Chris Bristow

16 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Chris,

When I look at the shadows of people on the grass, and see that the "direction" of their shadows is close to the direction the limousine is traveling, I know that it will be difficult to make out the motion blur in the shadows. (That is to say, the motion blur due to the camera following the limo.)

I try to stay away from evidence that is subtle. So I have no interest in the motion blur of those shadows.

Now here's the thing that's bugging me. The reason I even mentioned motion blur of shadows in my post is because somebody (Keven?) posted a video a few days ago that showed a number of anomalies in the Z film. And the one that stood out -- because it was so simple and easy to understand -- was a shadow with no motion blur, even though the man causing the shadow did have motion blur. I recall that shadow being roughly VERTICAL... which is precisely the reason it got my attention. Problem is... their ain't no such thing! There are no vertical shadows, and it's driving me nuts! Because I swear I saw one. Argh.

I wish I could watch that video again.

 

I can't think of any photo of Elm St that was taken from the position necessary to capture a shadow that was vertical in the frame. Cancellare came the closest when he captured Wiegman. Z would have seen vertical shadows when his camera was pointing directly towards the Sun around frame 406, but there is nothing to create the long shadows. It would be interesting to see an image like that, let me know if you find it.
  I tested the shadows on the Franzen's by adding motion blur to a sharp Z Frame. They became very blurry but their shadows still appeared much sharper.  The, blurry witness with sharp shadows, alteration theory is an old one that has not stood the test of time and the advent of computer photoshop software.
 

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Three important things I get from this interview are these:

1. There were no images between the sprocket holes.
   
   The extant Z film DOES have inter-sprocket images, which suggests that further, more involved alterations were done at a later date.
   
   While this would explain the miscellaneous anomalies we see in the extant film (for example, people on the grass exhibiting motion blur whereas their shadows don't -- an apparent impossibility), it begs the question then why the back-and-to-the-left movement wasn't removed.
    
2. There was a highly noticeable piece of the head flying up.
   
   No such piece can be seen on the extant film.
    
3. The time between frames on that camera would have increased as the spring wound mechanism slowed down over time.
   
   This means that there can be no meaningful timing comparisons between the three extant films, as anti-alterations say should be done.

 

I think the lack of motion blur on the Elm St shadows may have a logical explanation. I can't seem to remove attachments at the moment to free up space for an image but if you put Z frames 342 and 345 side by side they will illustrate my point.
 Z 342 has a lot of motion blur and 345 is sharp.  The motion blur in 342 is lateral and basically follows the direction of the limo as most of the blurred fames do. The blur on Bothun and Altgens show no vertical blur, evidenced by the sharp line across the tops of their heads. So the shadows should show little to no blur on the top and bottom(Along the length of the shadow). Any blur would be lateral and show mostly next to the top of the head and next to the feet. 
 The other visible evidence of motion blurring on Altgens and Bothun is in their shirt. coat, ties etc. But the shadow has no detail to show anything within, it is just black on black. So any lateral motion blurring is not discernible inside the shadows. 
 On the other hand, the shadow angle is about 15 degrees off of the motion blur direction so maybe it should show some blurring. But the length of the blur is very short and I would still not expect to see much blur, since it is mostly moving with the length of the shadow. That is just a guesstimate.
  I think it is important to take into account the fact that dark shadowed images are not actually images on the film in the camera. If the shadow has no detail within it then the shadow is simply a lack of light hitting the film. The light reflecting off the grass burns a real physical latent image onto the film, but the shadow leaves no image, it is just a lack of light. The location on the film that represents the shadow is just and unexposed area with no latent image.
 This makes a big difference with motion blur. Instead of  2 objects being overlapped like shadow over grass, there is just the image of grass and the shadow, or lack of light, adds no image to the grass.
The grass there might still appear darker than the grass next to it because of the lack of further exposure during the time the shadow, or lack of light, overlaps with the grass. That may resemble the overlap of two objects but is a little different. Depending on how long the shadow is overlapped and how bright the grass is, the shadow can completely disappear. 
 From another perspective consider a shadow that is motion blurred over a grass image. The lack of light lands on a location that is already been exposed by the light coming off the grass. The already existing image of the grass remains and the shadow is not seen.
 A comparison of the lamppost in Z frames 411 and 413 shows the canceling out effect. The right side of the lamppost in the 411 image is missing and that is why the lamppost is much skinnier than in 413. The right side has been overlapped with the image of the street behind it and that part of the lamppost is cancelled out because the street is so bright. On the grass most of the lamppost has been cancelled. But because the grass image is not as bright as the street there is sill some darkening of the grass where the the overlap was.
  I can't be sure how much the cancelling out effect plays a part in the image we see. It has a lot to do with how long the overlap lasted during the open shutter time and how bright the background is. But the lateral direction of the motion blur and the inability to discern any blurring within the shadows may explain why the horizontals shadows are sharper than the vertical people.

6 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

Chris Bristow,

The thing is, the Willis family actually saw their pictures before turning them over to the SS, and specifically remembered the "train" being in one or two of the pictures that should still have been in the pictures when they were finally returned, but weren't. Please listen to her interview at https://texasarchive.org/2010_02553  . You can skip the first 3/4, but definitely listen to the last 1/14. Moreover, Jim Towner, during a family "Living History" interview with the SFM unprompted said there was "something wrong" with one of the images on the museum's brochures, because he knew a "train" should have been in the image, but wasn't. When Linda Willis said that she thought the images were "physically altered, because something showed in them that the Secret Service did not want known," I think that the "something (that) showed" in the original pictures was Agent Hickey holding the AR-15, and that any "train" that was removed was collateral damage.

I have seen that interview and based my evaluation of her recollection on it. I do not contest her father's claim of seeing trains in one of the photos. But there is no doubt about where the train sat and there is no doubt about where Mr Willis stood when taking Willis 5.  Based on that, it is a fact that the trains would not be visible through the colonnade windows in Willis 5.

There is another interview in which she specifically shows the Willis 5 photo and says this is the photo that her dad said the trains were missing from. Here are both interviews. She shows Willis 5 and confirms it as the photo the trains were removed from at 25:20.

 She mention another witness taking a photo about the same time that does show the trains. My guess is that she is talking about the Nix film. The trains are visible in Nix but that is due to his location. 

The contention that the trains were removed from Willis 5 is simply incorrect. They were not visible from his location and that is why they are not in Willis 5.

