7 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Not a bad guess. Just might not be exactly the way it was altered.

 

I thought the location of the limo in Wiegman just 9 seconds after the head may have been proof the limo never slowed. But the limo is going over 30mph as it approached the underpass and covering 45 ft per second. So it would only be one second out of place. If the limo stop was removed they would only have to increase the limo speed from head shot to the underpass by a relatively small amount to make in coincide with the Wiegman film.

On 3/22/2022 at 8:15 PM, Pamela Brown said:

This is what you need...https://www.amazon.com/Midnight-Blue-Black-Presidential-Assassination-ebook/dp/B07KRW1B5L

I will download it in a few days, thanks.

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The FBI and SS had completed their re-enactments using alternate automobiles by early December. The WC pushed for a more honest re-enactment on May 24. There is no evidence the limo ever returned to Dallas. 

Thanks for the info.

In pondering how they could have faked the Z film I have a long shot possibility. Since they had possession of Z camera and the limo and were in Dealey plaza for recreations and the survey, they could have re filmed the background to use as part of a recreated version. Maybe if they had the limo there they could also film it moving down Elm.
 This would help in creating a matte of the limo occupants that could be combined with the new limo and background.  It would solve some problems. As an example if the limo stopped so did Z's panning. That would complicate matching the original background to a matte. If the limo just slowed rapidly to 3 mph for maybe 2 seconds before acceleration it would lose 45 feet of travel down Elm. If you tried to correct it by using a matte to make the background move continuously then the limo and the background would have a 45 foot mismatch between background angle and the limos angle.
 The problem with this theory is the only time you could re film the plaza and have both the azimuth and elevation of the Sun match each other would be the weekend of Jan 20th around 10:30am. That is because the 20th is the same number of days after the winter solstice as Nov 22nd is before the solstice. That is the only other time you could match the shadows correctly. Does anyone know the dates the FBI was in the plaza for the survey or recreations?

I run onto a couple problems trying to evaluate motion blur. First problem is that motion blur becomes detectable on shiny white objects before it is detectable in images such as faces. That makes motion blur of a soft image like a person different than sharper and brighter images. It means we would not recognize blur on foster as soon or as much as the reflections on the limo's crossbar. In addition dark objects show less blur and any shadow or dark object can have its blur canceled out by a bright object surrounding the shadowed object.
     In frame 310 there is some motion blur measurable in the reflection on the crossbar. (The same reflections Dr Costella uses for his motion blur analysis of frame 232). Comparing frame 312 (Image 5) and frame 310(image 6) shows about 12 pixels of motion blur in frame 310.
  Images 1 thru 4 test for the amount of motion blur seen in Foster. For comparison I used the images of the women on East Elm from around frame 130 something. The women in the center is almost the exact same distance from Z as Foster and so both women are close in size within the frame. The frame used is one of the best focused. Image 2 has 8 pixels of blur added and image 4 has 12 pixels added. I would say Foster's blur in frame 310(image 3) is about 10 pixels when compared to images 2 and 4. So the limo has 12 pixels and Foster 10 pixels for 22 pixels of total blur in frame 310.
 The Groden frames are 1280 pixels wide and when the frame is at 100% magnification it has 96 pixels per inch. If the frame is correct on the screen it shout be 13.3 inches wide. That is 168mm wide, 37pixels per cm, 3.7 pixels per mm. I'm using Metric from here on out.
 The limo advances relative to the background 14mm or 52 pixels from frame 309 to 310. divide by 2 to get the distance traveled during the open shutter and you get 26 pixels. So if the camera tracked the limo perfectly there would be zero blur on the limo and 26 pixels of motion blur seen on Foster. (Using her stationary left leg for the measurement). But the blur on the limo of 12 pixels means we just about split the amount of blur between Miss Foster and the limo. It comes out to 12 limo and 10 foster for a total of 22 pixels blur total. 4 pixels short of 26 we should see. 
I think the 4 pixels are within tolerance. If either of the frames used for comparison, 312 for the limo and 130 something for the foster comp, are not perfectly focused, if they have a small amount of motion blur already, then that takes away from the results of the comparison.

