Paul Bacon

5 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

At least two shots?  I thought Mantik and the neurologist from Arkansas, I can't remember his name,* the only two professionals to examine the x-ray's in the National Archives scientifically concluded most likely three head shots.  One from the rear two from the front.  One from the rear, evidenced by a partial bullet hole in the edge of the rear blow out.  One in the right temple, in the hairline slightly forward of the right ear, one in the hairline over the right eye.

This to me coincides with the initial statement of Dan Rather and Hoover's third man's recollection of what he saw in his first viewing of the z-film.  A surge forward of JFK's head.  Which was excised from the z-film in the process of eliminating spray of brain matter and a stop of the vehicle.  Followed within a split second by the two simultaneous front shots leaving back and to the left in the z-film.

*  Dr. Michael Chesser.

 

Thanks for this video Ron.  Yea, I didn't have a strong recollection of where I'd read about 3 head shots, so I tentatively wrote "at least two headshots".  So, yes, it was from these guys.

And, I don't think Dan Rather was lying or trying to mis-lead when he claimed Kennedy's head moved "violently forward" after having seen the original film that weekend.  I agree with your conclusions.

I was being more or less tongue in cheek Alan.  But I agree--anytime...

Wonder if he brought the cleaned 'uniform' to work with him, at some point, in a brown paper bag...🤪

32 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

P.S. You are correct about my bias. In 2013, in a breakout session at the Lancer Conference, Aguilar, Mantik, Thompson, myself and maybe 15 others bombarded James Jenkins about the head wound. Jenkins insisted under repeated questioning that the skull was damaged at the back of the head but intact beneath the scalp. Mantik then contacted Horne about this session, and within a day or two Horne put up an online article stating that Jenkins had said the autopsy photos weren't precisely as he remembered, and then presented this is as proof the back of the head was blown out...PRECISELY what Jenkins said was not true.  And then there's the new film on what the doctors saw. Jenkins repeats his belief there was a bullet entrance by the ear. Horne then jumps in and says he is describing a bullet hole high up on the forehead, where ding ding ding...it just so happens he, Mantik and Chesser have taken to claiming a bullet entered. Well, heck, Jenkins said no such thing, and has specifically ruled out such an entrance in his book and in interviews. So, no, I don't trust anything Horne comes up with anymore...

Well, I can't comment on your experience with Horne, but I wish I'd been a fly on the wall at that breakout session.  There's much to learn from all of those guys.  I hope you give Horne another chance.  There is much to learn from him, too.

3 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Would love to have viewed those still photos:

Indeed Chris!!

Thanks for the article.  I've saved it.

36 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

1. In your scenario the NPIC boards in the record were made from an altered original, correct? And yet they don't show the sprocket holes and ghost images. These boards were never supposed to be seen by the public. So why do they not show the complete image, only available on the original?

2. In this scenario, the three copies made for Zapruder in Dallas would have to have been rounded up and re-copied, correct? As Life messed up and damaged the original, and Groden's SS copy is undamaged, these would have to have been collected and re-copied within weeks of the assassination. Is there any evidence this happened? As Hoover's FBI was in an undeclared war with the CIA, it seems certain there would be some memo or notation somewhere within its files indicating that their copy of the film was borrowed by the CIA. No such memo exists, correct?

3. It seems to me this whole Hawkeye Works bit has been built on the statements of Brugioni, who was what? In his 80's? when he came forward with he said he saw a different film, or does he even say that? No, let me guess... his decades later memory of the film he was showed wasn't precisely in line with the film, and Horne took from this because that's how he rolls that he must have been shown a different version of the film. Well, what kind of methodology is that? Let's ignore the paper trail and the statements of dozens of others so we can embrace the decades-later recollections of one old guy who suggests something spicy.

Let's not forget Joe O'Donnell, who told Horne and the ARRB that he was shown the autopsy photos and they were different, naturally, and was then propped up by Horne in his book, naturally. EVEN THOUGH he'd also told Horne that he had shown the Z-film to Jackie, and that the two of them had edited it there in Washington, and EVEN THOUGH it had since come out that O'Donnell had been suffering from dementia back to when he spoke to the ARRB, and had developed an obsession with the Kennedys and had taken to claiming he'd taken many iconic photos of them which he had not taken, and had even sold copies of these photos which he had not taken in galleries. All this, and yet Horne still found him credible. Incredible!

