Tom Gram

I have no idea what you’re talking about. Pat asked if Zapruder’s family retained a first-day copy of the Z-film in their possession. The contract indicates that they did not. The copy was turned over to Life by Nov. 25th. I never said anything about Zapruder holding onto a copy prior to the 25th, nor do I see the relevance of that to anything I’ve written in this thread. Now that you mention it though, do you have the original contract? And my concern is not so much the complete lack of documentary evidence for some of your key claims, it’s that you often present those claims as fact. The Hawkeye Works theory - which is just a theory - is based entirely on 34 year old hearsay from a single witness with major credibility problems, yet you write about it as if it’s an established fact. Jeremy provided a good example: Before the boards themselves were even finished, why was the film sent to the CIA's then secret Hawkeye Works and what was done there? We have no idea if the film was ever sent to Hawkeye Works. Even if he remembered the hearsay correctly from 34 years earlier, which is highly questionable, neither did McMahon. McMahon had zero personal knowledge of where the film was located prior to its arrival at NPIC. This is why I originally said the alteration angle is a dead end without credible evidence. If you went to a reasonable member of the public and told them that the only “evidence” the Z-film went to HW is sole-source decades old hearsay from a witness with admitted senile dementia, you’d likely get laughed out of the room. Imagine trying to argue Horne’s alteration case in court: Er.. I’m sorry your honor, but the unedited interviews with Brugioni are not available to the court. All we have is this movie and Doug Horne’s book. …still looking for those tapes.

There’s a copy of Zapruder’s contract with Life, dated 11/25/63 and signed by Zapruder and Stolley in this link on page 12: https://drive.google.com/file/d/15xL4AoT9haROOG1HUopoQCRcE2ACLeQl/view?usp=drivesdk It says: You acknowledge receipt through your agent of the original and one (1) copy thereof, and it is understood that there are two (2) other copies, one (1) of which is with the Secret Service in Dallas, Texas, and one (1) of which is with the Secret Service in Washington, DC. So according to the contract at least, it looks like Stolley did take both the original and the copy.

Translation: The only ‘evidence’ the film was sent to Hawkeyeworks is 34 year-old hearsay reported by a single witness with admitted memory problems. There is no corroboration, no actual evidence, and no reason to believe that any copy of the Z-film was ever in Rochester at any time other than McMahon’s reported hearsay from alleged SS agent “Bill Smith”. Let’s assume for a moment that McMahon correctly remembered what “Smith” told him. How do we know that Smith reported accurate information? McMahon had no personal knowledge of where the film was taken prior to its arrival at NPIC. Without corroborating evidence placing the film in Rochester, the hearsay McMahon reported in 1997 is basically worthless. However, the theory that the film was diverted to Hawkeyeworks is presented as absolute fact by proponents of Horne’s alteration narrative - based entirely on decades-old hearsay from a single witness with questionable credibility. HM: Ah, I have senile dementia; I, I can’t remember, really - anything. Most of, of my reflections are, are, are what I have recalled and remembered after the fact. In other words I did it once, then I recalled it, then I remembered it. I don’t know how the mind works, but I do know that I - that I’m not - OK. I’m a recovering drug addict and alcoholic. Do you know what a “wet brain” is? You’re looking at one. I damn near died, and I’m not a competent witness, because I don’t have good recall - absolutely not - absolute recall. Horne’s supporters dismiss this by claiming that McMahon was exaggerating, and I don’t necessarily disagree - to an extent. Either way though, can we really treat this guy’s 34 year-old recollections as absolute fact without corroboration? Not a chance in hell. The Hawkeyeworks theory should be presented with a huge disclaimer that it depends entirely on the accuracy of 34 year-old sole-source hearsay from a witness who testified that he had senile dementia.

Do you have a link to that FBI report? Is it CE1953? I don’t recall ever seeing a conclusion from the FBI on the Walker case. How did you find down-to-the-hour accuracy on the submittal time? I thought the Surrey investigation was done in response to the same 5/20/64 letter from Rankin I linked in my last comment, and became a part of CE1953, but I could be misremembering.

