Chris Bristow

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

But really, the precise location of the gaping wound isn't important at all, with regard to whether or not the back-of-head autopsy photos  are fraudulent. The BOH autopsy photos show the full back of the head,  including right up to the cowlick and higher. The fact that they don't show a gaping hole where nearly all 50 witnesses saw one is proof the photo is fraudulent. It is statistically impossible for that many witnesses to be wrong in a clear case like this.

 

Here is a short clip of Dr Jones demonstrating the wound location. He starts with his hand very low and then changes that 3 times until his hand is located a couple inches higher. The clip is from years after the assassination and he had probably demonstrated the wound location many times by then. The fact that he still had to feel around the back of his head for the correct location, and changes it several times, shows how the witnesses will naturally vary on the location they demonstrate. 
 I think this is due to the fact he is trying to find the wound he originally saw with his eyes using the tactile feeling of the hand on the head. The problem is we just can't see the back of our own head.
 I think with regards to the height of the wound we will see some differences in the witness accounts just because they have to feel around for it. But the locations they show depict a wound that is nonexistent in the autopsy photos and X-rays. 

Curry said he was 100 to 125ft in front of the limo on Elm. In Altgens 7, about 5 seconds after the head shot, Curry has his brake lights on and is still about 100 ft ahead of the limo. Curry is in the middle lane and the limo is already shifting to the right lane to get around Curry. It appears from Altgens 7 the limo was able to navigate to the side of Curry and was not inhibited by Curry's vehicle.
 But Curry said a bike cop pulled up next to him to say shots had been fired. Hargis, Sorrels, Lawson, Starves Ellis and Chaney(The bike cop who rode forward to Curry.) all said this happened before they reached the underpass. Hargis specifically said he saw Chaney throw it in 1st gear and race forward immediately after the head shot. But the Nix and Z films combined show Chaney never rode forward before Curry left the plaza.
 This puts the testimony and photographic records in question. Either all those witnesses were wrong, or the films were altered. I think if a limo stop was removed from the films there may be no time for Chaney to ride forward and talk to Curry. That would be reason to remove Chaney's ride forward.

 Putting alteration aside it is still perplexing how Chaney could drop it in 1st gear, accelerate  forward, cover maybe 125 ft, then slow back down to the speed of Curry's car in order to have their 3 sentence conversation before the limo catches them both. It does not seem Chaney could get far enough ahead of the limo, in the short space of 125 ft, to then have time pull up alongside Curry and exchange words before the limo caught up to them.
 So if Chaney did ride forward the timing we see in the films and photos does not make sense and throws up a big question mark regarding the timing of the limo relative to Curry's vehicle.
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 

Here is the Hargis interview where he mentions Roscoe White at about 8:00 min.
https://youtu.be/047rHDKqqxA?si=CTxy66OOK2lPFNas
If the link does not work search the following on Youtube.  "Michael Brownlow interviews B. W. (Bobby) Hargis - Part 1/2".
 Listening to this interview I now think the "Wall" Hargis mentioned in his WC testimony was not the patio wall. He said "I ran up to the triple underpass, the Grassy Knoll."
 But how could he run all the way to the underpass yet be seen running back to his bike in the Bond photo just 35 seconds after the head shot? DPD Coulsen is seen behind Hargis in the Bond photo and in one of the Cancellare photos which confirms the 35 sec mark of the Bond photo.    
 

7 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Yeah, the CIA could have broken into Zapruder's home. But if I were in charge of the CIA at the time, I would have had one of my agents simply ask Zapruder if the CIA could borrow his copy for a day. Especially if I had money to put up as collateral. And then I would return a copy of the altered film. (That is to say, the film that had been altered a second time.)

 

Yes that would be a simpler way to do it and they could provide plausible reason for wanting to see his copy. Although Zapruder died in 1970 so maybe they would have approached the family.

3 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

Thank you, Chris. I get a "playback error," but Willis #5 makes sense as the original having shown "a train."

Ok. If you copy the following,   "JFK assassination two different Dealey plaza interviews with witness Linda Willis" 
and paste it into the Youtube search box, it should be the 1st video that comes. It is 29:24 min long with the Willis 5 comment at 25:30.

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It sounds like the limo did stop and that motorcycle cops were running around. Something that could not be removed by Hawkeye Works over the weekend.

So, perhaps what happened was that Hawkeye Works only blackened the wound on the back of the head and painted in a new wound on the right-top of the head. It was decided that the limo-stop remaining in the film was too incriminating against the Secret Service, and so the film was withheld.