P.S. I don't see anything in your post about the origin of the "Hawkeye Works" angle. I recall Lifton and Fetzer discussing it on this forum, and remember it as something Lifton had pieced together and Fetzer had promoted. But I will stand corrected if it was Brugioni who first brought it up, when speaking to the ARRB? Do you know where it came from? 

P.P.S. A quick google search brought me this old thread in which Tink, Fetzer, Lifton and others, including myself, discuss Z-film alteration. Within it, it is mentioned that Hawkeye Works was something mentioned by one of the NPIC fellows, and that Lifton looked into it and concluded it was where the Z-film was altered. 

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/15166-fetzer-lifton-channel-doug-horne-truly-or-falsely/

 

Pat, I'm suprised that such a thorough researcher, like you are, is unaware of the complete story surrounding how Brugioni came to be spotlighted by Horne and what he's revealed.  I do think your dislike of Horne is clouding your judgement.

By the way, none of what we know about this came from Lifton.  It was by the work of Peter Janney and Doug Horne.

I can't believe there is still any debate about Dino Brugioni's memories or credibility.  His memories are clear, as would be anyone's recollections of a horrifying and impressive event shown in a film.  He was amazed, at the time, of the cloud of brain matter that shot into the air.

Did he also mis-remember having, in the middle of the night, to wake up a film equipment supplier to provide an 8 mm film projector?  Has anyone here even seen the video interview Doug Horne did with Brugioni where, in real time, Brugioni discovers that there were two NPIC events?

In my view, the two NPIC events make complete sense, when one understands that the first one was done to provide an expert opinion on what was actually seen in the film, and that the second one was done to see if the altered version would pass muster.

The existing copy at NARA clearly shows alteration when scrutinized.  Yes, there were at least two shots to Kennedy's head--one from behind (Z312), and another, instantaneously, from the front (Z313) which throws Kennedy back and left.

20 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Who's the tall blue shirted man standing next to the short Billy Lovelady?

 

20 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

Good question.

And:

1. Which way is he facing in the Hughes film? (Toward the motorcade or away from it? Are we looking at his back as he lifts his arms above his head?)

2. Why is he not clearly visible in the Towner film? (How could he have disappeared in the one second between the two films? Even if we assume he stepped (back? forward?) into the shadows at that exact moment, the "why?" becomes even more provocative. The president's limo was literally right in front of him yet he retreated at that split second!)

Why?

You guys aren't referring to Toni Glover in the Hughs film, are you?  She's standing on top of the pedestal across the street from the doorway.

5 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

"For at least a decade I've been wondering what's up with Tie man's white shirt on top of Lovelady's? (thanks Chris D.) face and shoulder."

I took this statement (in bold) to mean that you agree, any background objects should not be in front of Lovelady's face/shoulder as we see in Altgens based on the other comparisons I have provided, which include angles more acute than what is seen in Altgens.

The shadow removed would expose more of his right shoulder.

Yes Chris, I do agree.  Now that I believe the photo was altered, it puts to rest my thoughts that I must be misunderstanding something.  In my reletively short tenure here, I hadn't realized that many found issues with the photo.

49 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

For at least a decade I've been wondering what's up with Tie man's white shirt on top of Lovelady's? (thanks Chris D.) face and shoulder.

I'm sorry Chris, I shouldn't have been so obtuse.  It hardly works for me in real life, let alone on the internet! ....the reason I invoked your name in this sentance is because I so appreciated your spelling the name "Lovelady" with a question mark at the end.  So I adopted it.  Sorry for confusing an already complicated thread!

But, now, I don't quite understand what you're getting at with the "Remove the impossible shadow and we might obtain a more balanced look from Lovelady?"

I have a feeling, Sandy, that a lot of people are appreciating your and Alan's efforts, but aren't chiming in.  These hypotheses are eminently plausible, backed up by some interesting evidence--it's going to take a while for it to sink in. 

I do wonder, though, if others' are reading, mostly Alan's posts, carefully.  It's tempting to speed read through if you've already planted your flag on Prayer Man=LHO.  I, myself, was convinced that Prayer man was LHO, until I saw what Alan was putting out.

