Chris Bristow

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.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

 

I met Salyer at a Lancer Conference. It was after a presentation on the Dallas Doctors. We were surrounded by people desperate to believe the fatal wound was a large blow-out wound on the far back of the head. (These people had paid good money to attend a conference in which this story was propagated.) I remember looking around the room and spotting five witnesses claiming to have seen Kennedy's fatal wound. I had spoken to all of them. William Newman had told me the wound he saw in the plaza was over JFK's ear. James Jenkins had told me (with Matt Douthit as a witness) that the far back of the head was shattered but still there beneath the scalp and that the large open wound he'd observed at the beginning of the autopsy was at the top of the back of the head, from the ear on back a few inches. Dr. Peter Loeb had told us the top of the head had been blown off. Dr. Joe Goldstrich had told us he didn't get a good look at the wound but had previously recollected seeing JFK on his back, with brain exposed--suggesting the wound was on the top of his head, not back. Which brings us to Salyer. I talked face to face with Salyer for several minutes. He said the wound was on the side and top of the head, and was exactly where it is shown in the autopsy photos. He said as well that he knew people wanted him to say otherwise, but he was gonna tell it like he remembered it. As I recall he said he was open to the possibility of conspiracy, but that the back-of-the head blow-out was nonsense in his opinion. 

So, no, Salyer is not a back of the head witness. In fact, not one of the five witnesses at this conference described such a wound. They all had the chance to say the back of the head was blown out or missing, and excite 150 to 200 people, and all passed. I remember the confused look on some of the faces. It was like they'd gone to a concert, and were disappointed when the performer refused to play his hits or do an encore. They were let down. As I recall, I even heard someone mutter "What a rip-off!" 

 

Would you say then, that Sayler lied when he showed the wound as being in the back of the head? Could we not consider the possibility that maybe he and others lied to you?  There is the likelihood, as has been stated before, that there was good reason for witnesses not to admit what they actually saw. I think the attack on Crenshaw by the journal of American Medical Association puts that option very much on the table. Sayler either grossly misrepresented the wound in the photo or he misrepresented it to you. I see a plausible reason for him to lie to you but not much reason for him to lie about the wound in the photo. Unless he was out for money and notoriety. But that does not comport with what he told you in a conference full of people  "desperate to believe the fatal wound was a large blow-out wound on the far back of the head.". 
  I try to view the issue skeptically from both sides and have to wonder if maybe your own perceptions could be a bit colored by your views.  
As an example you said "Dr. Joe Goldstrich had told us he didn't get a good look at the wound but had previously recollected seeing JFK on his back, with brain exposed--suggesting the wound was on the top of the head, not back."
   I think your statement shows a bias, as Goldstritch's comment did not suggest the wound was on the top. We have many witnesses who saw brain hanging out from the wound in the O.C. Even as JFK lay on his back, a large portion of the reported O.C. wound would have been visible.  Yet you 'suggest' his statement supports the views you have written extensively on.
  Sayler and the others have contradicted themselves. So now we are left to figure out on which occasions they misrepresented their observations.  As time went by there were more reasons to hold back their true recollection. A good example would be the attack on Crenshaw in the 80's. But reports written on 11/22, like Clark's, and testimony given in March of 64' are more compelling. Even current WC supporters like Baxter and Carrico wrote reports that day that placed the wound firmly in the O.C.
  I believe the overwhelming number of reports that put the wound in the O.C. are completely unexplainable. Even after we scrutinize them and assign nefarious motives to some, the weight, the number of the reports falls very heavily on the side of the O.C. wound. That is the strongest evidence for the validity of the Parkland accounts. All explanations for it fail, imo.  
 

13 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

I find your logic quite persuasive.  It's the perfect strategy for the doctors to avoid getting caught between their own observations and the overwhelming power of the government's position.  Simply roll over and not dispute them.

I appreciate that. They can get away with their opinions on what they saw, but accusing the WC of faking the autopsy is much more serious. Calling out other doctors as XXXXX is also something I think they would want to avoid.

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I guess you didn't read Bell's article, or my posts in response. It turns out that in a section excised by Micah in his first post (presumably because it didn't deal with the head wounds) Bell mentioned giving a fragment (singular) to a Department of Public Safety officer. I believe this is the official story. Years later she told the HSCA there were multiple fragments and that she gave them to the FBI, which led numerous writers and researchers to  ooh and ahh and assume there was some mass cover-up of the "real" fragments...perhaps because they were too numerous to have come from CE 399. 