On 3/8/2022 at 7:02 PM, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Hi Richard- any shooting trajectory from any angle in Dealey Plaza can be tested with the 3D model.  Indeed, the Dal-Tex Building had probably the best angle for a gunman.  

Have you read Stephen Hunter's novel "Third Bullet"? it is premised on a gunman from the Dal-Tex Bldg.

I don't have a 3d model maker but using a slope angle calculator and the altitudes and distances from the West map and Google Earth I saw the line of sight from the throat shot at Fr 223 to Oswald's rifle continues back to the roof of the Dal Tex near the north west corner. If a roof shooter walked about 15 ft south they would clear the TSB and have a shot for fr 223. The trajectory would only vary from Oswald's by 2 or 3 degrees vertically and laterally. The close trajectories would make it impossible for a forensics investigation to tell the difference between the two, which would be great for setting up Oswald as a patsy.
I think the forensics could not determine the shooter location as the Dal Tex roof because for every 1/2 inch of variation on the  location of JFK's and JC's entry wound(where the wounds exist in space within the limo) there is a one degree change of trajectory. The Z film only allows for rough estimations of how much JC was rotated or leaning back or arching his back, so I  Assume we can only estimate the location of the entry wounds to within maybe 1 1/2 inches for each man or 3 degrees per man. That means there are  6 degrees of possible variance and a cone of possible trajectories would be 18 ft across by the time the cone lands on the 6th floor window. They could never establish the wound entry points accurately enough to  proof a shooter on the roof.

Edit 1/21/24: I said " the line of sight from   Oswald's rifle continues back to the roof of the Dal Tex". I meant if you shift that trajectory east about 7 feet it clears the TSBD and then leads back to the Daltex. I was not referring to that very creative  theory,  that the bullet entered the TSBD through the east window and out Oswald's window.
  The roof of the Daltex was just the right height and distance that a shooter there could match the Frame 223 6th floor trajectory to within 2 or 3 degrees. That makes it possible that an additional shot from there could have hit Connally and been indistinguishable from the SBT.

5 hours ago, John Butler said:

Chris,

It is just one more story in Dealey Plaza that has holes and is false.  There are way too many people making up things, like false stories, to justify Lone Nutism and stir controversy into the understanding of Dealey Plaza.

Yes and the timeline provided by Chief Curry and at least one of agents in the backseat verified that it happened before the limo caught up to them which was before they passed through the triple. Hargis also had Cheney throwing it in first gear and immediately racing forward to Curry.

People can speculate about the witnesses state of Minds when it comes to perceiving a limo slowing or almost stopping. But I think explaining away the perceptions of Cheney, Hargis, Curry, Sorrels and I think Lawson is a harder sell.

I have to say something about Gary Macks explanation for the CT about Chaney riding forward to tell Chief Curry that JFK had been shot. His explanation is the most ludicrous story I have ever heard from a LN'er.
 He claimed the people involved  came to him independently and told him the meeting actually happened on the Stemmons on ramp, that Chaney chased the motorcade down and caught them there. Mack said the McIntye photo shows Chaney in the far background under the triple.
 So Chaney initially pulls over and witnesses the following. He hears Kinney hit his siren. He sees Hill leap onto the car. He sees the limo, follow up car and Curry as they accelerate out of the plaza. If he was the guy in the McIntye photo he would also see them separated from the motorcade and racing together as they near the Stemmons on ramp. I believe Curry had also started his siren by then. After all that Chaney believes he has to tell Curry to get to Parkland?
  The next issue would be that Chaney would have to assume that he is going to be chasing Curry down the Stemmons a long ways before he can give the most important and time sensitive message of his career(Old Harleys are not fast by any means). The limo is 800 ft ahead of him and he would not know it is stopping on the on ramp(Per Mack's story). Why would he not use his radio?? If the radio was too crowded it was due to the assassination and he would know that everyone including Curry is aware.   I can't believe Chaney was attempting to chase the limo down the freeway.
 The next crazy part is Mack claimed Chaney stopped the motorcade on the Stemmons on ramp and that is when Chaney caught up with them. Gary Mack claimed that Curry said he stopped for two reasons. 1. Greer did not know the way to Parkland so he had to tell him. 2. Curry was not yet sure if anyone was hit by gunfire so he stopped to check!!
 First ,I can't buy the idea that he would stop the rush to the hospital just to make sure someone was shot? I guess we replace doctors with SS agents to evaluate JFK? Second, if Greer did not know where was he going was he going to get lost? following right behind Curry with sirens blaring and all the traffic pulling over and running all the red lights together? How could he get lost? The other factor is the radio. Curry had Decker riding shotgun and he could man the radio. Same for Kellerman in the limo. No need to friggin stop the rush to the hospital when you could solve both question over the radio.
 Gary Macks explanation has too many large holes in it. I believe by the time he told the story the others were dead and could not verify Mack's account.
 