For at least a decade I've been wondering what's up with Tie man's white shirt on top of Lovelady's? (thanks Chris D.) face and shoulder.  I always just took it for granted that there was something I didn't understand to explain it--user error--I even asked my wife if she could help me reason through it.  She couldn't either.  Now I realize that Altgen's 6 was manipulated--it wasn't just me after all.  And there's still work that needs doing, ie. was Lovelady? actually LHO, how many times was the photo manipulated, when, where, how, etc.  

I think we are at the beginning stages of a paradigm shift.

Just plain remarkable Alan and Sandy!

Alan, your lastest hypothisis is very plausible and expertly laid out.  I particularly liked your observation of the segmented car antenna.  What a way to back up your assertion!  I do see the masking and the logic behind it--definitly not an appropriate shadow.  Well done! 

You've got me rearranging how I understand what happened that day.  Lovelady and Shelly by the elevators....?  And, of course, how did the shooters get out of the building....?   and on and on.

Could the white hatted, black sport coated man with the "concrete blanket" slung over his left shoulder be the same white hatted, black sport coated man, seen in the photo posted by Chris Davidson in the last post on page 9?

It looks like a coat ...raincoat?

Alan, your work is phenomenal.  Aborted political stunt, indeed!  Mind blown....

She's standing on the wall directly across the street from the doorway.  I think it's Tina Towner...

Thanks Chris D., Sandy, and Andrej...

Sandy, thanks for the interpretation of Chris' gifs.  I see it now, especially in light of your and Andrej's postulation of a face behind Lovelady.

Andrej, please don't bail out.  Your thoughts and work are very much appreciated.  Your Sketchup model is invaluable.

16 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Complete chin/jaw line should appear. 

Different ways of looking at the arm orientation.

Which one matches more closely with what is seen in Bell?

Credit to Jean Ceulemans (I believe), for the post activity TSBD photo.

 

Chris, why is it that we don't see Lovelady's full jaw line and that tie-man's shirt appears to overlap his jaw?  Do you think the photo was manipulated?

2 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Complete chin/jaw line should appear. 

Different ways of looking at the arm orientation.

Which one matches more closely with what is seen in Bell?

Credit to Jean Ceulemans (I believe), for the post activity TSBD photo.

 

I'm sorry Chris, I'm not following you...

32 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Are you suggesting that we have no meaningful role to play in mitigating the Israeli/Palestinian conflict-- including the prevention of war crimes?

Of course we do William.  And from what I've heard and seen that's exactly what our administration has been trying to accomplish.  Netanyahu is his own man and bombing and invading is, politcally, what he thinks needs doing.  Biden even said Israel should not make the same mistake we did after 9/11.

In my view, the administration has been masterful in the last two weeks.  This is a trainwreck! 

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I also posted a copy with Carl Jones's arm shaded in brown. I guess you missed that one.

But here is one just for you. See Carl Jones's arm-outline marked in white:

 

 

Sandy, now that I've seen your outline of Carl Jones' arm and hand, I understand why you say Lovelady is not leaning over much, for what it's worth.

Now, if I could just get past the optical illusion that makes it look like the guy in the tie is overlapping Lovelady's left shoulder...

23 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

You want to know where Plaid Shirt Man (the guy you think is Lovelady) was while the real Lovelady was standing on the TSBD steps?

I'll show you where:    (drum roll please....)

 

 

That's right folks.... Plaid Shirt Man  was across the street from Billy Lovelady when the motorcade passed.

 

Boy Sandy, you pulled that right out of your hat!!  Very interesting....

20 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

I think that is precisely why Blinken has been visiting every country in the region, and why Biden is coming tmrw.

I believe Israel was ready to reduce the entire Gaza Strip to dust and rubble, and it is the Biden Admin that prevented that disaster.

I agree Matt.  That is precisely what Biden is doing.  I can't, for the life of me, understand why his poll numbers have been so poor.  

4 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

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.

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.

Great post Eddy, I completely agree with you!  Thanks for organizing your thinking like this.

Here's a link to Tapper's interview last Tuesday.

I watched it again and I'm incorrect that Landis identified the bullet as CE-399.  That was just CNN repeatedly showing pictures of that bullet.  We still don't know if Landis would describe the bullet as a rounded tip or a pointy tip.

He does say that he placed the bullet at JFK's feet on an "exam" table, not gurney.  

https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2023/09/13/the-lead-paul-landis-jake-tapper-live.cnn