This made her a CT darling. 

Well, years after that, she was contacted by the ARRB. And she now shares a story about Perry showing her the head wound, and it's being low on the back of the head. 

While the 1968 article by Bell should cause one to doubt the position first shared with me by Lifton (that she was never even in Trauma Room One) it undoubtedly damages her credibility in other ways. To the extent even that one seriously interested in the truth should avoid listing her among important witnesses. 

I mean, I ended up concluding the back of the head wound described by most researchers is nonsense. But it's not as if there are only a few reasons to believe there was such a wound. We have Clark, first and foremost. And the supporting cast. As has been argued in this thread, one can conclude those stating the wound was not on the far back of the head (Giesecke, Salyer) were mistaken and those claiming they were mistaken when they said it was on the far back of the head  (Carrico, Perry, Jenkins, Baxter, Jones) were pressured to do so. I don't buy it. But one is not insane to do so. 

Adding the likes of Crenshaw and even McClelland into the mix--people who didn't come forward for decades or who changed their stories after their initial reports--and then appeared to revel in the attention, is questionable to begin with. But relying on Bell--who had no support for her story to begin with--and who it now turns out had written an article within a few years of the assassination that was in direct opposition to her subsequent claims regarding the fragments--well, that's just self-defeating, and fodder for a future Litwin article. 

 

 

Just a couple points about Dr's Sayler and Giesecke. Sayler said "Temporal area" to the WC. A well known photo of him demonstrating the location is taken from a film in which he say "Parietal". That sounds like he did not support the rear head wound location. But the photo clearly shows him with his hand behind the ear and in the midrange, height wise. The photo is the most definitive example we have of where he saw the wound. So why the apparent contradictions? We should note that the temporal, occipital and parietal bones all meet low behind the ear. In the photo his little finger and ring finger, and possibly middle finger, are falling on the parietal bone. His thumb is about at the temporal/occipital junction. His index and middle finger are around the occipital bone. I am making a somewhat rough estimations here because the photo is not the best angle for an exact interpretation. I do think the photo clears up his testimony about the terms he used. He did seem to support the  rear of the head reports.
    Dr Giesecke said to the WC that the wound went from the "Brow line" all the way to the "occiput". His statement supports the large hole in the rear and also the official report. I tend to leave him out of my count because he does not say one or the other location, which raises questions. "Left side" was an obvious and simple mistake that everyone makes sometimes. But it is worth noting that he did see a wound that went all the way down to the occiput. I do not think he can be taken as a supporter of the argument that there was no hole in the rear.
 
 

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

It's not so much a matter of accepting vs not accepting, IMO, as it is supporting vs not supporting. The CT community claims they "support" the Parkland witnesses, but they think the prime witnesses--Carrico, Perry, Jenkins, Baxter, Jones, even Clark--are XXXXX. I admit it, I find this troubling. You can't say you support someone because you liked what they wrote 60 years ago when they have since said what they wrote was in error. 

That is why I asked McClelland the question I asked him. I knew how he would describe the wounds etc, but I wanted to know if he felt his colleagues were lying when they said they were mistaken. He vehemently denied this. He said no one had pressured him to changed his impressions. Period. 

As I said earlier neither McClelland nor any others had to be pressured. The writing was on the wall. Claiming there was a coverup pits you against the powers that be. That is enough for any discerning person to decide not to continue talking about what they personally know to be true. Take Dr Crenshaw's case. He was attacked in the Journal of American Medical Associations. They went as far as to say, (paraphrased) "We can't prove a negative but we don't know if Crenshaw was even in the room that day". Who needs that? Anyone would see it could be dangerous to speak out as you might be publicly attacked  and ridiculed on a personal level. Their outlandish claim was easily disproved because 3 staff testified he was in the room. And Baxter was one of them!  Baxter himself confirming Crenshaw's presence  illustrates how boldly they would lie or not bother to research their attacks. That alone is reason to stop talking or maybe even recant.
   Which CT's attacked Clark and why?