I do think it’s possible that the steel jacket description was used as a colloquial term for all jacketed bullets, but it’s not really that simple. If the steel jacket description was really a genuine mistake, the WC and FBI could have cleared it up in two seconds. Instead, not one of the four cops - two officers and two detectives - who signed the two police reports containing the steel jacket description was ever asked a single question about it, at least not on the record. The only officer who ever even provided a basic description of the recovered bullet to the FBI was B. G. Norvell, who had quit the DPD less than a month after the Walker shooting. All he said was that the bullet was mushroomed - not one word about the jacketing. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=60410#relPageId=110 Norvell was also the only officer who was shown the actual bullet by the FBI, which was by design. The WC had specifically directed the FBI to only display the bullet to the person who discovered it. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62229#relPageId=119 However, there were conflicting reports on who actually discovered the bullet that were never resolved. Detective Don McElroy for example told the FBI that he found the bullet himself. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=60410#relPageId=129 Even the WC was suspicious about the Walker bullet. J. Lee Rankin sent a memo to the FBI on 5/20/64 ordering additional FBI investigation into the Walker shooting, citing the “conflicting stories concerning the nature of the bullet which was actually recovered from General Walker’s home”. Rankin even specifically mentioned the report of detectives McElroy and Ira Van Cleave. Van Cleave was the guy who told the press that the bullet recovered was a .30-06. He also could have cleared up the chain of custody issue since he was McElroy’s partner. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=61500#relPageId=163 Note that Rankin also requests a full chain of custody. As a result of Rankin’s memo, the FBI interviewed the DPD officers involved in the Walker investigation and compiled a LHM for the WC that became CE1953. All the officers involved were interviewed and accompanying 302 reports were prepared, with one glaring exception: Ira Van Cleave. So despite Rankin’s memo that specifically mentions Van Cleave - one of the first two detectives on the scene and arguably the most important witness to the entire event - we’re supposed to believe that the FBI didn’t talk to him at all. Long story short, the evidence strongly suggests that FBI’s failure to resolve the questions surrounding the Walker bullet was intentional. That alone doesn’t prove anything, but a reasonable suspicion is more than warranted here, IMO.

Good question. The bullet supposedly went not only through that window frame, but completely through the wall on the opposite side of the room. Were any tests ever performed on 6.5 mm copper jacketed MC ammo to see if it had sufficient penetration power to pass cleanly through a wooden window frame and a wall? Not that I’m aware of. Assuming the round was capable of that, would the final deformation be consistent with the state of the extant Walker bullet?

Nice try. How about you post my entire comment from the Gordon thread instead of one quote taken out of context? I’ll help you out: You must be kidding. I did call out Keven breaking the rules, and so did Jean Paul, for insulting, slandering, and accusing another forum member of being a liar. I also specifically mentioned Keven’s stupid meme that said “you keep listening to their lying ass anyway”, or some juvenile crap like that. I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that no one bothered to go through the actual reporting process because of a certain moderator that was protecting Keven and defending his every word. To be honest, I don’t even know how to formally report someone. You also broke forum rules yourself by calling Jean Paul a bootlicker - a personal insult that he strongly objected to. It does absolutely matter where you believe the back of the head ends and the top of the head begins. In fact that is the only relevant issue here. Why? Jenkins placed the wound entirely above the right ear, on the back of the top of the head (or is it the top of the back of the head?), multiple times. In the video where he points out “the open hole” that led to this whole fiasco, he is pointing entirely to the rear parietal bone. In the 1991 video it’s the same deal - maybe slightly more temporal. Jenkins also made statements indicating the same, that the open wound was above the “occipital area” i.e. above the back of the head. I’m still waiting on your proof that Pat misquoted Jenkins. According to you and Keven, Pat cannot interpret Jenkins placing the hole entirely above the right ear, and entirely above the occipital bone, as the top of the head. He cannot truly believe that, and thus his saying so on this forum must be a willful lie. Your entire argument is based on the semantic distinction between the top and back of the head. So I’ll ask again. Where exactly, in your interpretation of anatomy, does the back of the head end, and the top of the head begin? Pat seems to believe that a wound above the right ear, entirely above the occipital bone, is better described as the top of the head vs. the back of the head. I would call it the back side of the top of the head, which is the language Pat uses on his website. However, there is no forum rule against using anatomically unspecific terms. Your “lie by omission” justification is a joke. The burden is on you to prove that Pat cannot truly believe that the “top of the head” is a reasonable and accurate description of Jenkins’ placement of the wound. I agree with Pat. Does that make me a liar too? Even Keven admitted that Jenkins placed the wound “slightly higher than the occiput” - which literally means “slightly higher than the back of the head”. I didn’t see the original comment, but I’m assuming Keven said something similar, and subsequently jumped on the opportunity to accuse Pat of lying to further his censorship crusade when Pat said he’d agreed with Jenkins placement of the wound. What is “slightly higher than the occiput”, in your mind? The top of the back of the head? The back of the top of the head? Do you see how stupid this all is? Lastly, I did read Keven’s so-called proofs and they are for the most part shockingly irrelevant with a few exceptions that could reasonably be interpreted as Pat being selective in his presentation of certain evidence - that one Jenkins video. Pat provided a perfectly reasonable explanation and updated his website. Big deal. The fact is, Pat did not lie. Jenkins on multiple occasions placed the wound at the top of the head. On other occasions he placed the wound at the back of the head. Or maybe it was the back of the top of the head, or the top of the back of the head, or maybe it was the back of the head, extending to the top, or maybe it was the top of the head, extending to the back. Without a precise definition of the top of the head, and the back of the head, and without some impossible proof that your definitions are superior to Pat’s, and without precise knowledge of what Pat honestly believes, you accusing Pat of willfully lying and suspending him for it for using the phrase “top of the head” to describe Jenkins placement of the wound is a worse violation of forum rules than…etc. etc. etc. This is why we have a forum rule against posting demonstrably false information. I never “started a debate” with you about where Jenkins placed the wound. I called you out for your ridiculous behavior and highlighted your moronic, purely semantic “argument” against Pat that led to you (rightfully) losing your status as a moderator.