Since the film was withheld, there was plenty of time to do further work on the film. It was decided to remove the limo stop. Which they did.

Is there a problem with this hypothesis? For example, were copies made of the weekend Hawkeye Works' film and distributed? If so, this would complicate my hypothesis.

 

The only complication I see is the switching out of Zapruder's copy. I think the story is that Life mag traded a 1st generation copy for his original on that weekend. If the limo stop was taken out the night of the assassination then Zapruder was given that altered copy. If they took out the Limo stop much later, they would have had to covertly switch out Zapruder's first generation copy given to him on that weekend. Breaking into his home is definitely something the C.I.A would be capable of.

19 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

If true it is a huge revelation.

A two month duty Dallas PD employee ( with no police academy training and assigned to the evidence department ) is in Dealey Plaza and chasing supposed suspects up into the knoll area within 25 seconds after the JFK head shot?

Ridiculous.

I've always believed the Roscoe White story is truly a majorly important one in the JFKA affair.

 

After watching Hargis say that, I considered it from a skeptical standpoint. Hargis looked to be in his 70's, maybe his memory was bad. Maybe he mixed up the other Officer White who ran from the overpass to the TSBD.  But that officer said he watched the limo go under the overpass before starting for the TSBD. That makes the timing questionable. He also said he had to wait for a freight train to pass before he ran from the overpass. Although his story about a freight train on the overpass during the shooting sequence is very dubious. 

What other officers could have been on the knoll as quickly as Hargis? Smith from Elm and Huston, or Foster from the overpass maybe? And if there was a 2nd cop there why was that never reported?

 Hargis was able to cross the St behind LBJ's SS follow up car about 9 seconds after the headshot. He could run to the knoll wall in 7 seconds. A Bond photo has him running from the lamppost and back towards his bike at 35 seconds after fr 313.  In his retelling he was only on the knoll a few seconds so the timing is tight but possible.

Michael Brownlow has a several part interview with Hargis on Youtube. In one of those Hargis said that when he arrived at the wall on the knoll(I assume he meant the patio wall.) He ran into Roscoe White. He said neither he nor White could tell where the shots had come from.  Hargis arrived on the knoll less than 25 seconds after the headshot. How did Roscoe White get there so quickly?
 Is there any other documentation about White being in the plaza? If he was on the knoll in 25 seconds then where did he come from? He is not found in any of the films so if he was near the Knoll he must have been in the parking lot or just behind the colonnade or on the Elm St extension or behind the TSBD.

Roger, Sandy and Keven: Thanks for all the additional information. 

1 hour ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

Chris, I only see the Texas Monthly interview. Could you re-post a link to the "other" interview where she shows Willis 5, please?

Denise, I checked the link I provided and it has both interviews. The second interview has her pointing to the Willis 5 photo as she says that is the photo her dad said had the trains removed. It starts at 25:16. 
 EDIT: Just took another look and I think it is the same interview with some extra footage and a later interview  spliced in the middle of it. Either way go to 25:16 

10 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

I want to go back over what happened to the Zapruder film the weekend of the murder in order to evaluate the likelihood, or even the plausibility, of Jeremy's claim that the film would not have been altered because destroying it was a better alternative.  Spoiler alert: we know the planners of the murder had at least two chances that weekend to destroy rather than alter or hide the film, and they rejected that option each time.

 

We shouldn't ignore the setting that weekend.  It was a time of national trauma and uncertainty. Topped off by the murder of Oswald on Sunday, who authorities were  already telling us was the lone assassin.  Back in Philadelphia Salandria was telling his brother in law that if Oswald was murdered it would mean we were watching a government coup.  

 

So what to do about the Zapruder film that the planners knew contradicted their Oswald story? It was already becoming well known. Zapruder had been on TV the day of the murder explaining what he had filmed.  He had watched the film several times to make sure it had captured the murder. Dan Rather, a local Dallas reporter at the time, got access and had described what he saw when he watched the film.

 

Saturday morning Zapruder organized a bid for media organizations that wanted the right to bring the film to the public.  A CBS rep was there but he could not get his people to bid beyond $10,000. Life mag blew them out of the water with a bid of $50,000, and that was just for the limited right to publish some stills from the film in their magazine.  Life also agreed to return the original to Zapruder after a several days in exchange for a copy Zapruder had kept.

 

For years the story had been told that Life then sent the film to its Chicago headquarters to begin work on it. That's not what happened.

 

Instead the film was sent to the NPIC lab used by the intelligence services, for the purpose of making sets of briefing boards that could clearly show the planners the extent to which the film contradicted the Oswald story they were already going with.