  Carrico's recanting is an example of why we might doubt their motives. He waits 20 years and then says he didn't take those reports that seriously in those days. What? It was the president who had been gunned down that day, but he just writes O.C. cause it is not that serious a matter? come on. He says it had been 1/2 hour or an hour since he saw the body. So he just fills in the blanks with a guess. Seriously? He has a chance to correct the story when testifying under oath in 64' but doubles down. He triples down in 78' to the HSCA. The whole thing stinks. But people jump on board when he recants and take his word. He lied under oath twice. His credibility is close to zero! A lawyer on cross would eat him alive but the Parkland apologists eat it up. 

You have talked about McClelland's report and him saying "Left temple". If you accept that other doctors got it wrong on 11/22 is it not possible that McClelland just made a similar mistake?  Can you point me to the report McClelland wrote in which he said "Left temple". Is it still available? 
  And who was the journalist who said McClelland told him he had no reason to believe there was a shot from the front? Can we consider that the journalist's recounting could be wrong?
  Personally I have to consider that "The writing on the wall" is a possible explanation for why she doctors changed their story.   When you have a witness changing their story you have to weigh out both sides and I have yet to see an explanation for the Parkland witnesses that isn't on shaky ground.  It shows that the Parkland apologist's case is, imo, a house of cards.


   

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Sorry, Chris. You are simply incorrect. If you study the statements of the doctors you will find that that basically all of them refused to join the evidence is fake bandwagon. Heck, even McClelland said he thought the autopsy photos were legit. (He thought sagging scalp was pulled up to conceal some of the large head wound.) This idea they were united in describing a "back of the head' blow-out at odds with the autopsy evidence is a canard, essentially a hoax. I remember watching Groden at a 2013 conference in which he claimed he now had 89- I think it was--witnesses stating the back of the head was blown out. People (and by people I mean the top experts on the medical evidence) looked around in confusion and/or rolled their eyes. It was a fabrication. A hoax. And most everyone there knew it. 

Now, a much more valid argument has to do with the throat wound. As I recall, every doctor at Parkland who saw the throat wound described a wound too small to be an exit for a high-velocity bullet. A number of them even put this in their testimony. On this point, moreover, JFK's primary physician at Parkland, Perry, never backtracked. 

If THIS had been the focus of the research community, instead of the possibility of a back of the head blow-out, the doctors would have given their unanimous support, IMO, and the single-bullet theory would have been destroyed. I mean, just think of it. In recent years, several members of the Secret Service have broken their silence, and have all said the single-bullet theory was garbage. Yes, even Clint Hill. Well, if you added the Parkland doctors onto this--who we should recall were the only doctors to see the throat wound--then even the mainstream media would have to notice. The single-bullet theory would have been given a public death. But no, the doctors were pestered into hiding by the likes of Livingstone and Lifton. And here we are. 

"Sorry, Chris. You are simply incorrect. If you study the statements of the doctors you will find that that basically all of them refused to join the evidence is fake bandwagon. Heck, even McClelland said he thought the autopsy photos were legit. (He thought sagging scalp was pulled up to conceal some of the large head wound.)"

 So again, there is good reason to consider that they were unwilling to speak directly against the autopsy. It is the majority locating the wound in the O.C. that is the issue.
  Using McClelland's speculation about the scalp being pulled up over the wound is disingenuous since he still maintained there was a large defeat in the O.C.. The observation of that large defect is supported by his own words in that clip from the archives.
"scalp was pulled up to conceal some of the large head wound.)". Some? You mean the large defect in the O.C that the autopsy X-rays don't show. 
  The issue is the discrepancy of the autopsy vs the accounts from Parkland, not the throat wound. Those discrepancies have no solid explanation. I don't want to just repeat what others likely addressed in their recent response to your argument. I did not read them prior to my posts today. But we have all been over it many times and the skeptics case is, imo, a house of cards. 

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Baxter said he mistakenly wrote occipital, denounced Crenshaw, and never supported conspiracy theories holding that the autopsy photos were fakes and that the wound was on the back of the head. Jones specified numerous times that he didn't get a good look at the wound, and similarly never supported theories that the autopsy photos were fakes and that the wound was on the back of the head. You acknowledge that the doctors' accounts vary. Yes, they do. And yet the majority of them ended up denouncing conspiracy theories in which the autopsy photos were fakes. 