16 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

I will point to a few things:

1. Linda Willis's assertion that at least one of her father's slide images had been "physically altered" because "something showed in them that the Secret Service did not want known." She specifically mentioned "trains" that should have been visible. See her interview at https://texasarchive.org/2010_02553 towards the end of the interview. This is corroborated by Jim Towner in his family's Sixth Floor Museum "Living History" who said there was something wrong with one of the images on the museum's brochure, because a "train" should have been visible, but wasn't.
2. John Costella's work in describing various "proofs" of Zapruder Film forgery, including "the sign mistake," "the blur mistake," "the lamppost mistake," "the fast-forward mistakes," "the blood mistake," and "the wound mistake. Scroll down for the individual links: https://johncostella.com/jfk/intro/.   
3. I have additional, more "subjective" observations to make about the extant film, pointing to its alterations. They may not meet Costella's more exacting standards of "proof," but these anomalies seem best explained (to me at least) by film alteration. See my article at https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/zapruder-film-alteration.html. 
4. Note Zapruder's apparent confusion when shown early frames purported to be of his film in his Warren Commission testimony. Ultimately, it is Arlen Specter who "authenticates" the images, by telling Zapruder, "Well, they were (from his film)," not Zapruder himself who authenticates the images.

-Denise

Denise, I think Linda Willis' point about no train being visible in Willis  5 has a plausible explanation. The red line on the map shows Phil Willis' line of sight to the 3rd(Southernmost) Pullman car. The location of the black X denoting rear of the last Pullman car can be verified by the two photo inserts that both show the train from very different angles.
 Willis' red line of sight passes through the eastern edge of the 4th colonnade window which is not quiet visible in Willis 5. So from Phil Willis' location in Willis 5 the trains would not have been visible.

 Linda Wills did say she and her father walked forward on the grass and took some more photos after the assassination. The black line of sight estimates a position 30 ft west of the Willis 5 photo. Any photos taken from there would show the train in 3 of the colonnade windows.
 So Linda Willis' memory of trains visible in some photos would be correct but not in Willis 5. The missing photos showing the trains may be part of the group of photos taken after they walked forward. But there never could have been trains visible in Willis 5.
 NOTE:  Other than the 3 Pullman cars there were no other trains in the yard during the shooting. The boxcars seen in the lower insert arrived after the assassination. They are not there in either Of the McIntyre photos taken approx 25 seconds after the head shot.

2 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

But Chris,Custer says that he remembers the event too well.And since he said that he helped lift JFK out of the casket and onto the autopsy table,that's a glaring red flag.

He helped take JFK out of the casket yet remembered him wearing clothes, yes that is a big mistake. It puts a big question mark on his credibility but I don't know if it makes all of his testimony incorrect. He would have paid more attention to the taking and inspecting the X-rays so I would give more credit to his memory of the wound. But that is just my opinion, he could be wrong about the wound too. 

I would think a person could easily make a mistake like remembering JFK wearing a suit because he gave the deposition 3 decades after the event. He could have simply conflated his memory with some other person he x-ray'd during his career.
 To take each of the head X-rays he had to take the head in his hands and align it on 3 separate axis. He had to use the shape of the head itself to determine the correct axis. So I have much more confidence in his memory of the wound location than what JFK was wearing when his body first arrived.
 

On 1/27/2024 at 1:02 PM, Pat Speer said:

Let's be clear. Do you mean by "gaslighting" that I'm trying to get people to moderate their belief in a conspiracy, so that they can then be pushed into the next box and be a lone-nutter? Is that what's provoking all this vitriol?

Because it's just nonsense. I have been writing and lecturing about the Kennedy assassination for 20 years now. And I call it like I see it. I think (and I believe I've proved) that the single-bullet theory was a hoax, and that an honest assessment of the facts around the shooting should lead one (and all) to believe Oswald was not a shooter, and that more than one person was involved. I think (and I believe I've proved) that a cover-up of this fact was performed by the government, for various reasons, mostly because LBJ wanted it that way. And I think (and I believe I've proved) that the HSCA investigation was a fluster-cluck in which people with divergent agendas submitted pieces to a puzzle that did not fit together. 

I think the case--as to who was responsible--remains unsolved. But the case--as to whether little old Oswald did it all by himself--is clear: he did not. And I think my research has demonstrated this...many times over. 

I've written the equivalent of a book, and have made presentations...demonstrating why I feel certain the single-bullet theory is a hoax.

I've written the equivalent of a book, and have made presentations...demonstrating why I feel certain JFK's head wounds are incompatible with the single-assassin theory. 

I've written the equivalent of a book, and have made presentations...demonstrating why I feel certain Oswald wasn't the assassin.

So why have I had to put up with so much crud...from my fellow CT's?

It goes back 15 years or so. I sided with Tink Thompson against Fetzer on the Zapruder film, and this led Fetzer to start rumors I was secretly working with the CIA, or some such thing. These attacks continued, moreover, after I argued against Fetzer's batpoop theory Oswald was on the steps and not Lovelady, and that a secret CIA lab had changed the Altgens photo within minutes of the shooting, etc, and implanted Lovelady's face on Oswald's body. Now, Fetzer eventually left the forum, but he continued embracing every wild theory to come his way, so much so that he lost credibility with almost everyone.

But his presence still lingers over this forum, and the research community in general. Instead of combing through textbooks, the reports and documents available on the Mary Ferrell site, and oral histories, etc, and adding to the facts we can draw upon, much of the "community" is obsessed with recycling arguments from books they'd read decades ago arguing that the evidence is fake. 

The Zapruder film shows a reaction by JFK that is inconsistent with the single assassin scenario...but that's not enough. It doesn't show what people want it to show--so they search for reasons to believe it is fake. 

The statements of witnesses viewing Oswald in the moments before and after the shooting suggest his innocence...but that's not enough. They didn't say what people wish they had said--so they search for reasons to believe they were lying. 

The autopsy photos, x-rays and medical evidence in general are absolutely positively at odds with the single-assassin solution. The back wound was not connected to the throat wound. The throat wound was out of alignment with the back wound. The head wounds suggested there were two head wounds, not one. And Connally's wounds suggested he'd been struck by a bullet traveling at a much lower velocity than proposed by the Commission. But they don't show evidence for what people want them to show--that there were shots from the front--so they argue endlessly and often illogically that the medical evidence--which absolutely positively proves conspiracy-- must be fake. 

It's a circular firing squad, all this talk of this being fake or that being fake. Why not discuss what it shows? 

A few years back I finally gained access to a book most had never heard of--a book on the wound ballistics of the assassination rifle written within a few years of its development. This book had images of a cadaver shot in the head from a similar distance as JFK, on a similar trajectory. And yet the wounds were nowhere near as large as Kennedy's, like not even 1/10 as large. And I showed this to some of the most prominent researchers on the case, and they got excited and asked me to send them the images  I'd acquired. And I did so. And I assumed they'd incorporate these in their subsequent presentations. But they did not. Now, to be clear, these images completely destroy the testimony and statements of the WC and HSCA's wound ballistics experts--that the damage to JFK's skull was consistent with a Carcano bullet's making a small entrance on the back of his head, and exiting from the top of his head. So why would no one in a position to bring this forth on the 60th--those interviewed by the media--those healthy enough to appear at presentations--show anyone this image? 