 

At that point, when the boards clearly showed the contradictions, the planners had to decide whether to try to eliminate or obscure the incriminating parts, or simply destroy the film.

 

They rejected destruction in favor of trying alteration, with the knowledge that if that failed they could still try to bury the film from public view as long as possible until things blew over.  Destroying the film would eliminate that option, and as we have seen hiding information is one thing the planners were are adept at.  Life was fronting for the planners; they knew Life would do what they wanted.

 

Instead of destroying it, the film was sent to the CIA's secret Hawkeye Works lab at the Kodak plant in Rochester, NY to try alterations.

 

It became apparent, probably rather quickly, that the alterations they could make were not sufficient to eliminate or obscure all of the incriminating evidence.

 

Note, however, that the alterations they ended up making meant that the original film was in fact destroyed. Just not in the sense Jeremy means.  The original no longer existed; it was replaced by the altered film.  A second set of briefing boards was made starting that weekend from the film returned from HW, and Bruginoi's boards, made from the original film, the last vestiges of the original, were later destroyed.

 

Here was a second decision point for the planners, who were no doubt kept abreast of what was happening at HW. They could scrap the alteration idea as a failure and simply destroy the film. When that became public knowledge as it surely would have because the public was curious about the film, which Life's publication a few days later would surely stoke, they could blame the "accident" on another patsy, as Jeremy suggests. That would make two convenient patsies introduced in the first few days after the murder, one of which they had just murdered so he couldn't contradict their story.

 

Once again they rejected the idea to destroy the film altogether.

 

Life went back to Zapruder Sunday afternoon and cancelled the original deal. They gave Zapruder another $100,000 for the full rights to the film, including the right to show it in its entirety. They then buried it from public view, rejecting all requests to show it, for what turned out to be almost 12 years. 

 

When a bootleg copy of the film was shown on TV in 1975, Life's job of hiding it was finished.  They sold the altered film back to Zapruder for $1. That establishes what Life's role was in the whole process.

    

What does all of this mean? Reason, together with the actions taken that weekend by the planners, establish the logical basis for the claim that the Zapruder film was altered. It prevents gatekeepers from arguing the film was not, or could not, have been altered.  It provides a basis to examine all of the specific alterations that have been alleged.

I have heard many skeptics dismiss the rear blowout theory because the Z film shows no such wound. The film is a powerful tool and totally convincing for those who reject the possibility of alteration. If it was destroyed they would not have that powerful tool to use as pushback against the Parkland witnesses.
 If they were covering up an occipital blowout the witnesses testimony from Parkland would be a big problem. You can fake documents and X-rays but controlling a couple dozen witnesses is much harder or impossible. However when it comes to witnesses memory vs actual film images, the film tends trump the witness accounts. Even if you have 20+ witnesses, many people will assume all the witnesses have to be wrong. 
 Covering up a rear blowout would be a minimal alteration that only requires blacking out the occipital which was already in shadow. You would not need to create fake hair in the posterior area. Could that go undetected? I don't know. But if they could be confident about that alteration, the Z film would be beneficial to them and would not have been destroyed.
 Of the ten films taken that day only the Z film would require removal of an occipital blowout. The head is never seen with any clarity or seen at all in the Hughes, Paschall, Bell, Daniels, Towner or Dorman films. The Nix and Bronson films had no view what so ever of the right posterior area of JFK's head because JFK's head was turned about 18 degrees to his left relative to Elm. Muchmore had a somewhat better angle but her view to the right occipital was nearly side on due to the way the head curves around to the side at that location. Additionally his head disappears behind Jean Hill just three frames after the headshot. So if a 4th shot(Rear blowout) happened just 1/4 second after the headshot it would not have been recorded by Muchmore. After JFK passes Jean Hill, Hargis blocks the view except for a frame or two that shows just a sliver of his head.
 The only film that would require alteration is the Z film. Even the Moorman photo was taken less than 1/4 second after the headshot and would most likely not show the 4th shot. 
   On the other hand, the fact they did not release the film to the public may indicate it was not altered. Why would they alter it then hide it away? I can only guess that it may have been their ace in the hole in case they failed to discount and discredit the Parkland accounts. Maybe the longer they held it the more confident they could be that no other film evidence would surface to reveal their alteration. Maybe holding it for years lessened the chance that new technology would expose their film as fake.
 