So the only publicly available statements from Brugioni are in the O’Sullivan film? We don’t even have a transcript, let alone a tape, of a single uncut, unedited interview of Brugioni with either Janney or Horne? Those interviews took place 13-15 years ago. Based on the O’Sullivan film, I think it’s fair to speculate that those interviews are being withheld to prevent a critical analysis of Brugioni’s statements, and the questions posed to him by Horne and Janney. The only detail I noticed in Horne’s summary of the Janney interviews that deviates significantly from the film is Brugioni’s alleged statement “I’m almost sure there were images between the sprocket holes” vs. his hard “No” to Horne in the film. So the absolute best case scenario for your theory is that Brugioni said he was “almost sure” and subsequently changed his story to “No” - and we can’t even verify it without the Janney tape. So convincing. On the attendees issue, despite what Roger claimed above, there is nothing in Horne’s summary to suggest that Brugioni was ever asked to name the “three or four photo technicians” who were called into the lab by Banfield, or the “two or three people from the graphics department” called in to assemble the briefing boards upstairs. There is also nothing to suggest that Brugioni was ever asked about his own presence in the color lab that night. A proper line of questioning would’ve gone something like this: Q. Mr. Brugioni, you’ve said multiple times that at least three people were called in to the photo lab to perform the enlargements. What were those people’s names? A. I can’t say I recall. Bill Banfield brought them in. Q. You have also said that Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter were not present that night. How can you be so sure if you don’t remember who worked in the lab? A. Well they weren’t with me Q. You’ve also said that you worked on the actual briefing boards upstairs. Was it part of your normal duties to work in the color lab and prepare the actual enlargements? A. Well no, I was the duty officer Q. Do you recall going downstairs to the color lab at all that night? A. I think so yes. Q. Do you remember for how long? A. Ah, I suppose not. Maybe a few minutes. Q. Did you interact with the lab technicians at all? What did you say? Can you provide a description of what they looked like at least? Their job titles? A. I think I did, but I can’t recall who they were. Q. Mr. Brugioni, since this is 48 years after the event, and you do not remember who was in the color lab at all, isn’t it possible that Ben Hunter and Homer McMahon were present in the lab that night, and you just don’t remember? A. Well, yes, I suppose it is possible, but I don’t remember seeing them. It seems hard to believe that neither Janney nor Horne would ask such an obvious, important question, so I suspect they did ask and Brugioni just didn’t remember. Horne’s summary transitions from the “three or four people” bit directly into saying that Janney “repeatedly and specifically” questioned Brugioni on the presence of Ben Hunter and Pierre Sands in the four follow on interviews. McMahon is not mentioned… I’m sure Brugioni did deny that Hunter and Sands were there, since he does so in the O’Sullivan film, but unless Brugioni was questioned about specific attendees in the context of his own statement about at least six unnamed people present at NPIC that night, and his own movements during the event, his denials are not credible. Again, Brugioni was interviewed 46-48 years after the assassination. To think he had a perfect memory of what occurred that night is ridiculous. Does it really make sense that Brugioni would completely forget who was there, but perfectly recall who was not there? We rightly criticize the Warren Commission for the lack of cross examination, preinterviews, and questions designed to support a specific narrative vs. find the actual truth. We also rightly criticize the government for withholding evidence and records on the JFK assassination. The same standard should apply to the critical community. Brugioni has been presented as the poster child of Horne’s alteration theory, yet we apparently don’t have a single uncut tape or even a verified transcript of any of Brugioni’s several recorded interviews with Horne and Janney between 2009 and 2011? What’s wrong with this picture? Horne was on the ARRB. He should know better. From the little we do have, a film edited together to be as provocative as possible, we know that Brugioni made several statements that cast doubt on the validity of Horne’s theory. We also know that Horne lobbed softball questions to Brugioni and avoided key issues in the film. I think it’s a safe assumption that the uncut tapes will reveal more of the same. I’ll reserve judgement until I hear the tapes myself, if I ever get the chance, but so far I can’t say I’m particularly impressed.