It's not me who's holding us back...

 

 

"Let's be clear. Do you mean by "gaslighting" that I'm trying to get people to moderate their belief in a conspiracy, so that they can then be pushed into the next box and be a lone-nutter? Is that what's provoking all this vitriol?"
 I am not interested is guessing your motivation for what looks to be gaslighting in the Parkland issue.  I think a mountain of criticism may have suddenly fallen on you because you have created a mountain of mis information regarding Parkland. 
 

I am not surprised that Keven has been so aggressive in his criticism of Pat Speer's opinions on the Parkland issue. Considering the comments of others who are well versed in the Parkland testimonies, I think I am not the only one who sees many of his explanations as an  extreme form of gaslighting. 

13 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Michael, I think you have misinterpreted @Chris Bristow's comment. The following is his comment to which you were responding:

By "skeptics," Chris meant JFK researchers who accept the evidence of JFK's back-of-the-head wound, not the WC skeptics.

The following is a comment that Chris Bristow made on the subject on Facebook in which he more expansively makes the same point he was trying to make in the comment above. I think that Chris has a very valuable perspective on this so just wanted to make sure he gets his point across...

CHRIS BRISTOW ON RIDICULOUS LN ATTEMPTS TO ARGUE AWAY THE EXISTENCE OF THE OCCIPITAL-PARIETAL WOUND IN THE BACK OF JFK'S HEAD 

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/politicalassassinationsresearchgroup/posts/5533837433338947/

 

Chris Bristow wrote: 

 

"On the Parkland doctors issue Skeptics have multiple rationalizations all of which are very weak arguments. I think the Parkland issue is definitely the strongest Smoking Gun in the JFK case. The second most convincing argument is all of the ridiculous excuses that are made for the Parkland doctors. The fact they have no valid response speaks volumes.

 

They claim they were too busy to take a close look at the head wound. That's the stupidest argument of all and is completely and utterly refuted by the Warren Commission testimony of Peters, Perry, and Clark. But there is also a lot of corroboration from many other doctors. They also try and claim the doctors all capitulated in the Nova documentary done at the National Archives. But at Parkland we have at least 12 doctors and five nurses and a couple more staff that saw the hole in the back of the head. In the Nova documentary there are only four doctors present. The math alone proves the Nova documentary claim is a lie.

 

Sometimes they try and claim that the 19 plus staff members who saw the hole in the back of the head just got it wrong. And the three or four doctors who claim there was no hole in the back are correct. If those numbers were reversed and as a CT person I tried to argue that we should trust those four doctors over the 19 doctors I would be called a weak-minded conspiracy thinker. Who in their right mind would accept the testimony of four over the testimony of 19 plus? But that is exactly what the Skeptics do.

 

They also try and twist the story so that the Parkland staff were all saying the wound was in the very back of the head. Then they say if it was reported back there it must be wrong because he was laying on the back of his head and you couldn't see that area. The problem is the doctors were very clear about it being in the right rear. There are multiple video interviews when the doctors will say it was in the back of the head. But then they continue and place their hands in the right occipital parietal not the back of the head. Even McClelland can be quoted as saying it was in the back of the head. But he then reaches for the right occipital parietal as he says it. And other times he and others say "In the back of the head in the occipital parietal area". Nurse Bowron used the general term "Back of the head" in her WC testimony. But in a later interview she verified a drawing of the wound in the RIGHT occipital parietal There are many examples of the doctors making a general statement about the back of the head but then immediately and more specifically pointing to or saying the right rear. The claim that the doctors thought it was in the very back of the head is a up story, But you need to look at all the testimony and everything they said in interviews to confirm this.

 

There's a clip on YouTube that shows Audrey Bell, Dr McClelland and I think Dr Jones all stating the wound was in the back of the head. But when you see the full clips all three of them immediately point to the right occipital parietal after saying back of the head. But in the clip that amounts to nothing more than propaganda, the second bit of what they said or pointed to is cut out and you only see them saying it was in the back of the head. Who in their right mind after just a short period of studying the assassination could believe that Dr McClelland, the most vocal proponent of the right occipital parietal wound, would believe that manipulated sound bite?

 

Another famous argument is the Parkland doctors were all over the map regarding the location of the wound. They will show a picture of Theran Ward touching his fingers tips to the right mastoid process. The palm of his hand is over his ear so they make the claim that he was reporting the wound as being at the ear. But in his written report he stated it was " in the back of the head". That statement taken together with the photo of his fingertips at the mastoid would indicate he meant the right rear. I should note that in almost every single instance of a staff demonstrating the wound location they use their fingertips to locate it. Just as Theran Ward did I believe., they will show Doctor Dulany's photo with his hand higher than the occipital parietal, much closer to the official location, but in his Nova documentary statement he's called it the right occipital parietal. Personally I think he made a mistake in the photograph because he was not touching his fingers to his head. All you have to do is rock your head about 1 inch and it totally changes the location. I think he just made a mistake. To bolster my argument I would point to several of the staff like Dr Jones who have to feel around the back of their head with their fingertips to find the location. Dr Jones literally starts way down behind the ear, then moves up a couple inches, then moves up again to the location that matches McClelland and Dr Carrico and others. Dr Jones obviously knows his Anatomy and has been asked to point to that location many many times. Yet he still has to feel around for it in the back of the head as so many other staff members did. I assume because we have no visual map of the back of our own head to go by. I think that demonstrates that we have to give a little bit of leeway to the location of the wounds reported. But when you look at all the locations from Parkland as a whole and compare them to the official location there is a world of difference. The Parkland staff is very consistently behind and below the crown of the head and the official wound is on the top of the head.