14 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Uncovering the Probable Techniques Used to Alter the Zapruder Film in November 1963

Drawing inspiration from the groundbreaking research of esteemed Australian physicist John Costella, this video delves into a meticulous examination of the intricate processes possibly employed in the creation of the Zapruder film. By exploring the technological capabilities accessible to forgers during the pivotal year of 1963, we aim to provide a detailed and enlightening analysis of the potential methodologies utilized in crafting this historic piece of footage. Join us on a journey through history and technology as we uncover the secrets behind one of the most iconic films of our time.

 

I have been very interested in Dr Costella's observations of the Z film. I think the shifting Stemmons sign pole is still a valid mystery. There has never been a valid debunking of Dr Costella's Stemmons pole issue that I know of. It has stood the test of time, imo. 
 I think his observation about the lack of motion blur on the limo around frame 232 has merit too.
 There are a number of theories in the linked video that, imo, have not stood the test of time. 
 The couple seen around fr 232 are not facing the limo but that is, imo, normal. The Z film view is deceptive and makes it look like JFK has yet to pass by them. But an overhead view like the West map shows JFK had already passed them by fr 210. They would be looking at the back of his head by frame 223. They appear to be looking in the direction of LBJ in the Z film and some witnesses who specifically did not like JFK said they came to see their local politicians like Connally and LBJ. I don't think their direction of their gaze can be taken as evidence of alteration.
 I idea that the images of Moorman and Hill have Been enlarged does not seem to match the measurements. At least it does not work with the image size comparisons I have made. Without going into the weeds I would point out that the head sizes of JFK and Jackie are definitely larger than those of Hill and Mary Moorman. It seems to match the relative distances of the limo and the witnesses to Z. The location of the curb and elements like the peristyles also seem to be correct and show no sign of magnification which would change their exact positions in the film. 
  The 'legs together/legs apart guy' in frames 380/381 can be explained by the motion blur in frame 380 that makes it look like his legs are together when they are already apart. if you take the legs apart image in 381 and add the same motion blur found in fr 380 you can almost exactly reproduce the leg image in frame 380. Here is a link to a very short video that demonstrates this effect of motion blur.
https://youtu.be/HuPNRfENhnI
In the preceding frames he also appears to have his legs together. In those frames the blur increases with each frame as his legs are spreading apart more in each frame. The increased blur in conjunction with the legs opening up maintains the effect thru those frames . That explanation is somewhat subtle but I was able recreated that effect, although I lost that video comparison years ago.
  The lack of parallax of the lamppost and the background around frame 272 is very interesting. But now I think there is at least a possible explanation for that. In Willis 5 Zapruder is facing roughly east and by frame 315 the Moorman photo shows he has pivoted around by approx 70 degrees to face southwest. To do this he had to shift his weight to one foot in order to start his turn. If he started this turn by shifting his weight to the left foot in order to lift his right foot the camera would move left by a couple inches. So at that moment he would be panning the camera to the right his torso and the camera would be shifting left. That leftward shift of his weight and torso position cancel out any parallax that would happen as a result of panning to the right.
I have tested this by reproducing all the parameter including the amount he turned and the relative position and distance of the lamppost to Z and to the background. There are two variables in that test. Those are the point at which Z shifted his weight to start the turn and which leg he moved first. I tried to move in as natural an unbiased  manner as I could when reproducing Z's actions. What I found is the shift of weight to the left foot very neatly cancelled out the parallax of my lamppost and background. The background was maybe 25 ft further than the bushes in the Z film background. This is not an absolute proof of how the lack of parallax occurred in that Z film sequence, but it is certainly a plausible explanation of how it might have happened.
  The documentary also mentions the "odd blurred extension" on the lower left side of the post but I'm sure most everyone knows that is just the No Parking sign on the lamppost.
    Hargis' surge forward as the passengers lunge forward may very well be an artifact of alteration. The Nix film shows the limo slowing by about 3 mph and that is the speed at which Hargis closes in on the limo. Personally I can't see Hargis being caught off guard to such a degree that he did not compensate for the slight slowing of the limo.
   How someone could remove a limo stop or near stop is a big mystery. Simply removing frames or using a matte process are seriously problematic. But the account of the four bike cops saying it either completely stopped or almost completely stopped is an even bigger head scratcher. How could all four cops who were supposed to maintain their positions near the rear bumper through the entire parade, make such a gross error? How could they think it stopped when it is shown to only be slowing to 8mph? Even if the limo just slowed to 2 mph for 2 seconds before accelerating, it would change its position relative to the bike cops by about 40 feet. They would go from being at the rear bumper to being 20 feet out in front of the limo if they did not react to the slowing. How all four cops who are closely watching the changing speed of the limo throughout the parade could all make such a huge error in perception is hard to fathom.
 

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.

On 2/12/2024 at 12:28 AM, 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.