3 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

I just watched the attached video posted above showing JFK's head exploding  in frame 312 and 313.

I must say after watching this 10X, it looks to me like the pink spray from JFK's exploding head is coming from the raw brain area exposed underneath the big flap of scalp blown away above his right ear.

That spray is shooting upward from there.

From Linda Willis's statements in the interview above she stated the pink cloud spray came out and up from the" back" of JFK's head.

Just have to be honest regards what my eyes are telling me here.

I could see a high velocity bullet entering the back of JFK's head ( where the occipital and parietal lobes meet? ) and then moving through the brain and blowing out a huge skull bone flap just above the right ear.

However, SS agent Clint Hill said in his WC testimony that when he got within inches of JFK's head he noticed a huge hole in that Occipital/Parietal area and nothing in there to a noticeable depth.

There seems to be two distinct issues regarding the location of the hole in JFK's head. Was there a hole in the side or top that Clint Hill and the Parkland doctors missed?

The second issue is the question of whether there was a hole in the occipital parietal? It's the second question that is important because doctors could miss a hole due to the hair or the flap on the side closing. But what is much harder to reconcile is Clint Hill and the Parkland doctors thinking there was a hole where there was not one , according to the official autopsy.

After watching the Willis interview I find she talks about her dad's "film" and a missing "frame" but she also calls her dads photos  "slides" and refers to her dad's "picture". I don't see any reason to think she is calling his photos a motion picture film.
 Her comments about the missing train is specifically about the view of the train behind the "cement arcade" that you could see through the arcade windows. She was not referring to the overpass. Some of the Bond photos do show the train in the train yard behind the arcade. They also shows the train ends before it would appear between the pergola and knoll fence. That and the Hughes film of the Pullman cars in the train yard tell us right where they sat.  The cars would not be visible in Willis 5 unless they had a view of the right side(Eastern 1/3) of the arcade(Colonnade). The Willis family likely saw the trains through the arcade when they walked farther west for Willis 6 and mistakenly assumed they should be visible in Willis 5.