 

Since I have been on Facebook I have debated the Parkland issue multiple times with the same Skeptics. After pasting images of testimony directly from the WC and posting multiple links the Skeptics never seem to retain this information. 6 months later the same people will come back and try and make the same utterly debunked arguments. they will come back and say the Nova documentary proves the doctors wrong. They will again claim the doctors never got a chance to take a close look. Even though I have posted Dr Clark's testimony in which he calls the wound mortal, and with the very next words out of his mouth he calls off the resuscitation and gives up on JFK. Of course he did! It would be unethical to continue the rough treatment the resuscitation inflicts on the patient when there is zero reason to do it. Mortal means he's not going to survive. It is not like having no heartbeat or respiration. Under those conditions you can say well if we continue maybe the heartbeat will start. But when the doctor uses the word mortal it is definitive. It means the patient is not surviving and there is no reason to continue resuscitation. So again with the next words out of Dr Clark's mouth he tells the doctors to stop. this is undeniable proof that the doctors got a good look yet even upon seeing this the Skeptics will return in 6 months and repeat the ludicrous argument that the doctors never got a chance to inspect that wound. I think they're fake memory loss is the third most powerful evidence for the Parkland staff. When it comes to Parkland the Skeptics can't seem to retain the information for more than a few months. Or they're XXXXX who are trying to pass off propaganda. I can understand the human nature of not wanting to admit you're wrong during the argument. But they return 6 months later and restate the false argument.

 

The only argument a skeptic can make is that a few of the doctors seem to contradict themselves later on. Most dramatically Dr Carrico completely flipped his story after 25 years or more. The day of the assassination he wrote occipital parietal in his notes. Several months later he testified under oath that the wound was right occipital parietal. 14 years later he doubled down and testified under oath again at the hsca. Again saying right occipital parietal. Then in an interview for the 6th floor Museum he decided to correct the record. He said that he didn't take those reports that seriously at the time and it had been a half hour since he had seen the body. So he wants to correct the notes from that day. Doesn't bother to mention that he testified under both twice. Did he lie twice? So he had the president of the United States laying there gunned down minutes before, yet he doesn't take the report that seriously in terms of the ballistics or wound locations? That's a serious crock of bull.

 

People often claim that the doctors testimony was just hearsay. As I understand it a person giving testimony under oath of something they personally experienced is called direct evidence. I know Keven is a lawyer so maybe he could clear that one up for me."

Thanks for noting the  misunderstanding. It was my fault when I characterized people who deny the O.C. wound as skeptics, when that term  usually defines CT skeptics.

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Thanks, Chris. That confirms my recollection. He didn't say anything out of line with the others. He didn't get a look at the back of the head, but thought the wound he saw (presumably towards the back of the head) could have been an exit wound. What I didn't remember, however, is that he specified that he did not see an entrance wound. I suspect that's why I never found his latter day claims credible. In looking at Palamara's book, I see there's an FBI memo from 1984 that draws into question Akin's mental state. While one might be tempted to dismiss this as a smear, one should realize no similar memos were created on McClelland, or Crenshaw. It's just hard to believe Akin was seeing things clearly. According to Livingstone, Akin told people Clark saw an entry wound in the temple. Well, this makes little sense. From the very first time Clark spoke on the head wound (the press conference) to the last time he spoke on the head wound (his WC testimony) Clark made clear that he suspected it to be a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. (I have concluded he was correct.) In any event, IF he had seen a temple wound, it seems clear he would have said so at the time. 

Now, I know some are saying to themselves that his mentioning a temple wound would have indicated a shot from the left and a shooter other than the one from behind. But that was not Clark's concern at the time, as he and Perry had no problem presenting the throat wound as a possible entrance, and the head wound as a tangential wound of both entrance and exit, OR the exit of a bullet entering at the throat. So, no, there was no effort by Clark to support the single-assassin solution, at least not in those first few days. 

Just to clear up this point, he did get a look at the back of the head in terms of the occipital parietal wound in the right rear, right posterior. It was only the supposed 'other' bullet hole below the occipital wound that he did not see due to excessive blood there.
 Akin had mental problems decades after his testimony in 1963. But there is nothing I have found to disqualify his statements made 20 years prior.  
 When it comes to doctors assumptions about where the shot came from I don't pay much attention. It is just a guesswork based on what they saw or didn't see on 11/22 and in the Z film reaction of JFK.  
The location is the big issue because so many of them saw the blowout near the occipital area. Some like Baxter went further and wrote on 11/22 that the occipital bone itself was "Missing".
 With testimonies being repeated many times over several decades by 20+ witnesses there will be some contradictions, but that is to be expected. There are just far too many accounts of a wound near the occipital to be explained away with conjecture. This person lied, that person just got it wrong, some just went along with the majority, etc. 
18 or more staff from trauma room 1 saw a wound that does not exist in the official photos and x-rays. Conservatively 6 more at the autopsy came forward after the non disclosure statements were lifted by the HSCA. I don't include testimony that is questionable, like Stringer's failing memory in his ARRB deposition.
 In the end there is no credible way to explain 24 witnesses who saw the blasted out area of the occipital parietal. I have heard all the arguments and it amounts to a lot of speculation, cherry picking, appeals to authority and ad hominem attacks. It does not add up and points to a big lack of credibility.
  The attack on Crenshaw by the esteemed Journal of American Medical Associations, is in itself proof that doctors who supported the O.C wound location  could have their reputations and careers put in jeopardy. The claim that Crenshaw might not have even been in the room that day, basically accusing him of being a complete xxxx, confirms that cheap attacks on the Parkland staff were required to discredit them. It also puts in question the stories of the few who likely recanted to protect their careers.
  The absurd yet often repeated claim that those Parkland doctors were too busy trying to save his life to correctly locate the O.C wound(I think that was from Bugliosi?) is another example of the weak arguments needed to discredit the doctors. It was Jenkins himself who drew the attention of the others to a wound he deemed unsurvivable. So yes they were made aware of the wound that so many said was in the O.C.
 Clark calling off the resuscitation of the president based on the wound he said was "A blasted out area of the occipital parietal" is proof that he, a neurosurgeon, took a good enough look to make the historic decision to give up on the POTUS.    
 Of course I am just rehashing the basis of the longstanding debate we all know very well, but the question of the O.C wound has a mountain of support and very weak counter arguments. 
  A great deal of research is needed to address all the claims made and clear the muddied waters. In the end there is no doubt that the Parkland issue is valid and points very strongly to a coverup of an occipital wound. 

  Imo, the fact that on the weekend of 11/22 the prime suspect was a previous Soviet defector, would be enough to instigate, at least temporarily, a coverup of any evidence that points to a conspiracy. Simply to navigate around the possibility of a conflict with Russia that could lead down a path to nuclear warfare. Hustling his body out of Parkland without allowing Dr Rose to do an autopsy may have been the first step in a coverup designed to protect us from nuclear war.
 So no deep state plot to kill JFK is needed and Oswald could be part of a 2 man conspiracy. Oswald firing 3 shots from the TSBD. Not saying that to promote a new theory, just looking for  the simplest possible scenario.
 
   

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Err… doesn’t this support Pat’s argument? Akin says the occipitalparietal region was shattered with brain extruding, then goes on to admit that he couldn’t see the actual “back” of the head. JFK was on a table, so doesn’t that put the wound in the rear parietal region above the ear? 