I just don't get it, to be honest. What is this desperation where people NEED the wound to be on the back of the head, when the doctors were inconsistent on this point, and largely deferred to the autopsy photos?

The primary doctors were Carrico, Perry, Clark, McClelland, Jenkins, Peters, Baxter, Salyer, and Jones. Correct? Maybe Midgett and a few others. In any case, despite the frequent claims these guys were all united on there being a blowout wound low on the back of the head, most of them would come to say they were mistaken or didn't get a good look, and that they really saw NOTHING to indicate this shot came from the front. They were not united, after all. In fact, they were far more united on another point--that they thought the autopsy photos were legit--than they were on there being a blow-out wound low on the back of the head. So why do so many people claiming to "support" or "defend" the Parkland witnesses, just ignore everything they had to say after that one report or one comment in which they said something that supported that the wound was low on the back of the head?

And no, it can't be that people believe their first statements are best and their latter-day statements are worthless, (because they are obviously scared or fibbing), because these same people who reject the latter-day statements of Carrico, Perry, Jenkins, and Baxter simultaneously embrace the latter-day statements of McClelland. 

I mean, if one is to engage in any consistency, one would have to realize that you can't have it both ways, and say McClelland made a mistake when he said the wound was "of the left temple" while simultaneously saying Baxter could not have been mistaken about occipital or Carrico could not have been mistaken about cerebellum. 

So, to refresh, we have a large part of the research community devoted to the premise the back of the wound was blown out--no matter what the doctors would later come to say--no matter what the Dealey Plaza witnesses observed--no matter what is shown on the assassination films--no matter what was seen later at Bethesda--no matter what was recorded on the autopsy photos and x-rays. They just know. It has to be. And why? Because they were told all this evidence support a single-assassin solution.

But, guess what, it doesn't. It never did. The vast majority of research into the "medical evidence" has been a red-herring. 

 

You dismiss the idea that they may have kept their mouths shut about the autopsy. That is your opinion. But if they did see the large exit wound it would be human nature to avoid direct accusations about the autopsy. They can still say what they believe they saw, but accusing the government of a coverup is a much greater matter. The fact is the large majority cited the O.C. as the wound location. Whether some recanted does not change the fact that most all of them placed it there. How did around 20 of them make the observation about it being in that area? Some higher and some lower but it is still unexplainable.

 "Baxter said he mistakenly wrote occipital, denounced Crenshaw, and never supported conspiracy theories holding that the autopsy photos were fakes and that the wound was on the back of the head. Jones specified numerous times that he didn't get a good look at the wound, and similarly never supported theories that the autopsy photos were fakes and that the wound was on the back of the head."

 Jones is a good example of a doctor who seems to be avoiding the controversy surrounding the autopsy. We can see him demonstrating the O.C. wound location yet he turns around and says he does not dispute the autopsy photos. Those two facts stand in stark contradiction and suggest he was not fully truthful about the autopsy. The wound was so obvious that even a quick look was enough to see the difference between parietal and occipital.  Baxter, the neurosurgeon, said occipital was missing on the same day he observed it. Same day accounts are considered the best evidence, that is widely accepted. Studies of witness accounts have born out that fact. And the fact that it was corroborated by so many staff
  So pointing to later statements in which they walked back some claims can be explained by their unwillingness to take on the government. It is supported by the fact that around 20 of the staff reported the O.C. as the wound location. 
  Carrico wrote O.C. on the same day and then again under oath at the WC, and again, under oath, at the HSCA. Then some 20 years on he flips. But skeptics accept his flipping because it supports their stance. That shows a very strong bias. Clark did not flip and he held the head in his hands as he inspected the wound. Then made the monumental decision to stop resuscitation based on his very close look. It is absurd to discount such opinions. 20+ staff reporting the O.C. wound is overwhelmingly strong evidence with no valid explanation regardless of what some said in latter years. 

1 minute ago, Micah Mileto said:

The autopsy protocol statated that the large head wound involved the temporal and occipital as well as frontal areas. The x-rays only show fractures in that area. It wasn't until 1966-1967 that the world fully realized the descrepancy of the wound location.