How the limo stop could have been removed is a fascinating puzzle.  Removing frames would have required some additional work. Foster's movement across the frame would have to corrected because removing frames would cause that movement to jump. Her steps would also have to be altered because she takes almost one full step per second. The movements of everyone in the limo would also jump visibly if one full second of limo stop was removed.
 Adding a matte process has been suggested before but it also has difficulties to overcome. The reflections in the trunk match the limo position on Elm at least up to frame 340 approx. A 2nd matte would have to be applied to the trunk reflection to keep a match to the background.
The exact angle of the limo to Z matches the limo's position on Elm from approx frame 230 until well after the head shot, maybe frame 335. If a matte process changed the limo location on Elm they would have to change the limo angle to Z. You could skew a limo image and make it sort of appear like a different angle of view. But that does not alter the lines of sight through the limo as seen by Z. In other words skewing an image can alter the box shape of the limo but if, lets say, JC's ear is blocked by the side window, that image cannot change. His ear can't be revealed or hidden more by skewing the image. If you use the ear to window frame as a line of sight in an overhead drawing of the limo you will get the true limo angle to Z and it would not match the matte processed limo location.
 If the limo just slowed from 9 to 3mph for a few seconds there would be a mismatch with the background of about 40ft. Using a matte process to advance the background and hide the slowing would mean taking background from later frames and splicing portions of it into the current frame matte. You can't just use the next frames full background. You would need to take about 6 inches of the next frame and splice it into right edge the current frame. Once done the next frame would have 6" deficit from the start. You need to slide the background over 6" because the 6" on the left is now part of the previous frame. So now in order to do the matte on the next frame you will need 12" of the frame after it. This just keeps adding up and I'm not sure where it leads.
 How alteration was achieved is a tough question but I still think it must have occurred. Maybe it was a combination of removing a frame or two combined with a matte process. I guess if the background was magnified as has been theorized it would give the alteration people a little more background material to use for the mattes.
 I thought the Wiegman image of the limo near the underpass just 8 sec after the head shot made the limo stop impossible. But if the limo just slowed way down for a few seconds and was 40ft behind were it should be, then it would only be one second off where it should have been when it was reaching the underpass. Traveling at at least 30mph at the underpass the limo would advance 43ft in one second. Since we estimate the timing of the shots from Wiegman's reaction and his jump from the press car there is at least one second of wiggle room. So now I don't think the Wiegmans limo images makes a limo slowing/stopping impossible.

22 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

I have combed through every Crenshaw statement, and I could not find one instance of him claiming to have knowledge of a specific cover-up. Just Dr. Baxter's self-admitted ban on commercial benefit, and the Secret Service agents explaining to them the autopsy conclusions. Crenshaw always said that the "conspiracy of silence" he was referring to was fearing for their careers.

I never read his book and have never seen any of the claims he was said to have made. Don't know who said what but would like to see some verification that the other doctors talked trash about him as is claimed.

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I got sucked into this thread because I didn't remember McClelland telling the ARRB that an "agent" told Perry not to say the throat wound appeared to be an entrance. I looked back through McClelland/Perry's joint interview with the ARRB and didn't find McClelland saying as much. Instead, I found McClelland's insistence the phone call with Humes took place on Saturday, mid-morning. If you could point out where McClelland said he saw an agent grab Perry I would be appreciative.

Now, in an attempt to be clear, let me explain what I think happened. The doctors were told by their supervisors not to talk too much or share too many details about what they witnessed, beyond the basics of the President's care. This is not surprising. This is what one would expect from a prestigious hospital. I have spent much of the last year in a hospital and I would expect the doctors engaged in my treatment to keep mum for the most part, and not attempt to gain any publicity from my illness or any other patient's illness. So that was one form of pressure brought to bear on the doctors.

Secondly, there was the Secret Service. The Secret Service, in the form of Elmer Moore, thought the doctors should know that, according to the autopsy, the throat wound was officially an exit wound. He later expressed concern he was wrong in doing so. But it's really simple when you think about it. There was a lot of conflicting info in the press. The SS and Moore thought they could minimize this by bringing the Parkland doctors in the loop and did so. Now, was this pressure? One might see it that way. But one might also see it as someone telling you you have toilet paper on your shoe, or that your fly is open. The Parkland staff, it seems to me, were appreciative of Moore's visit, and not fearful. To repeat myself, doctors routinely defer to the expertise of others. Perry's subsequent statements make clear he thought the throat wound looked like an entrance, but was willing to believe it was an exit. Even late in life, long after he'd acknowledged it could have been an exit, he insisted that it did look like an entrance. In other words, he felt his mistake was not in his observation, but in sharing his speculation with the media. The observations of ER doctors are not conclusions. They don't have time to make conclusions. They do their best to keep the patient alive. It is the job of pathologists and coroners to establish the exact cause of death. Now, not to get side-tracked, but, much as Cyril Wecht has challenged his fellow pathologists to find a bullet believed to have done as much damage as CE 399 and to have remained so pristine, I have challenged my fellow researchers to find one instance where the recollections of an emergency room doctor were presented in court to challenge the findings of a pathologist or coroner. And have received no response. And there's a reason why. It does not happen. An emergency room doctor challenging the findings of a pathologist or coroner in a court of law would be shredded by the opposing lawyer. What is your expertise? How many autopsies have you performed? How long did you study the patient? Did you open him up and study the bullet trajectories? Did you even turn the body over? 