This reminded me a bit of Clark’s testimony. Clark is easily one of the more problematic witnesses for Pat’s theory, but there’s one passage where Clark states that the wound was “above” the entrance that Specter mentioned was slightly above the EOP. 

Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Clark, would your observations be consistent with some other alleged facts in this matter, such as the presence of a lateral wound measuring 15 by 6 ram. on the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital proturberant--that is to say, could such a hole have been present without your observing it? 
Dr. CLARK - Yes, in the presence of this much destruction of skull and scalp above such a wound and lateral to it and the brief period of time available for examination--yes, such a wound could be present. 

When Akin says he could not see the back of the head "as such", he was referring specifically to the question about seeing "any other bullet wound" below the "Gaping hole" specter mentions. He said he could not see the other wound because of all the blood and bits of bone sitting below the occipital parietal wound. He  specifies that he was talking about the neck.
  It seems Akin was not contradicting what he just said about the occipital parietal wound, he was just talking about not seeing a second wound below the "Gaping wound" due to the blood and bits of bone. 

 Specter  asked Clark and other witnesses about seeing a separate entry hole just above and 2.5cm right of the occipital protuberance. Specter asks "if that wound could have been present without your observing it?" Clark replies "yes, with the presence of this much destruction of skull and scalp such a wound could be present." He seems to be saying the 'blasted out occipital parietal could have obscured the entry wound at the protuberance. The location of that occipital parietal wound as above and out from the protuberance wound fits the reported location the occipital wound.
 The occipital parietal wound was reported by so many as being in the right rear. So it was largely visible on the side of the head behind and above the ear and also extended back behind the visible head near the protuberance. 

Dr Akin made several comment to the WC regarding the wound he saw in the occipital parietal:

Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any wounds on him at the time you first saw
him?
Dr. AKIN.
The back of the right occipitalparietal portion
of his head was shattered. with brain substance extruding.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SPECTER. With respect to the head wound, Dr. Akin, did you observe
below the gaping wound which you have described any other bullet wound in
the back of the head?
Dr. AKIN. No; I didn't.
I could not see the back of the President's head
as such, and the right posterior neck was obscured by blood and skull frag-
ments and I didn't make any attempt to examine the neck.

------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SPECTER. Did you have any opinion as to the direction that the bullet
hit his head?
Dr. AKIN. I assume that the right occipitalparietal region was the exit,
so to speak, that he had probably been hit on the other side of the head, or
at least tangentially in the back of the head, but I didn't have any hard and
fast opinions about that either.

12 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

PAT SPEER WROTE: "When asked in the 80's to show the location of the one wound [Dr. Robert McClelland had] observed, moreover, he pointed to a location far above his ear, essentially at the top of the head, and inches away from where the wound was placed in the drawing mistakenly attributed to him. So, no, he is not much of an occipital witness, is he?"

Wait a minute!

The actual footage from the TMWKK episode shows that McClelland is actually just resting his fingers on the top of his head while rubbing his thumb up and down the occipital-parietal region of the right side of the back of his head to indicate the location of the large wound, right where he has ALWAYS maintained that it was located. And you have cherry picked a frame from that segment and have falsely described it as being McClelland indicating that the large wound was instead on the top of JFK's head.

As can be seen in the following clip of McClelland's entire hand gesture, he is running his thumb up and down on the right side of the back of his head as he describes the location of the large head wound to the interviewer. 

Moreover, there is no way you could have merely been confused about what Dr. McClelland was communicating with his hand gesture when you were capturing the screenshot from the segment because at the time, in that video, he was saying the following:

"Almost a fifth or perhaps even a quarter of the right back part of the head in this area here [AT WHICH POINT MCLELLAND RAN HIS THUMB UP AND DOWN THE BACK OF HIS HEAD] had been blasted out along with probably most of the brain tissue in the area."

See SEGMENT ON YOUTUBE, I HAVE CUED IT IN ADVANCE FOR YOU TO 26:08:

A review of your website indicates that you have used this misrepresentation about Dr. McClelland --  and several other misrepresentations -- as the foundation of your crusade against the voluminous evidence of JFK's large avulsive back-of-the-head wound, meaning that it all comes down like a house of cards upon a showing that your bedrock assumptions are demonstrably false.

Take for example your claim that "McClelland described but one wound, a wound of the left temple," which is in its entirety based upon your flawed assumption that the use by McClelland of the phrase "OF  the left temple" in his initial report of the wounds means that he was unaware of what he and several other doctors believed to be the large exit wound in the back of the head. If you had actually read medical journals, as you relentlessly advise others to do, you would have learned that it was abundantly common in the era of the doctors who taught Robert McClelland in medical school to refer to entrance wounds with the prefix predicate "of" without need to specify an exit wound (as a means of shorthand). Not only that, but your effort to demonize Dr. McClelland by questioning his integrity in this manner is simply unconscionable, and in my view, places in question your entire project.

Insinuating that Dr. McClelland was making money off of the assassination by selling his wound drawings and notes without any evidence that this was so strikes me as being profoundly out of bounds. Dr. McClelland's drawings and notes to researchers were so very prolific and common during his lifetime because of his devotion to the truth, and because of his generous disposition toward researchers -- it is a tribute to him that those items are now considered so valuable after his death.

And sure, the sketch in Josiah Thompson's book was an approximation, as all of the witness sketches are, human memory being what it is, but it surely was not sinister of Dr. McClelland to value it so much as an approximation that he ratified it, and perhaps even considered it as his own; but it is sinister to set that sketch up as a straw man, as you have done, by virtue of insisting that the slightest deviation from it by other differing accounts of the wound constitutes conclusive evidence that the account in question must necessarily be impossible for daring to contradict autopsy evidence that is recognized as  fraudulent by the majority of researchers who are recognizable as honest brokers who lack any vested interest in the government's theory of the case.

You have criticized the sketch of the large avulsive back-of-the-head wound that Dr. McClelland made on TMWKK as contradicting estimations of the wound made by others who lacked first-hand experience with that wound, such as Horne and Mantik, but fail to acknowledge the remarkable similarity it has with the approximations of others who do have first-hand experience, such as Jim Jenkins, as follows:

ABOVE: DR. MCLELLAND'S SKETCH OF LARGE BOH HEAD WOUND ON TMWKK (1988):

ABOVE: JAMES JENKINS'S DRAWINGS OF BOTH OF JFK'S HEAD WOUNDS ON SKULL MODEL (2018):

The remarkable similarities between the sketches of the large avulsive back-of-the-head wounds by the actual hands of both Dr. McClelland and James Jenkins is no mere coincidence. It is the mark of mutual corroboration that defies the cheap sleight of hand parlor tricks that you have thrown at them. It is the mark of authenticity; and accordingly, I think that you owe Jim Jenkins and the family of Dr. McClelland  -- as well as all of the others you have misled -- a long overdue apology.