Brugioni’s own interview, at least the heavily edited version presented by Horne, strongly suggests that he did NOT work on the original Zapruder film. His only rationale is that the Secret Service brought it in, tightly controlled it, and it wasn’t packaged in a box like normal commercial film jobs. That’s literally it. Also, where exactly does Brugioni say he saw images between the sprocket holes? If he did, he changed his story. He says, verbatim, in the O’Sullivan film: DH: Do you recall image bleed over, between the sprocket holes? DB: No Also, where does Horne ask Brugioni to name everyone present that night? Brugioni said that McMahon and Hunter were not there, but he stuttered and was somewhat less than totally coherent when first asked about them. When asked again later, he made a comment that there were “three people in the lab” working on the prints, and three people working on the briefing boards in addition to the only two people he actually named, Ralph Paris and Bill Banfield. When Brugioni made the “three other people” comment, Horne changed the topic immediately and never followed up. Incredibly, Horne never asked Brugioni to name the eight people he said were present that night, at least not in that film. What makes this even worse is Brugioni says multiple times that he recorded the names of everyone involved to prevent a leak. Do you think the man might have forgotten a few of the names almost 50 years later? Brugioni also gave no detail whatsoever on the actual enlargement process. All he said was that “they would take it into the photo lab” and make duplicate negatives. Well who were “they”? That was the extent of Brugioni’s comments on the print making process that evening. Contrast that with McMahon and Hunter, who both went into substantial technical detail on how they prepared the enlargements. It seems possible if not likely that Brugioni was not present in the color lab that night, or only stopped by briefly. Brugioni even says at one point in his interview that he “went downstairs” when he was done. Well, was he ever downstairs in the lab at all? For how long? Horne didn’t ask. Also, you now say Brugioni’s boards “have not been seen since”. Just a couple comments up you said “Why did the CIA destroy Brugioni’s boards?”. They didn’t. Brugioni said he removed them from storage and sent them to the director’s office, which aligns almost perfectly with what CIA told the Rockefeller Commission. The so-called “hinge”, which has been touted as proof of a different set of boards by Horne for years, and was even citied in a FOIA request by Jim Lesar based on Brugioni’s interview, was a piece of tape. It’s not just the documentary evidence or lack thereof. Your own star witness made several statements that contradict or call into question key elements of the Horne alteration theory. And that’s without even getting into the fact that Brugioni’s unsworn interviews were done 46-48 years after the Kennedy Assassination. I will read through that thread, but I’m not interested in any summary of the Janney interviews, particularly any summary from Doug Horne. The interviews were supposedly recorded on MP3. I want to hear Brugioni’s own words. Same deal with the uncut Horne video interviews. Are those interviews available? If not, why not? Brugioni is supposedly the star witness for Z-film alteration. Every word he said on the record should be available for researchers to judge for themselves.