I thought they said it extended toward the occipital as opposed to including the occipital bone, but I could be wrong. The photos are the big lie, and show the autopsy as fake, all imo. But doctors do sometimes refer to the posterior as the occipital area, so I give it some leeway.

1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

In such a delicate study, just summarizing what a witness said isn't enough.

Yes, each witness has multiple statements over many years. They all have to be taken into account and weighed together. That can result in an ambiguity about their exact opinion. When you have 20+ witnesses it results in further ambiguity when evaluating the subject as a whole. That is why I think it helps to toss out many of the witnesses. But the numbers you are left with still very strongly indicates  the wound as being in the O.C.
   But I also think that before any scrutiny we have 20 or more and that in itself is a strong argument for the O.C. It is often said those doctors did not see many gunshot wounds(At least not many rifle wounds), or that they often get wound location wrong, or they were too busy trying to save his life to notice that big hole in his head(Humor intended.) But the sheer numbers make those explanations untenable. I think it Was Vincent Bugliosi who floated the last one, but the 20+ makes that excuse look like nothing but propaganda. He was a lawyer defending the WC against the sworn testimony from Parkland. He had to have read that part of the WC report. 
      I was thinking recently about the letter Dr Jenkins wrote on the day of the assassination when he described the wound as a laceration both temporal and occipital. 
 Consider that we have one doctor trying to give another doctor a visual idea of the wound. And also   consider that the temporal bone attaches to the occipital. Now I know the temporal bone also extends up into the temple area and doctors do refer to that area by talking about the temporal bones(Plural). But what picture would the doctor receiving the letter conclude, when the doctor writing the letter says "Temporal and occipital" without any mention of the parietal? Would he picture the official wound location, or would he picture a wound behind the ear and low where the temporal attaches to the occipital? It is hard to see one doctor describing the wound to another doctor and expecting them to assume the wound was not behind the ear.
 I know a lot is made of Baxter, McClellend, Jones and Perry saying in their ARRB deposition that they were never coerced. But someone like McClellend knowing what he saw, and then the official story completely contradicting him, he must have seen the writing on the wall. He must conclude there is a coverup and it would be done by very powerful people. Most intelligent people would know the jeopardy of speaking out against the official record. Not to mention Hosty was counseling them on what to say. No coercion would be needed to shut them up in the early days.
   Perry told the WC the wound was parietal occipital. But he was called back he was shown the autopsy results and asked if he agreed with it. He said yes and that was it. No follow up questions about why he changed his story. You have to wonder why he flipped 180 degrees. Maybe he too saw the writing on the wall.

Below is a clip from the Nova doc that I am linking from Vince Palamara's YouTube Channel. I have watched it multiple times but always missed something. At 3:00 minutes Cronkite refers to the well known drawing that McClellend approved. Cronkite points out that the doctors and Nova saw photos of wounds that support the McClellend drawing showing the large wound in the O.C that is consistent with the location and size of the McClellend drawing.. He contrasts the drawing against the autopsy photo that shows only a small entry wound in the rear and says  "Dr McClellend speculates". McClellend then speculates that they have pulled the scalp up over the wound he saw that day.
  What I missed is that Cronkite clearly says the Nova staff and the doctors looked at autopsy photos that conform to the McClellend drawing!! Has anyone seen autopsy photos that correspond to the wound being in the O.C? No, of course not. What the hell is he talking about?
 

What we have from the Parkland accounts is up to 18 or 19 placing the wound in the O.C and only four, Baxter, Carrico, Jenkins and Grossman who support the official story. But of those 4 Carrico, Baxter and Jenkins wrote contradictory reports from the day of the assassination. So almost everyone described the wound placed it in the O.C at some point, most of them very early.  
     Lets say the numbers were reversed and and only 4 supported the O.C location. If I, as a CT tried to argue that we should accept the 4 over the other 18 I would be called out as a weak minded CT who uses CT logic. 
  But the reverse is true and the vast majority support the O.C. location. Yet skeptics argue  against the majority. Their arguments use a great deal of conjecture as they try to chip away at the testimony they don't agree with. The much much stronger argument leans to the O.C wound.
  Contrary statements  should be expected with them repeating their observations over decades. This muddies the waters. So lets scrutinize the seemingly contrary stories and toss out almost half the O.C. reports. Dulany said O.C in the Nova doc at the archives; but an earlier photo shows him holding his hand closer to the official location, so toss him out. Lets drop the O.C testimonies to 10. But with the same level of scrutiny we can eliminate 3 of the 4 supporters of the official story. that leaves the score at about 10 to 1. There is no way to create a logical arguments that turns the narrative around. The facts overwhelmingly support the the wound in the back of the head. 