 For the following is the reality that no amount of hair splitting on your part can diminish...

 

I think the skeptics lost the Parkland debate a long time ago. The misrepresentations, cherry picking, and gaslighting have become far too obvious over time.  I assume many researchers see right through it. It is truly a 'House of cards", imo.   

3 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

 

Groden does not have frame sets.  Groden copied the Zapruder film in 1975 to Betamax, in part that is how he got the HSCA gig in 1976.  You can’t see the sprockets in his film.

The Betamax copies were the earliest available as I recall and the MPI version shows no sprocket area. But the frames on that sight and all the Groden frames I have seen elsewhere have everything in the pocket area. The color matches the rest of the frame area very well so I don't think the Groden sprocket areas  are a later addition. As I understand it those frames were provided by Groden, although he has never provided the complete set.  

7 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Can anyone confirm there is a genuine frame in existence between 312 and 313 ?

In terms of interpolation I think there may be sufficient 'residual' evidence to recreate the frames missing after 312 (I have tried with free software). The sequence would be (braking, Kennedy slump due to braking, shot to head from rear causing side blowout( with autopsy located entrance), front shot with head at correct angle for Brugioni/Nelly Connally/Ryberg Drawing, accelleration causing extant head snap) The timing for this is defined by 'bang-bang' evidence which must mean it occured in .25 - 1 sec.

In this day and age I don't think there is any way to confirm a perviously unknown frame because it can all be faked, imo. 

   If a limo stop was removed it could not be done by just removing frames. A deceleration from maybe 8mph to 2mph or less has to involve some matte process to shift the background in order to keep the limo moving at 8mph during the deceleration sequence. To hide a deceleration of  25%  you can't just remove 25% of the frames. . EXAMPLE: Starting with frames 1,2,3,4 you remove 25%. So you take out number 3 and are left with a sequence of 1,2,4,5. Nothing has changed from 1 to 2 or 4 to 5 so the limo speed won't change. But from 3 to 5 the limo speed will double  because its now going twice as far from 3 to 5. So the limo would be lurching down the street during deceleration or acceleration. 
 I think trying to recreate a limo stop or slowing by just adding frames would not work without adding the interpolation program to move the background. Basically the computer version of the matte process used in 60's era films.

14 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

I am using Cyberlink and I advance the Robert Groden version of the Zapruder film frame by frame. Anything is possible as both of you mentioned but this seems to be a new frame that was omitted in the NARA version of the  Zapruder frames.

Do you guys have the Robert Groden version of the Zapruder Film.  If not DM me.

The Groden frame set can be downloaded here. 
https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lightbox-frame-sets

13 hours ago, Marcus Fuller said:

Is it possible that one of the frames was duplicated? So 312 was copied and the 'new' frame was inserted after it. Presumably that would just make the footage overall longer a it would if you inserted an 'empty' event or some other effect.

If you just duplicated 312 the limo would be in the same place for 2 frames. That is visible to the eye but also measurable in pairs of frames. The interlacing programs nudge the background to the left for each frame making the limo appear to move forward in every frame.

3 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Here's an (Optical Flow) example from FinalCutPro.

This segment from the extant zfilm is 14 frames.

The gif consists of 33 frames for the same segment with each frame consisting of movement.

I sped up the playback rate to have it approximate what the extant zfilm naturally looks like.

Interlacing programs must have gotten much better since the fake video I saw in 17'. But it may have been from 2010. Even that older program could recognize JFK's forward head movement in 313 relative to his head in 312. That is impressive since his head in 313 is blurred and partially hidden in the cloud of blood.  The sophistication  is growing so rapidly now that anything can be faked.   

About 7 or more years ago there was a YouTube video claiming to reveal a dramatic slowing of the limo. Between 312 and 313 the limo's speed was cut in half. Long story short, someone had created/added an extra frame (312a). It was apparently made with a frame interpolation program. The program can take 2 consecutive frames and create an intermediate frame in which anything that moves from frame 1(312) to frame 2(313) is recreated to appear in a location in between those two positions.
Example: You have two frames that show a baseball being thrown. Frame 1 shows the ball 4 inches from the pitcher's hand and frame 2 shows it has moved to 8 inches from the pitcher's hand. The interpolation program will create a new frame, frame 1A, that shows the ball 6 inches from the pitcher's hand. The new frame becomes an intermediate frame.
 This is done between all frames and doubles the total number of frames. Then the projection rate is also doubled. The result is a film that moves at its original speed, but having twice as many frames smoothes out the appearance of the film. This is applied to old films to make them look less choppy.
 In the real Z film the limo moves about 8 inches from 312 to 313. Adding a single interpolated frame (312a) causes the limo to take 2 frames to move that same 8 inches. When projected at the normal Z frame rate the limo appears to cut its speed in half from 312 to 312a to 313. Of course cutting your speed in half then suddenly going back to its normal speed at 314 is impossible. Therefore I think the best answer to explain the faked Z copy is frame interpolation. It was used to add a single frame between 312 and 313.
 The top images are the real 312 and the faked 312a. JFK's head tips forward to  an intermediate position in 312a. A position that does not occur in the Z film.
 An additional proof of interpolation fakery appears in frames 349 and 350 of the same fake Z film(Below). There is no extra frame there but 350 is a fake composite of 349 and 350. I think it is a remnant of experimentation with interpolation.
 In the images at bottom the real 349 is on the left and a fake 350 is on the right. From 349 to 350 Altgens moves left relative to Jackie. that is real and correct in both frames. But the yellow paint on the curb does not move left from 349 to 350. The red lines show how much Altgens moved and how much the curb should have moved with him. But the yellow curb has barely moved at all. Additionally the fake 350 on the right should reveal Altgens shadow across the curb as it does in the real 350.
 The yellow curb in the fake 350 on the right and lack of Altgens shadow are both from frame 349. It seems that the fake 350 was an error that combined the real positions of everyone on the grass while the curb is a repeat of frame 349.
 I bumped up the saturation in the real 350 on the right to make the yellow curb more obvious. The curb in the real 350 is skinny compared to the real 349 because there is a bit more vertical camera jiggle in 349. That is one more proof that the fake 350 has the curb from the real 349.

7 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

You are severely misstating the evidence.

You ignore the initial, 11/22/63 reports written by the Dallas doctors. Over and over again they said there was a large right-rear wound.