I just finished the excellent book Buried in Plain Site by the late John Hunt. The entire book is on the RFKA forensic evidence, and Hunt goes into more detail on that topic than any RFK book I’ve ever read, by a wide margin. If anyone still thinks Thomas Noguchi performed the “perfect autopsy” on RFK and wrote the perfect autopsy report, you may be very surprised after reading Hunt’s book. Hunt basically proves that Noguchi was either wildly incompetent, extremely lazy, or intimately involved in a cover up - and he makes a very strong case for the latter. There were a few arguments I didn’t find particularly convincing. The biggest one is probably Hunt’s conclusion that the “ceiling tile ricochet shot” could not have caused Elizabeth Evans’ head wound. For one, Hunt’s own trajectory diagram has the bullet heading directly at Evans. Hunt says that because the Evans bullet moved upward under her scalp, it could not have come from the ceiling tile since that bullet was on a sharply downward trajectory. However, Hunt says elsewhere in a different context that bullets can “slide” along bone in certain cases. Is it possible that a flattened, unstable bullet moving at a reduced velocity could “slide” upward after striking a curved surface, especially if it was restrained by scalp? It sure seems like it. The Evans bullet was completely flattened and had clearly hit something hard before striking her head. Hunt also does not consider the simple possibility that Evans’ head was tilted slightly upward when she was shot. Hunt concludes that a separate shot hit the floor and ricocheted up into Evans’ head, which is possible, but I don’t think the ceiling tile ricochet shot can be completely ruled out. Another primary argument of Hunt’s book that didn’t make much logical sense to me is that RFK was shot in the head with a different caliber bullet. Hunt cites the autopsy report which mentions a 2cm diameter wound track, the incredibly suspicious avoidance of the head entry wound by Noguchi and others, important evidence on that wound that was provably “disappeared”, and several other items of evidence as support; and he makes a very compelling case that something shady was going on with that head wound. That may be true, but why the hell would a conspirator use a different caliber bullet to kill RFK if the end goal was to frame Sirhan as the lone assassin? Overall though, Hunt’s arguments are meticulous and very persuasive. He presents some genuinely “new” evidence of additional shots in the pantry, and debunks a lot of common myths about the RFK case. I could go on, but this forum doesn’t get much traffic and I doubt many people will read this.

Isn’t McMahon’s reported 30 year old hearsay that SS Agent “Bill Smith” told him he’d brought the film to Rochester the only “evidence” the film was ever sent to Hawkeye Works at all? To be fair, McMahon said he was sure “Smith” told him that, but that doesn’t mean it was true, or that McMahon remembered correctly, or that we should trust 30 year old hearsay unconditionally from a witness with admitted memory problems. Both McMahon and Hunter said they had nothing to do with preparing the actual briefing boards. They only prepared the prints, so who assembled the briefing boards from their prints? Could it have been Brugioni? The only “evidence” that Brugioni was not involved are Brugioni’s 46-48 year-old highly questionable memories in a series of unsworn interviews. Do we even have access to the full set of interviews by Peter Janney and Horne with Brugioni, or just the cut together finished product? Janney’s interviews were supposedly recorded on MP3. Where can we listen to those interviews? Where are the uncut Horne video interviews? Brugioni’s answer in the O’Sullivan film that Hunter and McMahon were not present is hardly confidence inspiring. At one point after he’s asked again about McMahon and Hunter’s presence, Brugioni replies “I think there were about three in the lab and three pasting the thing together…” Horne never asks Brugioni to name the “three people in the lab”, at least not in the film. I wonder why. Horne also claims McMahon told the ARRB that he opened up the lab, and unlocked all the doors, etc. that night. When did McMahon ever say anything like that? Horne’s assumption that the “three prints” mentioned in McMahon’s notes indicate three sets of boards is also unfounded. Ben Hunter told Horne that a set of test prints were made for correcting color balance, and McMahon indicated the same in his deposition. Brugioni’s justification that he had the original film is even more suspect. His rationale was that: 1) The SS brought it in; and 2) it wasn’t processed in a “typical commercial fashion” i.e. it didn’t come in a box. Also, just like Ben Hunter, Brugioni said that he did NOT remember images between the sprocket holes. Brugioni also did NOT say that he destroyed his set of briefing boards. He said he took the briefing boards out of storage and sent them to the director’s office during the Rockefeller Commission. Well, during the Rockefeller Commission, the CIA said the boards had been removed from storage and were available upon request. Hmmmmm…. The so-called “hinge” issue is also a nothingburger. Brugioni himself says the hinge was a piece of tape. Well, what do you get when you remove a piece of tape from two sets of two boards hinged together? The timelines are also extremely tight. Brugioni says the SS left with the film around 3-4 AM on Sunday the 24th. Per your theory, the original film was whisked away to HW to be altered, and brought back to NPIC later that same day. Expecting anyone to remember every detail perfectly from an event 30 years prior is ridiculous. Brugioni was interviewed between 2009 and 2011, almost 50 years after the assassination. The most rational conclusion from the available evidence, including the interviews of Brugioni, McMahon, and Hunter, is that the film was only at NPIC once, and it was one of the SS copies. That doesn’t mean I think the two briefing board/analysis scenario is impossible, but to present it as absolute fact based solely on decades-old highly questionable testimony is absurd.