1 minute ago, Pat Speer said:

Except...no. She failed to report or write down anything about the head wound location for decades, after she'd been exposed to the McClelland drawing, Lifton, etc. So her recollections are almost worthless. 

While Micah's find supports that she was in the room and potentially saw the wound, it does not support her claim Perry showed her the wound and it was low on the back of the head. Perry had no recollection of it and she failed to write a report or an entry in a diary or anything that would support her latter-day claims. 

If you look at the anatomy drawings she drew on for the ARRB, moreover, one can see that the wound on the rear views and side views are not in the same location. Even more problematic, she placed the wound much much lower than the other witnesses, to the extent that "her" wound failed to overlap the wound seen by the majority of " back of the head" witnesses. 

So she doesn't really help the "back of the head" argument much, if at all. 

You imply she was influenced by later accounts but that is speculation. Her accounts are consistent with reports from that day. Her recollections are not 'almost worthless'. Other staff placed the wound low and others higher. Watching a video of Jones placing his hand at the observed location, he started low, then moved up, then moved up again before his final location. It is clear they vary on the height but they don't place it on the top of the head. We should expect some difference in their accounts. Any scalp hanging down would obscure the top of the wound so we can allow for some vertical variance. In fact we should expect to see some variation. some accounts that place the would high could be debated as mis identifications of the official location but not the ones who placed it lower.  Baxters account from his report written on 11/22 states the occipital bone was missing. So it turns out even a skeptic and neurosurgeons opinion is in line with Bells recollection.
   

1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

Not remembering seeing the throat wound is not the same as actually never seeing the throat wound.

Also,

 

In a  November 1988 newspaper article, Dr. Ronald Jones, Nurse Audrey Bell, and Parkland assistant administrator Steve Landregan posed for a photo inside of an emergency room at Parkland - an the caption says "Jones and Bell worked to save Kennedy, although Bell knew at once his wounds were fatal" : https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/132394283/

 

Although this stops just short of having another witness to corroborate Bell being in Trauma Room One.

Interesting points. I had wondered why I did not see any specific documentation of her setting up for a surgery. I thought it would be presumptuous for her to not follow Dr Jones's instructions based on a few early opinions. But Dr Clark halted the resuscitation efforts as soon as he noted to the others that the wound was " unsurvivable". Considering he was a neurosurgeon and had a good understanding of the bone structure of the head, his description of the head wound as a blasted out section of the "occipital parietal" also supports Bell's observations. 
  Not to belabor the point, but Dr Grossman said when he entered the room Clark was "Holding JFK's head in his hands". Clark noted the gushes of blood and brain matter pulsating from the wound due to the chest massage from inches away. There is no doubt That this neurosurgeon made a very sober and informed observation of the wound location that day. Based on that he made the monumental and historic decision to give up on the most powerful man in the world.
    Dr Baxter was also a neurosurgeon and we find out from his written report(ARRB) from 11/22 that he referred to the wound saying "The occipital bone was missing." Nurse Bell's observations are well corroborated. 

 Doctor Dulany said in an interview that when he first walked in that another doctor, he can't remember who, turned JFK'S  head to the side to show the full extent of the wound. Very similar to  Nurse Bell's account. 

 In Dr Jones's WC testimony he said he took the call from the cafeteria. He was told JFK had been shot and would be there shortly. He said he hung up and turned to Nurse Bell telling her to prepare the operating room for surgery. I wonder if seeing the location and nature of the gunshot wound would help her prepare the O.R.?

He also said when he arrived in trauma 1 with Perry,  Dr Carrico and maybe  Dulany were present. He also said nurses Bowron, Henchcliffe and Nelson were there. With 5 or 6 staff already present, it may be that when Bell arrived there were several staff standing around the neck area. That may be why she did not see the neck wound.  If she stood near the head of the table her view to it could have been blocked by JFK'S head. It is also possible the hands of Dr Perry or anyone else assisting blocked her view.