You ignore the numerous statements from the medical personnel and federal agents at the autopsy--nearly all of them said they saw a large right-rear/back-of-head wound.

You ignore the devastating and crucial accounts of the Parkland nurses who handled the skull, who cleaned the skull, who packed the head wound with gauze, and who prepared the body for placement in the casket--all of them insisted there was a large wound in the back of the head.

And you ignore the telling account of Aubrey Rike, who actually held the back of JFK's head in his hands while he helped place the body in the casket--he could feel the sharp edges of the back-of-head wound. 

How you can say that the skeptics have "completely failed to make their case" is hard to comprehend. You take the word of a handful of witnesses who deny the back-of-head wound and ignore the far more numerous witnesses who said they saw it (and in some cases actually handled it).

By "skeptics" I meant the people who argue  AGAINST  the occipital parietal wound.  Looking briefly at your response, I would say I agree with all your points.

20 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Yes, but he said similar things at other times. I have watched probably ten interviews of McClelland, and have seen him speak in person at two conferences. And he was very cautious. He said he thought the photos were legit but that scalp was lifted to conceal the extent of the wound on the back of the head. (Which makes little sense considering Clark said from the first the large wound was missing scalp and bone.) But he would go further. Much to the chagrin of David Lifton and others, who were desperate to believe the tracheotomy incision was far too large, and somehow mysterious, he would say the incision in the photos was as he remembered it looking at Parkland. 

"Regarding McClelland you said. "and later said he thought the autopsy photos were legit, but deceptive".
 Dr McClelland doubled down on the main issue in that very same soundbite from the NOVA doc. He stated pulling the scalp up covered the existence of the "large wound" as he simultaneously demonstrated it to be in the occipital parietal. It is the hole that the Warren Commission denied and is somehow missing from the X-rays and photos. Deception has always been the rule for Parkland skeptics when it comes to the occipital parietal wound, but we all know what Dr McClelland's views were. 
 His opinion offered in the NOVA doc while looking at the back of head photo was an immediate, off the cuff, remark. The fact he ignored the reports of the missing scalp in his attempted explanation is barely worth mention.   
 The same old tired talking points have been strung together and repackaged so many times and in so many ways that your efforts have become absolutely transparent. The endless repeating of misleading and puffed up arguments have been refuted many times.  
SOME EXAMPLES:
 McClelland had theorized the scalp may have been pulled up to cover the wound. That has led to another deceptive line to confuse photo alterationists. Paraphrased as:  "Even Dr McClelland has said the head photo wasn't photoshopped!"  The alterations being led to assume McClelland agreed there was no coverup. When actually he was talking about a literal coverup!. Deceptions like that demonstrate the shaky ground the skeptics stand on.  Another well known and misleading generalization is about the doctors recanting their statements. It often ignores the fact that only a few doctors had done so. The additional fact that doctors were being attacked for their views, and had a good reason to 'recant', is more than noteworthy.
 Dr Crenshaw was maligned by the highly prestigious medical journal, JAMA. This is a prime example of an attack on Parkland staff . I feel compelled to repeat what so many already know. The JAMA article inferred that Crenshaw may not even have been in the room that day!  Imagine what being maligned and called a xxxx by that prestigious journal could do a  doctors reputation! Whether retired or in practice, it is very damaging to them and their families. Of course we have  doctors who testified under oath to the Warren Commission that he WAS in the room. Doctors Curtis, McClelland, Sayler,and even Baxter(Who was one of the 4 doctors interviewed for that JAMA article.). JAMA was sued and settled out of court. We are left to ask why such provably incorrect claims have been made over the decades?
  It is fully apparent to anyone versed on the subject that the skeptics have completely failed to make their case. The repetition of inadequate arguments has served well to highlight the transparency of the deception. That is why I said earlier that the debate has been over for some time. The head wound issue has always been a house of cards for the skeptics. That issue, imo, that has already been brought down.
 I'm not saying this to end on a snarky note but the rehashing of the head wound issue has become extremely boring. Repeating it over and over just benefits the skeptics. You all cannot allow the debate to resolve itself, because you have already lost. 
  
 

16 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Please name these "20 doctors". And please present their quotes where they say the autopsy photos must be fakes because they got a very good look and they are absolutely certain blah blah blah. 

Most of the primary doctors deferred to the authenticity of the autopsy photos. And most deferred to the expertise of men like Lattimer. Very few bought into the back of the head blow-out pushed by Lifton, Livingstone, Groden, Mantik, etc. The one exception among the primary doctors was McClelland. And he claimed the wound was of the left temple in his earliest report, and later said he thought the autopsy photos were legit, but deceptive. And no, he wasn't describing a small entrance wound in that first report. Read a textbook. Doctors DO NOT mention wounds they did not see in their reports while leaving out wounds they would later insist they'd studied. That's not supposed to happen. 

So where does that leave us? If you wanna crawl in bed with the Liftons and Fetzers of the world, you can claim the earliest statements of some of the witnesses, and the subsequent statements of some of the other witnesses (after prodding by a wide-eyed "researcher") are a slam dunk, and that the multitude of times these doctors said they deferred to the autopsy report or the authenticity of the autopsy photos, and encouraged the likes of Lattimer, are an aberration, as a result of their being scared or some such.

But then you're not a supporter of the Parkland witnesses, are you? You are a zealot who thinks you can peer into their souls and discern what they really saw and who they really are. Not men who know they could be mistaken, and know autopsies are conducted for a reason. But scared little 

Regarding McClelland you said. "and later said he thought the autopsy photos were legit, but deceptive".

Are you referring to his statement in the NOVA documentary at the National Archives when he said  it looks like they have pulled the scalp up over the wound?

I think they would bring in well qualified people for modifying autopsy materials

If their motivation is about covering up evidence of a second assassin firing a 4th shot from the front, it would have been a loyal act intended to prevent the U.S. from spiralling into a nuclear exchange with the Russian's.

 In the 1st hours we knew a Russian defector worked on the 6th floor. If a Russian plot unfolded, and  if caught red handed,  the Russian's might already have a contgency ready for a 1st strike.  We could not know for sure and that was a big problem.

Reports  from Parkland were of a right occipital parietal wound around 8cm. That's enough to Indicate a possible 2nd shooter.  

Dr Clark held JFK'S head in his hands as he noted the "Blasted out area of the RIGHT occipital pareital. Being a Neurosurgeon he knew where the occipital was.  

Making the most historic decision to stop the resuscitation of the President, based on his observation that the wound was "Unsurvivable", leaves little doubt about the accuracy of his evaluation of the wound's nature and  its location.

If they undertook a coverup, at least temporarily. It would have been for noble motives. To prevent a possible nuclear war.  