Just to reiterate, an NPIC employee named “Sandy” - possibly a nickname for Capt. Pierre Sands - was apparently deposed by the Rockefeller Commission and asked about the NPIC analysis of the Zapruder film. He supposedly said he could not recall when he took the analysis notes, but thought perhaps it was done “several days” after the assassination: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=105096#relPageId=22 I did a very quick browse through the ROCKCOM files in JFK database explorer on MFF but could not locate a transcript fitting that description. Do we have a solid list of the witness who gave testimony to ROCKCOM at least? I can’t say I’m particularly optimistic. ROCKCOM for example almost unquestionably interviewed William Kent. William Sturbitts referred his interviewers to Kent during his deposition to answer a very important question, and said Kent was literally “in the building” at that time. I have looked hard for evidence of that interview but have not been able to find anything. Then again, a lot of ROCKCOM records are not online, so maybe it’s buried at NARA somewhere. This interview with “Sandy” could potentially answer some questions about this NPIC fiasco, so I think it’s worth looking for at least.

Evidence is not for the gullible, Roger. The burden is on you to demonstrate to a reasonable standard - with evidence, not just belief and speculation - that NPIC handled the original Zapruder film. Hunter and McMahon gave totally contradictory accounts on the film itself. McMahon said he thought he dealt with 8mm unslit film, and came to the conclusion, 30 years later, that he’d handled the original because of the quality of the film. DH: …how did you come to your conclusion today that you dealt with the original film HM: All right, ah, I think it was a combination of everything you said, along with, ah the quality of the film… Hunter on the other hand thought he dealt with 16mm film, but specifically said it was not 8mm unslit format. He also had a “reasonably strong impression” there were NO images between the sprocket holes. He also described the film as “not very high resolution”. Is that really convincing enough for you, especially when all the other evidence points to the film being the SS copy that was sent to Washington? Are you sure you don’t just want to believe that NPIC had the original, because if they didn’t the case for alteration that weekend falls apart?

You’re still on this pointless semantic nonsense about Jenkins? I prefer to research the JFK case vs. quibbling over and over again about the definitions of “top” and “back”, but I’ll humor you on this “topic” one last time. The issue here, that eventually led to you losing your moderator status, was whether or not some of Jenkins’ gestures and statements could be reasonably described as indicating a wound at the “top of the head”. You disagreed, and claimed that because Pat used the phrase ”top of the head” to describe Jenkins’ wound placement on certain occasions, he must be deliberately lying. This is a Jenkins quote from High Treason 2: Everything from just above the right ear back was fragmented…there was (an absence of scalp and bone) along the midline just above the occipital area…this (wound) would not have been low enough to have gotten into the cerebellum.” The literal definition of “occipital area” is “the back of the head or skull”. What in your mind is “above the back of the head or skull”? Could it be, gasp… the top of the head? Your own quote has Jenkins saying he thought the wound was higher than the wound in the McClelland drawing. The wound in the McClelland drawing already extends well into the cowlick region. Jenkins also on multiple occasions pointed to a wound entirely above the right ear on the rear parietal bone. It all comes down to a simple question, that neither you nor Keven ever answered, despite being asked multiple times: Where exactly, in your interpretation of anatomy, does the back of the head end, and the top of the head begin? Did Jenkins place the wound at the top of the back of the head, or was it the back of the top of the head?! Was it a wound extending from the back of the head towards the top, or extending from the top of the head towards the back?! Who cares? If you want to continue to evangelize about semantic nonsense be my guest, but there is nothing here to “debate”. How many threads have now been started on this ridiculous topic? 7? 8? Get over it.

Not sure if relevant, but I came across a memo from the FBI, dated 12/4/63, that references a timing analysis of the Z-film. Some gun company owner Melvin Johnson who was tight with the FBI reached out after seeing the 11/29 Life article because he thought the interval between the first two shots was too short for a bolt action rifle. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62277#relPageId=5 What’s interesting is they mention that the interval between the first and third shots was 7 seconds, and that the speed of the film was assumed to be 16fps. That’s pretty similar to some of the NPIC notes. In the first memo on Johnson, it says that the info is being passed on to Ivan Conrad. I have not been able to find anything on an FBI lab timing analysis of the Z-film though, and it seems odd that they’d do something like that just to appease this Johnson character. Do we have any info on a shot timing analysis of the Z-film conducted at the FBI Lab prior to Dec. 4th? I also found the memo cited by Melanson on Zapruder saying the SS had his camera on Dec. 3rd because they “wanted to do some checking of it”: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62284#relPageId=21