Third, there's the WC. Specter's job was to make things add up. He knew there were problems. So he constructed a ludicrous question asking the Parkland staff if, assuming the bullet traveled on the trajectory outlined in the autopsy protocol, they would accept that the bullet traveled on the trajectory outlined in the autopsy protocol. It was a meaningless question, but it created the illusion there was no dispute about the throat wound, etc. Now, was this pressure? Of course it was. But did the doctors see it as much? Most would say no. Evidently he was charming and polite and just doing his job, which was to shut doors, not open them. 

And then there's what came after. What a lot of researchers miss is that many witnesses have succumbed to pressure from the research community. I personally witnessed people try to bully James Jenkins into saying the back of the head was missing, which he vehemently denied, only to later publish a book in which he succumbed to their pressure and wrote that the back of the head was missing. McClelland is another example. He demonstrated on camera his best recollection of the wound location numerous times. And always placed the wound at the top of the back of the head, within two inches or so of where he'd placed it before. And then later in life he sold (?) or provided drawings to people in which he depicted the wound on the far back of the head, at the level of the ear, which is to say low on the back of the head, inches lower than where he'd previously placed the wound. Well, why would he do this? Because that's where it is shown in the so-called "McClelland" drawing, a drawing made for Tink Thompson based on McClelland's testimony, the accuracy of which McClelland would disavow when asked by The Boston Globe and ARRB. Late in life, after becoming a darling for the CT community, however, he not only told people he had helped create the drawing for Thompson (which Thompson confirmed on this forum was simply not true) but that he drew it himself. And so, yeah, one can now find drawings by McClelland on eBay purporting to show where he saw the wound that closely mirrors the location shown in a drawing he did not create...whose accuracy he had previously disavowed.

Now, did McClelland give in to pressure? You bet he did. It's human nature. My beef is that so many on my side of the fence, which is to say the CT side of the fence, are unwilling to recognize their double-standard--where every time a witness tells a government investigator or an Oswald did-it writer what he wants to hear that person is giving in to pressure, but every time a witness tells a CT writer what he wants to hear he/she is a courageous truth-teller. It's just not so. People try to please those questioning them, and people are highly prone to suggestion. So, if a writer approaches a witness and says "Hey, all the other witnesses said they saw blank, did you see blank?" it's highly likely the witness would say "Y'know, I think I saw blank." (There's a ton of clinical studies demonstrating this tendency, many of which I discuss on my website.) In other words, the latter-day statements of witnesses can not be taken at face value, and must be weighed against previous statements, with added weight to their earliest statements.  

 

Much of your response is your personal opinion of peoples behavior and motivations. I don't agree with a number of points.
"The doctors were told by their supervisors not to talk too much or share too many details about what they witnessed, beyond the basics of the President's care. This is not surprising"
 Yes but asking a doctor not to talk about the neck wound is too specific not to be considered pressure regarding a specific aspect of his testimony.

  "There was a lot of conflicting info in the press. The SS and Moore thought they could minimize this by bringing the Parkland doctors in the loop and did so. Now, was this pressure? "
 What was not conflicting was the opinion that the wound was "occipital parietal" or more generally 'Right posterior". That was the large majority speaking. That would be more like witness tampering if he asked them to agree with the autopsy.