No deep state plot hatched in advanced,  just a small coverup.  No need to intimidate witnesses because they will keep their mouths shut out of loyalty, to help protect the country. And literally protect their families.

Over the decades more than  25 witnesses have given their account many times. But when you sort through it honestly the evidence shows far too many put the wound in the RIGHT occipital area to be explained  away. 

It is very obvious that the debate is over. It will still crawl on with the same old straw men, but, imo, and I'm sure many others, it's been over for a while. There was a cover-up at Bethesda.

On 10/1/2023 at 2:06 AM, Pat Speer said:

Salyer went to the Lancer JFK conference and stood in front of a largely CT crowd and told them the wound was on the side and top of the head. And this wasn't new. He'd been quoted saying as much several times before. I knew what he was gonna say. But I was surprised to find he wasn't alone. Salyer, Goldstrich, and Loeb spoke at Lancer before a large audience, most of which was expecting them to say there was a large blow-out wound on the back of the head. Their appearance was made to help promote "the Parkland Doctors" movie, I think it was, in which the doctors were allowed to tell their stories. In any event, most of the audience was all excited about their appearance, thinking they were gonna say the wound was on the far back of the head and the mainstream media was finally gonna notice or whatever. But none of them did. In fact, Salyer and Loeb both said the wound was not on the far back of the head. Also attending this conference were Newman and Jenkins, both of whom similarly denied there had been a wound on the far back of the head. As stated, there were grumblings from the crowd, and much consternation on the faces of those in attendance who'd been expecting these doctors to "finally tell the truth" or some such thing. It was a lot like when Buell Frazier appeared and was heckled by a guy wanting to know why he wouldn't admit Kennedy was on the front steps, or whatever. Some--perhaps the majority--go to these conferences expecting to be told what they already believe, and get angry when told something that challenges their beliefs. After my first appearance at Lancer, Deb Conway--who wasn't familiar with my research and didn't know what to expect--came up to me and told me she thought I'd really given people something to think about, and to not worry if they don't come up and congratulate me or whatever because it wold take ten years or so to sink in. She was undoubtedly an optimist. 

As far as any photos published by Groden showing Salyer's interpretation of the wound location...the photo I recollect seeing is of Salyer pointing to the side of his head, by his ear. Not to the far back of his head.

But, assuming Groden has such a photo, let me expand.

On my website I go through Groden's "witnesses" and show how some of them were repeating what they'd been told by others or were guessing based on other information. There were two witnesses, however, whose recollections were grossly misrepresented and whose presence in Groden's book was a disgrace. As I recall the images of both Paul O'Connor and Jerrol Custer were taken from a video put out by Groden, where they described the whole top right side of JFK's head missing. (They were presumably describing the wound as seen after the doctors peeled back the scalp and bone fell to the table.) In any event, they pointed with their hand as they said the wound stretched from the front of the skull by the hairline and extended all the way back to the base of the skull. And Groden made a screen grab of them with their hands on the back of their heads and said this was where they saw the wound. This was disgraceful. He was trying to convince his readers that the Parkland doctors and Bethesda doctors saw the same wound on the back of the head, and that there had been no alteration of the body, and knew O'Connor and Custer had described a wound many times the size of the wound observed at Parkland--and were almost certainly describing the size of the wound after the brain had been removed... And yet he made out they were describing the wound in the McClelland drawing. Well, this would lead me to suspect that any photo in his possession of Salyer pointing to the far back of his head would be of a similar nature: a scam. 

As I have stated a couple times there is good reason to believe that witnesses may have decided not to mention the O.C. wound. One example I already listed is the character assassination Crenshaw suffered in the JAMA article. So the fact that many flipped their story could easily be due to events like that. That is the more plausible scenario, as opposed to believing they flipped because most of the got it wrong on 11/22 or just copied what others said. It is the far more logical assumption by a long shot.
 The large parietal wound at the autopsy does not relate to my point. Not that I ignore it, it is the lack of the O.C. wound at the autopsy that was reported by so many at Parkland that indicates a coverup. 
 The photo at bottom which shows Sayler is from the film clip I have seen on Youtube. He clearly puts the wound behind the ear at the O.C.
 O'Conner and Custer would not be describing the wound after the bone fell out because they were asked to describe the gunshot wound. Why would you "presume" that? Custer's best look was when he did the x-rays. That was when he held the head in his hands as he positioned it on 3 different axis at one time for an x-ray. To my best recollection O'Conner described the wound as he saw it when he first unwrapped the head. 
 The fact that very credible witnesses like Baxter, Carrico and Clark ALL put the wound in the occipital on 11/22 is very strong evidence that their account were unbiased and accurate. Especially Clark who based his decision to stop resuscitation based on his very close look at the wound in the "Right occipital parietal". Clark's account alone is virtually unassailable.
   There is a plausible reason for some to flip but no good reason to explain so many getting it wrong yet giving the same basic location when contrasted against the official location.
Saying people lied or just repeated what they heard is speculation. But the consistent accounts from 11/22 and the WC is fact. How could Clark, again, a neurosurgeon, hold JFK's head in his hands and get it so wrong. You really have to reach to explain that away. He based the decision to give up on the president on his opinion that the wound was "unsurvivable". I know I have said that a few times in the last day or three but it has no valid explanation. None!
  The strongest case is by far that the Parkland staff indeed saw what they claimed. Good reason for them to clam up about the O.C wound so naming more people who flipped does not make your case. It only points to 2 options. They lied about the O.C. or they lied when they flipped. When we allow for the possibility that they flipped to avoid the heat, your argument has little meat left on the bones. 

53 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Three points.

1. Groden colorized the mystery photo and blow-up from the mystery photo.

2. No wound is visible on the back of JFK's head in the Moorman photo. Groden has either altered the contrast to accentuate the dark shape on the photo, or used photoshop to accentuate the photo. In either case, the photo shows debris flying from the right temple area and does not show an explosion from the back of the head. 

3. The clay depiction of Kennedy's wounds shown in Groden's books was created for Groden to show what he thinks Kennedy's wound looked like. Essentially he tried to have it both ways and merged the wound in the autopsy photos with the wound in the McClelland drawing. It's nonsense. The wound he depicts is much much larger than what was seen at Parkland or Bethesda, On my website, moreover, I track the evolution of Groden's depictions of the wound. For years he had two large wounds--one at the top of the head and one on the back of the head--but he finally settled on one large wound with a flap in the middle, if I recall. In any event, he purports to be presenting what the witnesses saw or some such thing but presents depictions of the wound described by no one. 

 

Just one tiny point here. "The last shots were almost simultaneous" per Greer. if the last shot came just 3 frames after 313 it would not have appeared in the Moorman photo.