"The observations of ER doctors are not conclusions. They don't have time to make conclusions. They do their best to keep the patient alive. It is the job of pathologists and coroners to establish the exact cause of death"
 This is an often used argument that ignores the fundamental premise of the CT. It is because the Parkland accounts stand in stark contrast to the autopsy, and because they are consistent in doing so, that it raises  doubt about the authenticity of the autopsy.
 So yes we would usually defer to the pathologists at Bethesda, but not in this case. First someone has to give a credible explanation for all those Parkland staff members making the same mistake, give or take and inch or two. I have heard all the explanations and they all fall flat, mostly due to the WC testimony.

"Now, did McClelland give in to pressure? You bet he did. It's human nature. My beef is that so many on my side of the fence, which is to say the CT side of the fence, are unwilling to recognize their double-standard-."
  Did McClelland give in to pressure? cases like this are pure conjecture on your part. But you still conclude "You bet he did."  You base it on him putting the wound a couple inches higher in the beginning then altering it later. The accounts of the wounds vary by a couple inches vertically throughout the Parkland accounts. I once saw a video of Jones in which he puts his hand on the back of his head then re adjusts it upward twice before he feels the right location with his fingers. They should be expected to vary some but even with that 2 inch variation they all put the wound in the rear. The autopsy shows no hole anywhere near their locations.
 Witnesses can give false answers to go along with the crowd. But in the case of these medical professionals who are at the center of a controversy it is less likely they will be willing to start making things up. And if McClelland did make up or imagine the incident about the agent grabbing and threatening Perry, why did Perry sit there silently and not discount or at least question Dr McClelland? Best guess would be because it did happen.
    They were coerced, they lied to go along with the crowd, they were too busy to really see the wound, all this is just  conjecture and refuted by their sworn testimony at the WC.
  Dr Clark who located the wound in the occipital parietal in his notes from 11/22 undeniably took a close inspection of the brain. This was corroborated by many doctors like Perry, Peters, Bashour and Clark himself in the WC testimony. He declared the wound "mortal" as he and Jenkins stood there inspecting it. The word mortal is definitive. It means he inspected the wound closely enough to conclude JFK was as good as dead. The very next thing he did was to instruct the staff to stop the resuscitation efforts! The claim they never got a good look when Dr Clark literally gave up on JFK immediately after declaring the head wound as "mortal" is obviously wrong. I think when it comes to the head wound location Dr Clarks testimony is an utter refutation of the false notion that   "They don't have time to make conclusions."
 I will look for the quote from McClelland about Perry, I never saved it but saw it recently.

3 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

There were a number of televised and newspaper interviews given after Crenshaw's book came out. They all rejected Crenshaw's version of events (that they were frightened into silence.) Some went too far and questioned whether he'd even been in the ER. But that got straightened out fairly quickly.

Yes the lie perpetrated in the JAMA article about Crenshaw not being in the room " We can't prove a negative but we don't know if Crenshaw was even in the room that day" was disproven by the prior testimony of nurse Henchcliffe and Dr Curtis. I call it is a lie because the lead Dr in the JAMA article, Dr Baxter, also testified prior that Crenshaw was in the room. In fact when asked, Crenshaw's name  was the first name he mentioned.
 "They all rejected Crenshaw's version of events ". All the Parkland staff? In the ARRB testimony McClellend talks about Perry's intimidation and Jones talks about his. If they all said no one was frightened into silence after Crenshaw's book in the 80's why did he then make those statements in the 90's?
 I think we also have to consider that if any doctors were frightened into silence then of course they would deny being frightened into silence right?
 I have not seen any of the news stories or articles that support the idea that all or some of the Dr's rejected the stories about intimidation. do you have a link to support this? and do you know if the claims Posner made can be substantiated beyond his word?

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

The rest of the Parkland doctors, including McClelland, thought Crenshaw was full of it, and incredibly insulting when he implied they were scared to tell the truth. 

 

I think I read something like that is Posner's book. Is there any documentation of this other than what Posner? said. Are these supposed to be direct quotes? Going by memory I thought that the statements by Gerald Posner in his book did not have quotes.
In all the years that McClellend gave interviews and did speaking events I never heard any reference to Crenshaw as a xxxx.